Ukrainian citizens have filed class action lawsuits against Intel and AMD, accusing them of failing to prevent their semiconductor chips from reaching Russian weapons used in the war against Ukraine, violating U.S. sanctions through third-party resales.
Class action lawsuits target Intel, AMD, and Texas Instruments for chips in Russian drones and missiles.
Allegations claim companies ignored resales to Russia despite sanctions, leading to attacks that killed dozens since 2023.
Over 50 lives lost in five specific incidents involving resold U.S. chips, per court filings in Texas.
Discover the Intel and AMD lawsuits filed by Ukrainian victims over chips in Russian weapons. Learn how sanctions evasion impacts global tech firms—stay informed on compliance risks today.
What are the Intel and AMD lawsuits regarding chips in Russian weapons?
Intel and AMD lawsuits stem from class action claims by Ukrainian citizens affected by the Russia-Ukraine war, filed in a Texas state court. These suits accuse the companies of negligently allowing their semiconductor components to end up in Russian military hardware, such as drones and missiles, in violation of U.S. export controls and sanctions. The allegations highlight failures in supply chain oversight despite public commitments to compliance.
How did U.S. chips reach Russian weapons despite sanctions?
The lawsuits detail a network of third-party resellers and shell companies that facilitated the transfer of restricted chips from Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, and Texas Instruments to Russian entities. Filed by attorney Mikal Watts on behalf of Ukrainian plaintiffs, the cases reference five deadly attacks between 2023 and 2025, including strikes with Iranian-made drones and Russian KH-101 cruise missiles powered by these components. According to a Bloomberg report, the companies allegedly turned a blind eye to these diversions, even as U.S. officials warned of ongoing risks.
Historically, Intel and AMD stated they halted direct sales to Russia following the 2022 invasion and implemented monitoring policies. However, evidence suggests illicit channels persisted, with chips appearing in weapons that caused significant casualties. Texas Instruments’ assistant general counsel, Shannon Thompson, testified before Congress that the firm opposes such misuse, calling unauthorized shipments “illicit.” Despite these assurances, Senator Richard Blumenthal criticized chipmakers for “objectively and consciously failing” to block technology transfers, as noted in 2024 hearings.
The suits also implicate Mouser Electronics, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary based in Mansfield, Texas, for its role in distributing semiconductors to proxy firms linked to Russia. Mouser, acquired through TTI Inc. in 2007, faces accusations of inadequate due diligence in its global sales operations. The choice of Texas courts reflects the companies’ substantial presence there, while Ukrainian courts remain inaccessible due to the conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific attacks are cited in the Intel and AMD lawsuits?
The lawsuits reference five attacks from 2023 to 2025 that resulted in dozens of deaths, involving Iranian drones with Intel and AMD components, plus Russian KH-101 missiles and Iskander ballistic systems. These incidents underscore how resold U.S. chips enabled precision strikes on Ukrainian targets, breaching sanctions intended to limit Russia’s military capabilities.
Have Intel and AMD responded to the Ukraine war chip allegations?
Both companies have maintained full compliance with U.S. sanctions since the war’s onset, emphasizing robust internal controls to prevent diversions. Intel’s leadership, including CEO Lip-Bu Tan, has publicly denied knowledge of misuse, while AMD echoes commitments to ethical supply chains. No official statements directly address the ongoing Texas lawsuits as of the latest filings.
Key Takeaways
- Sanctions Enforcement Challenges: U.S. export controls on semiconductors prove difficult to enforce globally, allowing chips to fuel conflicts via indirect routes.
- Corporate Accountability: Lawsuits highlight the need for enhanced supply chain transparency in the tech sector, with potential financial repercussions for non-compliant firms.
- Market Impact: Intel and AMD stocks remain stable amid the news, signaling investor focus on core business over geopolitical risks.
Conclusion
The Intel and AMD lawsuits over chips in Russian weapons expose vulnerabilities in international sanctions regimes and the semiconductor industry’s global reach. As Ukrainian plaintiffs seek justice in Texas courts, these cases serve as a stark reminder of technology’s dual-use potential in modern warfare. Moving forward, heightened regulatory scrutiny could reshape compliance strategies for chipmakers, urging stakeholders to prioritize ethical sourcing and monitoring to mitigate future liabilities.
Shares of Intel and Advanced Micro Devices are facing increased attention due to class action lawsuits initiated by Ukrainian citizens impacted by the ongoing conflict with Russia. These legal actions were lodged in a Texas state court, targeting the companies for their alleged role in supplying technology that ended up in adversarial hands.
A recent Bloomberg report indicates that the suits against Intel Corp., Advanced Micro Devices Inc., and Texas Instruments Inc. hold these firms responsible for not preventing their products from being incorporated into Russian-manufactured weapons deployed against Ukraine. The accusations center on a deliberate oversight, where intermediaries resold embargoed chips to Russia for use in drones and missiles, contravening U.S. sanctions.
Additionally, a Berkshire Hathaway-owned entity is implicated for similar lapses. One of the five complaints, submitted on Wednesday in Texas state court, details how these corporations disregarded evidence of sanctions violations by third parties, enabling the militarization of their technology.
The allegations are grave, pointing to specific wartime incidents between 2023 and 2025 that resulted in numerous fatalities. These include assaults using Iranian drones equipped with Intel and AMD parts, as well as Russian KH-101 cruise and Iskander ballistic missiles reliant on the rerouted semiconductors.
Previously, Intel and AMD affirmed their adherence to all sanction protocols, suspending operations in Russia at the war’s start and establishing rigorous oversight mechanisms. In congressional proceedings last year, Texas Instruments’ Shannon Thompson, assistant general counsel, affirmed the company’s opposition to its chips appearing in Russian military gear, describing any such transfers as unauthorized and illegal.
Nevertheless, it is evident that existing U.S. sanctions and export restrictions have fallen short in barring access to these chips for Russian defense firms. This reality prompted the Dallas filings by Mikal Watts, an experienced mass-tort attorney representing Ukrainian claimants.
U.S. authorities have acknowledged the persistent influx of these components to Russia, issuing repeated advisories to semiconductor producers to bolster prevention efforts. In 2024, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, lambasted the industry for willfully neglecting to curb Russia’s technological gains.
The filings also spotlight Mouser Electronics in Mansfield, Texas—a Berkshire Hathaway acquisition from 2007 via TTI Inc.—as a critical link in the distribution chain. This semiconductor distributor stands accused of enabling shipments of Intel, Texas Instruments, and other chips to Russian-controlled shells.
Texas jurisdiction was selected due to the defendants’ headquarters or major facilities in the state, compounded by the impracticality of pursuing claims through Ukraine’s disrupted judicial system amid the war.
Market responses have been muted, with Intel and AMD shares exhibiting only minor fluctuations following the announcement.
These developments coincide with separate scrutiny on Intel, involving executive Wei-Jen Lo and Taiwanese investigators. Authorities probed whether Lo, previously at TSMC, absconded with proprietary advanced chipmaking knowledge upon joining Intel.
Raids uncovered computers and documents, leading to asset freezes including properties under a court directive. TSMC has countersued Lo for breaching non-compete terms and misappropriating trade secrets prior to his July departure from a senior strategy and technology role.
Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has dismissed the claims against Lo, defending the hire as above board.
In the broader context, these lawsuits underscore the complexities of global supply chains in an era of geopolitical tensions. Semiconductor firms must navigate stringent regulations while maintaining competitive edges, but lapses can invite legal and reputational damage. For Ukraine, the actions represent a push for accountability from entities whose innovations inadvertently prolong the conflict.
Experts in international trade law observe that such cases could set precedents for holding U.S. companies liable for downstream uses of their products. A policy analyst from the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted, “The flow of dual-use technologies to sanctioned regimes remains a persistent challenge, requiring collaborative efforts beyond unilateral controls.”
Financially, while immediate stock dips are negligible, prolonged litigation might pressure earnings through defense costs and potential settlements. Intel’s ongoing challenges, from executive probes to these suits, compound existing pressures like market share erosion in AI chips.
AMD, meanwhile, continues to emphasize its focus on high-performance computing, distancing itself from extraneous issues. Both firms’ compliance teams are likely ramping up audits to address identified gaps.
As the cases progress, they may prompt legislative tweaks to export rules, ensuring tighter integration of sanctions enforcement in corporate practices. For investors, the saga illustrates the intersection of technology, ethics, and international relations in shaping sector dynamics.