A U.S. Appeals court has just ruled that technology companies do not have to disclose if their products use conflict minerals, because telling consumers what they're buying violates their "free speech" rights under the First Amendment. This removes consumer choice and makes it hard for people who are trying to buy ethically-produced products to know where they're coming from.
The court has agreed to reconsider the case in May, lets ask the judges to reconsider their original decision.
Human rights groups worked to persuade Congress to include the conflict minerals provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, saying disclosures would help consumers avoid products that encourage mining in conflict areas.
However, the appeals court questioned why the SEC is forcing companies to make such statements, suggesting it might make more sense for the government to collect the data on conflict minerals. The government could publish a list of companies using conflict minerals, recusing companies from speaking against their own products.
Ask the judges involved in the case to reconsider their ruling and continue to make companies disclose conflict mineral status.
Dear Sirs,
We the undersigned ask that you reconsider your ruling against requiring companies to disclose whether they use conflict minerals. Your U.S. Appeals court just ruled that technology companies do not have to disclose if their products use conflict minerals, because telling consumers what they're buying violates their "free speech" rights under the First Amendment. This removes consumer choice and makes it hard for people who are trying to buy ethically-produced products to know where they're coming from.
Human rights groups worked to persuade Congress to include the conflict minerals provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, saying disclosures would help consumers avoid products that encourage mining in conflict areas.
Reconsider the ruling and continue to make companies disclose conflict mineral status.
