Angry Ukrainians sue American chip giants Intel, AMD and TI; claim they rely on 'Putin checkbox' that says: We ...

Some Ukrainians seem very angry with American chip giants Texas Instruments (TI), AMD and Intel. Dozens of Ukrainian civilians have reportedly filed a series of lawsuits in Texas this week, accusing some of the biggest US chip companies of negligently failing to track chips that evaded export curbs. According to a report in Ars Technics, those chips were ultimately used to power Russian and Iranian weapon systems, causing wrongful deaths.

According to the report, their complaints alleged that for years, Texas Instruments (TI), AMD, and Intel have ignored public reporting, government warnings, and shareholder pressure to do more to track final destinations of chips and shut down shady distribution channels diverting chips to sanctioned actors in Russia and Iran.




The lawsuit claims that these American chipmakers failed to prevent their products from reaching hostile regimes. “There are export lists. All that intermediaries who placed bulk online orders had to do to satisfy chip companies was check a box confirming that the shipment wouldn’t be sent to sanctioned countries," lead attorney Mikal Watts told reporters at a press conference, as reported by Kyiv Independent. “We know exactly what requires a license and what doesn’t. And companies know who they’re selling to. But instead, they rely on a checkbox that says, ‘I’m not shipping to Putin.’ That’s it. No enforcement. No accountability.”

The claims in this case arise under Texas tort law, which imposes a duty on companies to act with reasonable care and to prevent foreseeable harm. The factual record includes extensive evidence that the defendants also violated US export control laws designed to stop exactly this kind of diversion. The complaint lays out a consistent pattern of misconduct. Defendants sold into regions already identified as high risk. They continued doing business with distributors who had been publicly linked to sanctioned actors. The indicators of diversion were clear. They proceeded anyway.

What are causes of action alleged in the complaint filed by Ukranians

The complaint has four causes of action. The first is a negligence claim. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants had a duty under Texas law to exercise reasonable care in how they designed, implemented, and enforced compliance and export control systems. The complaint states that the companies breached that duty in several ways. They failed to conduct adequate due diligence on high-risk customers and distributors. They failed to respond to repeated government advisories and public reports showing that their products were being diverted. They allowed sales to continue into known high-risk transshipment hubs without strengthening controls. They kept working with intermediaries that had been linked to diversion activity. They failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable misuse of their microchips in weapons systems used against civilians. They also continued selling microprocessors and related technology, directly or indirectly, into channels that supplied China, Russia, and Iran, which ultimately armed the military drones used against Ukrainian civilians.

The complaint then alleges negligence per se. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated U.S. export control laws, sanctions regulations, and Executive Orders entered by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden that bar the diversion of sensitive microelectronics to hostile actors. These laws exist to prevent U.S. technology from reaching foreign weapons programs and to protect civilians from the harm that follows when those safeguards are ignored. Because the defendants violated these rules, the complaint treats their conduct as automatically negligent and a proximate cause of the injuries at issue.

Plaintiffs also bring a claim for gross negligence. They claim that the companies had actual knowledge of an extreme degree of risk. The harm was predictable. Public reporting showed their chips repeatedly appearing in Russian and Iranian weapons systems. Congressional testimony, industry analysis, and government warnings made the threat plain. Despite this information, the defendants allegedly failed to adopt effective compliance measures and continued their existing sales practices with full awareness of the potential consequences.

The complaint next sets out wrongful death claims. Families who lost loved ones in drone and missile attacks allege that defendants’ negligent and grossly negligent conduct was a direct and proximate cause of those deaths. These plaintiffs seek damages for the loss of companionship, mental anguish, and other harms recognized under the Texas Wrongful Death statute.

Finally, the complaint includes survival claims. Plaintiffs assert that the decedents suffered physical pain, mental anguish, property loss, and medical expenses before death. Their estates seek recovery for those losses, as well as funeral expenses. Because the complaint alleges that the defendants acted with gross negligence, both the wrongful death and survival claims seek exemplary damages as permitted by Texas law. Exemplary damages are a category of damages intended to punish especially wrongful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.