By: Guest Author
The Ninth Circuit decision in Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc.[1] breathed new life into the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) as a means of holding U.S. companies accountable for human rights violations overseas.[2] The case involves allegations that Cisco Systems assisted the government of China in developing the “Golden Shield,” a network of surveillance devices purportedly used to identify, track, and torture the Falun Gong petitioners.[3] If upheld, the Court’s ruling could alter the way U.S. tech firms assess their international operations and their impact on human rights.[4]
The Case: Technology and Persecution
The plaintiffs claim that Cisco Systems did more than sell off-the-shelf technology but actively assisted Chinese officials in designing and customizing a surveillance system intended for persecution.[5] They accuse Cisco Systems of providing architecture design, training, and ongoing technical support services, fully aware that its system would be used to make arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings possible.[6]
Cisco moved to dismiss the suit, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,[7] which held that ATS claims must “touch and concern” the United States with sufficient force to rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality.[8] The plaintiffs argue that Cisco Systems’ conduct satisfies this test because the key decision-making, product design, and technical support all occurred in California.[9]
The Ninth Circuit agreed that these claims were sufficient to proceed, thereby reviving the plaintiffs’ claim and potentially expanding the ATS’s aiding-and-abetting liability to U.S. corporations.[10]
Aiding and Abetting Liability in the ATS Context
Perhaps most notable about Cisco is its approach to addressing aiding and abetting liability. Previous cases, such as Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe,[11] had rejected ATS claims against U.S. companies because “general corporate oversight” was insufficient to show a domestic nexus.[12] Cisco Systems, however, is accused of intentionally designing and tailoring technology in the United States for use in facilitating human rights violations abroad.[13]
This distinction could prove crucial. If the Court ultimately holds Cisco Systems liable, it will establish that companies can no longer insulate themselves from liability by defining their role as merely a neutral business activity.[14] When companies tailor their products with the expectation that they will be used for persecution, they may be crossing the line from that of a passive supplier to an active participant.[15]
Implications for Technology Companies
The implications of this case extend far beyond Cisco Systems. Technology companies are increasingly entering markets with weak human rights protections, either selling products such as facial recognition technology, data analytics platforms, and surveillance software, or purchasing materials gathered and mined by paramilitary groups and regimes utilizing forced labor and other abuses.[16] Cisco emphasizes that designing, configuring, or exporting such products from the United States might make them vulnerable to litigation risk under the ATS.[17]
To mitigate this risk, companies may be required to implement more robust human rights due diligence frameworks that align with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.[18] This could involve undertaking risk assessments before signing contracts with foreign governments, applying “know-your-customer” procedures to suggested uses of technologies to determine possible abuse, and incorporating human rights considerations into product development, especially when developing surveillance or security technologies. Beyond simple compliance with the law, this ruling may encourage companies to think seriously about whether doing business in specific markets aligns with their values and the law.
Part of a Larger Accountability Trend
Cisco is not a singular incident. Across the world, legislatures and regulators alike are moving toward more stringent corporate regimes, from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to U.S. sanctions and export controls aimed at addressing human rights abuses.[19] The Ninth Circuit ruling is consistent with this broader trend: corporations are no longer being asked what they are selling, but how and why they are selling it.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s Doe I v. Cisco ruling is more than just a court decision. It serves as a warning to the tech industry. Companies can no longer use physical distance as a rationale for avoiding liability when resources they supply are utilized overseas to perpetrate atrocities. For businesses, this case is a reminder of the need to enhance compliance and ethical oversight. For activists, it is a possible path to hold corporations accountable in an increasingly globalized world.
As this case unfolds, the technology industry must closely monitor this development. The outcome may not only impact the future of ATS litigation but also the standards of responsible innovation in a globalizing world.
[1] 73 F.4th 700 (9th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed, No. 24-856, 2025 WL 1496477 (Jan. 31, 2025).
[2] See William S. Dodge, Ninth Circuit Allows Human Rights Claims Against Cisco to Proceed, Transnat’l Litig. Blog (July 19, 2023), https://tlblog.org/ninth-circuit-allows-human-rights-claims-against-cisco-to-proceed/ [https://perma.cc/Q6US-HYHW].
[3] Cisco, 73 F.4th at 710–11; see Dake Kang & Yael Grauer, Silicon Valley Enabled Brutal Mass Deportation and Surveillance in China, Internal Documents Show, AP News (Sept. 9, 2025, 1:05 AM), https://apnews.com/article/chinese-surveillance-silicon-valley-uyghurs-tech-xinjiang-8e000601dadb6aea230f18170ed54e88 [https://perma.cc/89HE-7PXU] (reporting that “Cisco saw the ‘Golden Shield’ as a sales opportunity” and that Cisco developed a sales presentation outlining how “its products could identify over 90% of Falun Gong materials on the web”).
[4] See Douglas Hallward-Driemeier et al., From the Global Shield to the Sword: The Expansion of the Alien Tort Statute to Reach U.S. Companies as Aiders and Abettors of Foreign Wrongs, Ropes & Gray (Oct. 24, 2024), https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/viewpoints/102jmhc/from-the-golden-shield-to-the-sword-the-expansion-of-the-alien-tort-statute-to-r [https://perma.cc/PM7E-YNTZ].
[5] Cisco, 73 F.4th at 710–11.
[6] Id. at 711–12.
[7] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
[8] Id. at 108–09; Cisco, 73 F.4th at 713.
[9] Cisco, 73 F.4th at 726–27.
[10] Id. at 709; see Douglas Hallward-Driemeier et al., supra note 4.
[11] 593 U.S. 628 (2021).
[12] Id. at 633–34 (holding that general corporate activity such as mere corporate presence is insufficient for a cause of action and instead plaintiffs need to show sufficient domestic conduct that that has a direct connection to the cause of action); see Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. 241, 241 (2018) (holding foreign corporations cannot be sued in domestic courts for alleged human rights violations).
[13] Cisco, 73 F.4th at 711.
[14] See Hallward-Driemeier et al., supra note 4.
[15] See id.; see also Beth Van Schaack, “Golden Shield” Oral Arguments Today: Doe v. Cisco, Just Sec. (Apr. 18, 2017), https://www.justsecurity.org/40060/golden-shield-oral-arguments-today-doe-v-cisco/ [https://perma.cc/3RVB-PJ7Y] (outlining the actus reus and mens rea standards for aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations in both international and domestic law).
[16] E.g., Kang & Grauer, supra note 3 (describing human rights abuses in Western China against minority communities and the role western technology companies played in enabling these atrocities); The ITSCI Laundromat: How a Due Diligence Scheme Appears to Launder Conflict Minerals, Glob. Witness (May 30, 2022), https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/transition-minerals/the-itsci-laundromat/ [https://perma.cc/2769-BNHB] (describing human rights abuses in 3T mineral mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and how western technology companies are enabling these atrocities).
[17] See Cisco, 73 F.4th at 709; Hallward-Driemeier et al., supra note 4.
[18] See U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commission, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc. HR/PUB/11/04 (June 16, 2011), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf [https://perma.cc/M6E8-SMTN].
[19] See Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, Eur. Comm’n, https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en [https://perma.cc/C3XA-AYDE] (last visited Sep. 19, 2025); Beth Peters et al., U.S. Expands the Use of Export Controls to Target Human Rights Abuses Worldwide, Hogan Lovells (Apr. 18, 2023), https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/us-expands-the-use-of-export-controls-to-target-human-rights-abuses-worldwide [on file with the American University Business Law Review].
