1. Introduction

Chocolate is, for many of us, a simple pleasure. Yet behind the sweet taste of a chocolate bar or a pack of cookies can lie an entire network of cocoa plantations burdened by allegations of hazardous child labor, forced labor, and environmental degradation. A newly filed Class Action Complaint against Mondelēz International, Inc. underscores just how serious—and entrenched—these issues may be. The lawsuit, Gollogly v. Mondelēz International, Inc., charges that a key sustainability badge called the “Cocoa Life” logo—which appears on chocolate products like Oreo cookies, Toblerone, and Côte D’Or—is deceptively marketed as proof of “100% sustainably sourced cocoa.”

In reality, child labor is widespread in the supply chain from which Cocoa Life sources cocoa, and many cocoa farmers continue to receive wages so low that the farms remain reliant on exploitative work practices. These allegations delve into a more sweeping reality: the use of child labor and forced labor across the West African cocoa sector, as well as deforestation risks that undermine any claims to being truly “green” or “sustainable.”

This specific lawsuit alleges specific misconduct:

  • Hazardous child labor is rampant within Mondelēz’s cocoa supply chain in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, with allegations that children as young as 10 years old handle dangerous farm tasks that violate international conventions.
  • Poverty wages remain the norm. Farmers supplying Mondelēz reportedly earn under two dollars per day, creating a vicious cycle that drives reliance on child labor.
  • Environmental unsustainability, including deforestation and destructive monocropping, persists. Plaintiffs point to a “pattern of deforestation” in West Africa, with cocoa companies like Mondelēz singled out in a Rainforest Action Network report for failing to meaningfully prevent further destruction of forests.

Tim Gollogly (plaintiff in this specific lawsuit) claims he was deceived by Mondelēz’s branding: the labels read “100% sustainably sourced cocoa” and promise to “help cocoa farmers and their families flourish,” among other social and ecological benefits. The lawsuit contends that these representations are particularly misleading given the well-known industry problem of child labor and the wide publication of data by the U.S. Labor Department, the International Cocoa Initiative, and major investigative journalists. Links to additional sources will be provided at the end of this article.

In this article, we will go far beyond simply reciting the facts from the Complaint. We’ll take a panoramic view, exploring how these alleged practices fit into broader systemic forces of neoliberal capitalism, from deregulation to the profit-maximization ethos that drives many corporations to cut corners—even at the expense of children’s well-being. We’ll examine how regulators, too, can become complacent in the face of corporate lobbying and “voluntary” compliance protocols, thus facilitating an environment where these issues fester. Finally, we’ll look at the real-world harms this type of misconduct inflicts on local communities in cocoa-growing regions, from increased wealth disparity to public health risks arising from pesticide use in environmentally fragile areas.

This analysis is divided into eight sections:

  1. Introduction
  2. Corporate Intent Exposed
  3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It
  4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation
  5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing
  6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
  7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control
  8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

Corporate Marketing vs. On-the-Ground Reality

Mondelēz’s “Cocoa Life” program is featured on the packaging of various chocolate offerings—Oreo (one of the world’s best-known cookie brands), Toblerone (famous for its triangular chocolate bars), and Côte D’Or (a brand with longstanding European recognition). Each package boasts the slogan, “100% sustainably sourced cocoa,” accompanied by a stylized Cocoa Life logo. In many cases, the packaging explicitly states that, by purchasing these products, consumers can help “protect people & planet” and “support cocoa farmers and their families.”

Yet the “people” who stand least protected are the cocoa laborers themselves. Major media investigations (e.g., a Washington Post report, investigations by The Guardian, and documentary evidence) suggests that children in Mondelēz’s supply chain handle machetes, work long hours, and are frequently trafficked from neighboring countries like Burkina Faso or Mali. Such accounts, if accurate, paint a dire picture of corporate ethics.

The Industry Context

Historically, since the early 2000s, major chocolate companies have come under fire for exactly these issues. Many of them, including Mondelēz, have voluntarily signed or otherwise endorsed the Harkin-Engel Protocol, which sought to eradicate “the worst forms of child labor” in the West African cocoa sector by 2005. But as the Complaint underscores, child labor remains “well-publicized” and ubiquitous, with an estimated 1.56 million children involved, according to NORC research at the University of Chicago.

Corporate-Driven Sustainability

Mondelēz itself formed “Cocoa Life” in 2012 as a self-made sustainability program intended to ensure a more secure supply of cocoa. Touting an integrated approach, Mondelēz claims that NGOs, local governments, and other partners help reduce child labor, increase wages, and promote reforestation. However, the Class Action Complaint contends that these claims are largely unsubstantiated; official metrics remain unavailable or are not transparent.

On the marketing side, Mondelēz has widely publicized the idea that “Cocoa Life communities” flourish thanks to women’s empowerment, child protection, and environmental stewardship. But the lawsuit states that the farmers remain in a cycle of poverty (often earning below $1–2 a day), a wage far beneath what the World Bank might consider an extreme-poverty threshold. The brand’s green leaf logo and “Cocoa Life” name reinforce these illusions of wholesome supply chains—right on the product label.

Evidence of Intent

In a typical lawsuit alleging misrepresentations, plaintiffs must often show some level of corporate awareness that their statements diverge from reality. The Complaint suggests Mondelēz is fully aware of the child labor problem: the company references it in public documents and states it is “working to address it.” Yet the same marketing messages imply that the problem has already been solved, or at least drastically curtailed, so that Mondelēz’s cocoa can be labeled as “100% sustainable.” This contradiction indicates that the brand’s overarching intent—at least from the Plaintiff’s perspective—may be to mislead ethically minded consumers.

Profit Motives and “Feel-Good” Marketing

Neoliberal capitalism fosters an environment in which corporations are under constant pressure to show growth, please shareholders, and beat out competitors. Many consumers have become increasingly attentive to corporate social responsibility, especially in industries like cocoa, coffee, and cotton—industries historically known for forced and child labor. For corporations, positioning a product as “sustainable” can command higher prices and shift market share from less “ethical” brands. As the Complaint points out, these “green” and “ethical” claims help justify price premiums and meet rising consumer demand for supply-chain accountability.

Thus, the lawsuit frames Mondelēz’s “Cocoa Life” label not just as false advertising but as an outgrowth of a system that spurs corporations to make claims that serve as powerful marketing tools, regardless of their actual authenticity. This resonates with the broader public concern that corporate sustainability pledges can be nothing more than PR spin—sometimes referred to as “greenwashing”—or, in contexts of labor exploitation, “labor-washing.”


3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

Historical Parallels (General Background)

Across multiple industries, a “corporate playbook” often emerges when allegations of systematic exploitation arise:

  1. Deniability: The company may claim it has robust internal processes or compliance codes, making actual misconduct seem like a mere isolated incident.
  2. Third-Party Certifications: Companies sometimes pay or create certifying bodies for a veneer of sustainability or fair trade. “We have a seal, so it must be true.”
  3. Opacity in Supply Chains: Lengthy, complex supply chains can obscure direct corporate responsibility. A brand might say, “We source from thousands of small farms, so we can’t be expected to know what every farm does daily.”
  4. Voluntary Initiatives: By championing industry-led or voluntary frameworks, corporations reduce the likelihood of strict external regulation or new labor laws with legal teeth.

With Mondelēz’s “Cocoa Life,” many of these classic tactics appear in the background. Although the brand positions itself as actively addressing child labor and deforestation, the Complaint claims “Cocoa Life” is not an independent certification or an externally verified label; rather, the program belongs to Mondelēz itself. Thus, the usual checks and balances that might come from a truly outside certifier (like certain recognized fair-trade organizations) may be lacking.

Multiplying Layers of Suppliers

A recurring theme in forced labor controversies is supply chain complexity. The cocoa in a single bar or cookie might pass through multiple middlemen: local farmers, cooperatives, exporters, and global commodity traders before landing in Mondelēz’s factories. Tracing cocoa beans back to an individual farm—especially in West Africa—becomes daunting. Because of this, corporations can plausibly claim ignorance of child labor that, in reality, is widespread. The brand’s philanthropic veneer, combined with official press releases about training programs for farmers, can help foster the impression that the brand is “doing its part.”

However, the Complaint contends that organizations like Rainforest Action Network and the International Cocoa Initiative have repeatedly singled out major cocoa buyers. They have demanded full traceability, living wages for farmers, and externally audited data on child labor. If Mondelēz truly had an effective system to eliminate child labor, the lawsuit maintains, then it should be able to show that the children working on these cocoa farms are being identified and protected, not left to handle machetes or carry 100-pound loads.

Certified “Sustainability” as a Marketing Tool

In the chocolate industry, “certified” cocoa used to be rare, but now you see “UTZ,” “Rainforest Alliance,” or “Fairtrade” badges on many packages. Yet the world’s largest chocolate companies often rely on brand-owned or loosely policed certifications. Per the Complaint, Mondelēz positions Cocoa Life as something that sets its products apart. The brand invests heavily in marketing that underscores “empowered communities,” “no deforestation,” and “child protection,” but critics say it’s a self-regulated system lacking genuine accountability.

That said, the lawsuit clarifies that Mondelēz never publicly discloses any robust standard for “Cocoa Life”—nor does it detail which farms meet which criteria, or how child labor is actually prevented and monitored. In that sense, “Cocoa Life” becomes a powerful marketing brand that lacks the hallmark features of an independent or third-party certification program.

The “It’s Everyone Else’s Problem” Excuse

Historically, the biggest chocolate manufacturers blame local governments in Côte d’Ivoire or Ghana for not doing enough to enforce child labor laws. Meanwhile, government officials often claim that the big buyers have enormous leverage over cocoa prices—thus can pay a “living income premium” if they so choose. This volleying of responsibility means that no single actor is forced to make systemic changes.

The lawsuit underscores that Mondelēz was publicly accused by the Ivorian cocoa regulator of circumventing the Living Income Differential (LID)—a premium specifically designed to keep farmers above poverty. In 2021, the regulator noted that Mondelēz offset the LID with a negative differential, effectively undercutting the premium. If proven, such tactics show how easily multinational corporations might pay lip service to fair wages yet simultaneously undermine them in the fine print.

In short, “How they got away with it,” is partly about lack of external accountability and partly about playing the angles of marketing and supply chain fragmentation. Embedded in this dynamic is the broader structure of neoliberal capitalism, which fosters a race to the bottom in commodity pricing, encourages deregulation, and cultivates the supply of cheap labor.


4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

The Alleged Profitability of Misrepresentation

From an economic fallout perspective, the alleged scheme is simple: if a company can tout “100% sustainable” and thereby attract an expanding consumer base who is willing to pay for ethically-sourced goods, it earns more. Or, at least, it prevents customers from defecting to competitors. Meanwhile, the underlying farmgate prices for cocoa remain painfully low. Farmers get pennies. The brand reaps higher margins. This dynamic often compounds wealth disparity in cocoa-producing communities.

Mondelēz’s net revenues in 2023 were about $36 billion, ranking 115 on the Fortune 500 list. In the chocolate sector, the price of cocoa can fluctuate on the commodity markets, but consumers rarely see a discount on retail prices when the commodity cost dips; rather, corporations usually secure better profit margins. The lawsuit contends that the price of the final chocolate product—like an Oreo or Toblerone—often includes a premium for these sustainability claims.

Consumer Demand as a Profit Driver

A variety of consumer surveys indicate that people are willing to pay more for “ethical,” “sustainable,” or “fairly traded” chocolate. One study cited in the Complaint found that a significant majority—75% or higher—would drop a brand if they discovered child labor in its supply chain. Conversely, many remain loyal to “clean” or “green” brand images. So if Mondelēz can promote its chocolate as child labor–free and environmentally friendly, the brand stands to maintain or grow market share. If a brand were forced to admit the presence of forced child labor in the supply chain, it could face a consumer backlash.

“Who Really Pays?”

“Crime pays,” the section title suggests, because from the viewpoint of corporate accountability, the costs of using forced or child labor are externalized onto vulnerable communities. Families in Ghana or Côte d’Ivoire face the true human cost. They see no significant improvement in wages or farm infrastructure. The environment near cocoa plantations often suffers from pesticide runoff and deforestation—what many call corporate pollution. Meanwhile, Mondelēz pockets the proceeds from strong marketing.

The lawsuit’s logic states that as long as the risk of being sued or fined for misrepresentation remains relatively small compared to the profits gleaned from marketing claims, the corporation remains incentivized to continue its current approach. That dynamic is emblematic of broader concerns about corporate greed under neoliberal capitalism, where short-term profits outpace moral or ethical considerations.

Profit Preservation Tactics

Mondelēz, along with other giant chocolate manufacturers, invests money in philanthropic or corporate social responsibility programs—like Cocoa Life. But from the Plaintiff’s perspective, these budgets can amount to fractions of the overall marketing spend. The ROI (return on investment) for “sustainability labeling” can be massive:

  • If more customers choose Mondelēz products over a competitor’s simply because they believe Mondelēz is “100% sustainable,” that advantage translates to millions in added revenue.
  • If child labor is not actually being eradicated, that means Mondelēz saves the expense of paying truly fair wages or fully monitoring its supply chain.

At the same time, Mondelēz can promote heartwarming stories about community projects in Ghana—perhaps building a few schools or water wells in cocoa communities. These gestures, while beneficial locally, may fall far short of addressing the fundamental issue: paying farmers enough so they do not rely on child labor in the first place.

Impact on Local Communities and Workers

From the vantage point of a Ghanaian or Ivorian cocoa-farming village, the “sustainable cocoa” label might bring them no real improvement in wages or working conditions. Child workers remain in the fields, missing out on education and risking injury. If the farms are operating with little oversight, children could be exposed to dangerous farming tools or pesticides, leading to public health ramifications for the community.

Deforestation also imperils local biodiversity and can reduce future fertility of the land, compounding poverty in the long run. Thus, the corporate profit equation can have devastating consequences—communities pay the price, while brand owners in corporate headquarters reap the rewards.


5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

Regulatory Capture in Neoliberal Capitalism

One of the most troubling aspects of the cocoa industry’s enduring child labor problem is how governments and regulatory bodies appear largely unable to impose solutions. Under the broad sweep of neoliberal capitalism, deregulation or minimal regulation is often the norm, especially in international commodity markets. Even if laws against child labor exist (as they do in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire), enforcement is often weak.

Regulatory capture refers to the process by which large corporations effectively influence—or “capture”—the agencies that are supposed to oversee them. Corporations can lobby aggressively, push for voluntary or self-regulatory standards, and funnel money to local governments, thus limiting meaningful oversight. In West Africa, cocoa is a critical export for the economies of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, and the governments there rely on taxes from cocoa exports. For multinational buyers like Mondelēz, this imbalance of power may allow them to shape or circumvent regulatory measures.

The Harkin-Engel Protocol

The widely cited Harkin-Engel Protocol, initiated in 2001, was meant to end the “worst forms of child labor” in cocoa by 2005. Yet year after year, the big chocolate companies have extended deadlines, claiming the problem is more intractable than initially assumed. The 2020 NORC study shows only marginal improvement in child labor rates—if at all. Some critics argue that Harkin-Engel was effectively a public relations measure to stave off direct legislative action by the U.S. Congress that could have imposed legally binding standards on chocolate imports.

This is a prime example of how “regulators did nothing,” in the sense that the U.S. government has not meaningfully restricted the import of cocoa produced with forced or child labor (despite some attempts by U.S. Customs to block shipments under the Tariff Act’s forced labor ban). Instead, responsibility was delegated to an “industry framework,” culminating in near-perpetual noncompliance.

Consumer Protection Agencies

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) oversees truth-in-advertising rules, theoretically ensuring that companies cannot mislead consumers with unsubstantiated “sustainability” claims. Yet enforcement is sporadic, and the FTC’s “Green Guides” remain voluntary guidelines rather than binding laws. The Complaint points out that the FTC has noted that terms like “sustainable” are “highly unlikely” to be substantiated across all reasonable interpretations. Despite that, we rarely see major enforcement actions taken against global food conglomerates for questionable sustainability claims. The lawsuit suggests that if the FTC had vigorously policed the term “sustainable,” Mondelēz might have been reined in much sooner.

Limited and Fragmented Global Oversight

Beyond the U.S. market, Mondelēz sells these cocoa products in multiple countries. Oversight is thus scattered among different jurisdictions with different rules. The Complaint cites other organizations’ repeated attempts to highlight cocoa-related deforestation. In 2017, major cocoa traders and chocolate makers, including Mondelēz, joined the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI). But to date, deforestation in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana has continued, with satellite imagery confirming thousands of hectares of lost forest each year. The net effect is that these self-managed partnerships, while sounding promising, lack legal accountability and teeth.

Advocacy Groups Filling the Void

Organizations like the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI) or Rainforest Action Network (RAN) step in to track the extent of child labor or deforestation. Yet they can only raise awareness; they lack governmental authority to enforce compliance. Their annual or biennial reports often call out companies for failing to meet voluntary commitments, but historically, such naming and shaming has not always forced real changes.

The complaint underscores how Mondelēz’s “Cocoa Life” marketing continues unabated, even though RAN gave Mondelēz an “F” grade in its Keep Forests Standing scorecard. This is the crux of the “system failure”: no public body is stepping in to say, “You cannot keep marketing your chocolate as sustainable if all these documented problems persist.” Meanwhile, Mondelēz’s bottom line continues growing.


6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Explaining the Recurring Scandals

The continued reliance on child labor is not an accident or an unfortunate “exception” in the supply chain. Rather, it is embedded in the underlying economics of cocoa:

  • Low farmgate prices and intense competition push farmers to use cheap labor, including children and trafficked workers, to remain profitable.
  • Supply chain opacity helps shield top brands from direct liability.
  • Regulators turn a blind eye or engage in half-hearted, non-binding agreements.

Hence, the lawsuit contends that for Mondelēz to sell chocolate at scale, “child labor remains standard practice in the cocoa fields.” The corporation’s marketing about “sustainability” is, in that interpretation, a smokescreen to preserve consumer trust while continuing business as usual.

Child Labor as a Symptom of Deeper Economic Inequality

Child labor in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire arises from dire poverty in rural communities. Because cocoa is a key export commodity, farmers have few alternatives for stable income. So when a corporation or aggregator offers consistently low prices, farmers—who lack bargaining power—may resort to using kids, including trafficked or enslaved children. This dynamic reproduces wealth disparity at the global level, wherein multinational chocolate companies post billions in revenue while children who harvest cocoa can’t afford basic schooling.

Environmental Degradation: Another “Feature”

A harsh reality emerges around deforestation. Under a “cut-and-run” approach, farmers may slash and burn new forestland to create more cocoa fields once the existing soil is depleted. This pattern has drastically reduced primary forests in West Africa, harming biodiversity, increasing carbon emissions, and harming local livelihoods in the long run. Yet, because a big buyer like Mondelēz needs cheap cocoa to satisfy massive global demand, it’s more “cost-effective” to continue the status quo. Meanwhile, the marketing spin claims that Cocoa Life is “helping protect forests,” though evidence from the Complaint and environmental watchdogs says otherwise.

The Incentive Structure Under Neoliberal Capitalism

Under a neoliberal model, corporations operate in a global “free-market” environment with minimal direct oversight. The resulting corporate accountability gap has meant that any real impetus to fix child labor or stop deforestation would have to come from consumers or external advocacy groups. So the corporation’s best short-term move, from a purely profit-driven perspective, is to appear socially responsible while quietly relying on cheap production methods. That’s why repeated lawsuits or exposés about child labor have emerged over the past two decades in the cocoa industry—it is “cheaper” to pay legal fees or sign non-binding pledges than it is to overhaul the supply chain.

Thus, the pattern we see is not a mere oversight or a bug in the system. Rather, it reflects the core design of an economic system that puts cost efficiency and profit maximization over the rights of local communities. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff attempts to highlight how these “misrepresentations” harm not just consumers, but the entire cocoa supply chain and environment.

Consequences for Workers, Families, and the Environment

This dynamic fosters:

  • Persistent poverty for cocoa farmers.
  • Lack of educational opportunities for children working on cocoa farms.
  • Reinforced inequality, as giant corporations keep reaping profits that overshadow local economies.
  • Environmental fallout, including reduced biodiversity, water pollution, and increasing vulnerability to climate change impacts.

Mondelēz knowingly perpetuates this system while marketing its products as if the problem is being solved, it’s easy to see why the suit frames the child labor and deforestation as integral to the industry. This pattern of predation is a feature, not a bug, the Complaint implies, because it is designed into the very supply chain economics that make cheap cocoa—and thus profitable chocolate—possible.


7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Shaping the Narrative

Historically and in this specific lawsuit, we see how big food corporations use a two-tier narrative:

  1. Public-Facing Self-Regulation: Stressing the “Cocoa Life” program, running ad campaigns about community development, and showcasing philanthropic achievements—often with images of smiling children in a school sponsored by the brand.
  2. Legal/Corporate Denial or Minimization: If confronted about the prevalence of child labor, a typical statement might run along the lines of: “We unequivocally oppose child labor. Our Cocoa Life program invests $400 million in communities to address these concerns. We are actively monitoring and implementing child labor remediation processes.”

By pointing to partial solutions—like paying for anti-child-labor NGOs or donating to local training—the company can deflect deeper questions about structural poverty or actual wage improvements. This PR playbook aligns with typical crisis management strategies:

  • Step 1: Express sympathy or condemnation of the problem.
  • Step 2: Mention an existing company program that addresses the issue.
  • Step 3: Imply that “root causes” are beyond corporate control, e.g., lack of government infrastructure in West Africa.
  • Step 4: Offer limited incremental solutions, to be implemented by 2030 or some future date, buying time and diffusing immediate pressure.

Greenwashing vs. Reality

The lawsuit positions “Cocoa Life” as an example of greenwashing or “labor-washing.” “Greenwashing” is the process by which corporations create an environmentally conscious (or ethically conscious) image without significantly altering harmful business practices. If, as the Complaint alleges, the same farms using child labor supply Mondelēz’s “100% sustainable” cocoa, then that label becomes a prime example of unscrupulous marketing.

Moreover, as part of their damage control, corporations often highlight select success stories where a farm or local cooperative might have improved conditions. The brand thereby fosters an impression of overall progress, even if the actual percentage of such “model farms” is minuscule relative to the entire supply chain.

Using Voluntary Initiatives to Preempt Further Scrutiny

The lawsuit cites Mondelēz’s involvement in the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI)—an arrangement that sees leading companies promising to end deforestation. Yet many environmental groups claim that CFI has delivered only modest changes, if any. Similarly, Mondelēz touts membership in the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI), an NGO to address child labor. But the ICI states that about 45% of children in cocoa-growing communities remain in child labor. So, from a PR standpoint, the brand is effectively saying, “Look, we’re part of the solution.” In the actual fields, however, the problem persists.

Lulling Consumers with “Progress Updates”

Part of the PR strategy is to give periodic updates touting how many farmers have joined Cocoa Life or how many child-protection training sessions have been held. But the critical question is: Are fewer children working in hazardous conditions? Are wages rising? Is deforestation abating? If the answers remain uncertain—or negative—then these updates may be more about brand image than real impact.

Sincerity vs. Marketing

It’s worth noting that the lawsuit does not necessarily claim Mondelēz invests zero resources into better cocoa farming or that it wants child labor per se. Rather, the fundamental critique is that Mondelēz knowingly uses the “Cocoa Life” marketing to suggest a degree of comprehensive child-labor-free sourcing that does not exist. This alleged discrepancy is at the heart of the false advertising claims.

Put differently: If Mondelēz truly did the hard work of paying farmers enough to cover living incomes, verifying child labor–free supply chains, and ensuring environmentally sustainable practices, the “Cocoa Life” program might be laudable. But the complaint argues it’s mostly an image—an orchestrated PR play that shifts blame, all while continuing the status quo.


8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Consumer Misconceptions and Real Harms

At the end of the day, the lawsuit frames its claims as a consumer-protection issue. Consumers see “100% sustainably sourced cocoa” and read about how the brand is “helping farmers flourish,” so they buy Mondelez’s products, often at premium prices or in greater quantities than they might otherwise. Meanwhile, the actual conditions in the cocoa fields—ranging from forced child labor to ecological devastation—contradict these rosy narratives.

In broader context, the public interest extends far beyond consumer preference: it includes the well-being of cocoa-farming communities, local ecosystems, and children’s human rights. The lawsuit’s remedy—seeking damages and injunctive relief—reflects an attempt to realign corporate actions with genuine accountability.

Will Consumer Advocacy Be Enough?

Historically, consumer boycotts or demands for ethical labels can spur some changes. But these changes often remain superficial without legal frameworks or robust independent certification. Given the cost advantage of exploitative labor, corporations may be tempted to continue down the same path if the consequences are primarily reputational or if lawsuits can be settled with nominal payouts.

Economic fallout for local farmers rarely improves unless there is enforced living wage legislation or buyer commitments with real oversight. Even then, the complexities of global markets remain daunting. A singular lawsuit can highlight wrongdoing, but can it trigger large-scale structural reform?

Skepticism About Real Corporate Change

Neoliberal capitalism offers minimal constraints on how companies manage their overseas supply chains. If Mondelēz or any giant chocolate maker is penalized for false advertising, it might quietly shift to a new marketing approach—perhaps adopting third-party labels while continuing to exert downward price pressures on farmers. We have seen similar cycles in the garment industry, coffee supply chains, and more.

The question emerges: If child labor has not abated after 20 years of pledges in the cocoa sector, how can we trust that large corporations will truly fix the problem, especially when forced or cheap labor yields such cost savings? That cynicism surfaces repeatedly in consumer advocacy and among the potential class of plaintiffs.

Toward Corporate Accountability

Cases like Gollogly v. Mondelēz could open new legal avenues. If plaintiffs successfully show that calling the cocoa “100% sustainably sourced” is a misrepresentation under state consumer-protection laws, it might set a precedent that “sustainability” claims must be verifiable. That alone could nudge corporations to adopt more transparent, verifiable methods—potentially involving robust third-party monitoring and a willingness to pay living incomes to farmers.

In an even more optimistic scenario, a wave of litigation across multiple industries might prompt stronger national or international regulations to combat corporate corruption and corporate greed. Some activists champion mandatory due diligence laws, which would require companies to track and disclose actual working conditions across their supply chains, with real penalties for violations.

Reclaiming the Public Interest

Chocolate is beloved by billions around the world. Yet behind each bar can lie unimaginable hardship. The lawsuit sets forth a clarion call: Consumers, regulators, and activists might need to push harder to ensure that “sustainability” is more than marketing. If “Cocoa Life” is truly about a better life for cocoa farmers, Mondelēz will need to demonstrate, with concrete evidence, that child labor is not just “reduced” but eradicated from its supply chains—and that it pays farmers enough so child labor is never needed.

In sum, the Class Action lawsuit invites us to reconsider how, under neoliberal capitalism, profit-centered goals can overshadow the public interest. It demands that we examine whether “voluntary corporate social responsibility” is enough—or if we must instead turn to legal accountability to protect the most vulnerable.


Conclusion

Under the lens of neoliberal capitalism, where deregulation and profit-maximization reign supreme, it becomes painfully clear how child labor, deforestation, and exploitative conditions can continue decade after decade. Regulators often fail to impose stringent measures, leaving corporations to self-regulate while marketing themselves as “100% sustainable.” This pattern has led to a vicious cycle, in which local communities experience the worst effects: entrenched poverty, social injustice, ecological destruction, and ongoing economic fallout.

In the short term, the lawsuit seeks consumer protection remedies—damages, injunctions, and restitution. In the broader picture, it underscores the need to address how companies structure supply chains and how governments and international bodies can better enforce corporate accountability. Whether Mondelēz and other major chocolate companies will pivot toward genuine sustainability—through fair farmer compensation, rigorous child-labor monitoring, and robust environmental safeguards—remains to be seen.

What is clear, though, is that for the sake of social justice, the “chocolate problem” can no longer be dismissed as a minor supply chain glitch. Child labor and environmental harm are not “unintended side effects” but embedded practices that demand public outrage, regulatory reform, and a collective reevaluation of how we purchase and produce the everyday treats we love. The path forward requires more than lofty promises. It requires a reckoning with an industry that, in the words of the Complaint, has historically profited from the exploitation of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.


https://www.norc.org/research/projects/assessing-child-labor-in-west-africa-cocoa-farming.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/19/million-child-laborers-chocolate-supply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/child-forced-labor-trafficking/child-labor-cocoa

📢 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

🚨 Every day, corporations engage in harmful practices that affect workers, consumers, and the environment. Browse key topics: