See In re: African-American Slave Descendants Litigation,Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266 & 05-3305 (Dec. 13, 2006) (“But the plaintiffs are charging the defendants with misrepresenting their activities in relation to slavery. A seller who learns that some class of buyers would not buy his product if they knew it contained some component that he would normally have no duty to disclose, but fearing to lose those buyers falsely represents that the product does not contain the component, is guilty of fraud. An example would be a manufacturer who represented that his products were made in the United States by companies that employ only union labor, whereas in fact they were made in Third World sweatshops” (Posner, C.J., writing)).


See also Tara Kolar Ramchandani, Judicial Recognition of the Harms of Slavery: Consumer Fraud as an Alternative to Reparations Litigation,42, No. 2 Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 541, 548-556 (Summer 2007) ( (consumer fraud claims as alternative to human rights claims)

See generally Restitution Study Group (RSG) web page (


Back to Timeline

You may also like