Five new lawsuits filed in Dallas County are taking direct aim at some of the biggest names in American tech, accusing them of letting their chip technology wind up in Russian missiles and Iranian drones that slammed into Ukrainian civilians.
The cases, filed Wednesday and led by Austin attorney Mikal Watts, seek more than $1 million in damages each and name Texas Instruments, Advanced Micro Devices, Intel and distributor Mouser Electronics as defendants. Plaintiffs include victims of the July 8, 2024 strike on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, along with families who say they lost loved ones in other attacks.
What the complaints say
According to the San Antonio Express-News, five separate complaints were lodged in Dallas County Court at Law by a legal team led by Watts and San Antonio attorney James “Jamie” Shaw on behalf of roughly 20 plaintiffs. The suits accuse the companies of gross negligence, wrongful death, fraudulent concealment and conspiring to evade or violate export restrictions, alleging that intermediaries in the supply chain allowed U.S. semiconductor components to be diverted to Russia and Iran.
Each complaint asks Texas courts not only for money damages but also for court-ordered measures to prevent future diversion of components into weapons systems, according to the filing.
Who was harmed
The Texas Lawbook reports that the suits include detailed narratives from survivors and medical staff. One lead case, Liudmyla Dmytrivina v. Texas Instruments, focuses on the July 8, 2024 attack on a Kyiv children’s hospital.
That complaint names Dr. Olha Babicheva and nurse Viktoriia Didovets, and describes severe injuries that include skull and orbital fractures, major damage to an arm and months of immobility. Two minor dialysis patients injured in the same strike later received new kidneys, according to the excerpts cited by The Texas Lawbook.
Forensic evidence and congressional scrutiny
The lawsuits say forensic inspections of weapon debris repeatedly turned up microchips and programmable devices made by Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel or their affiliates. That alleged pattern has already drawn interest on Capitol Hill.
A majority staff report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found U.S.-made components in Russian weapons and prompted September 2024 hearings on how well the industry is following export-control rules. The filings set those technical claims against the human toll documented by the U.N. human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine, which has verified thousands of civilian deaths and tens of thousands of injuries since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. The Senate report and the UN monitoring mission provide the broader documentation the suits rely on.
Company responses and posture
Mansfield-based Mouser Electronics, the distributor named in the cases, told reporters it plans to respond “in court, versus the media.” Early coverage also noted that the companies had not yet been formally served when the lawsuits were first filed.
As the San Antonio Express-News reports, Watts has said the plaintiffs’ primary goal is to stop U.S. technology from being used in weapons targeting civilians, even as they seek compensation for the lives upended or lost.
Legal and export-control angle
The complaints lean solely on Texas state-law causes of action. They argue that the defendant companies violated a common-law duty to prevent foreseeable diversion of their products, without asserting any federal or international claims, according to The Texas Lawbook.
Those arguments play out against a tightening federal regulatory backdrop. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has been ratcheting up export controls on certain semiconductors and bringing enforcement actions over illegal shipments to Russia, changes that plaintiffs say the companies ignored or failed to address. BIS guidance and rules spell out licensing requirements and penalties for diverting controlled items.
What to watch next
For now, these are early-stage but high-stakes filings. Lawyers are bracing for the usual fights over venue, service and the scope of discovery, and the defendants will be able to move to dismiss or push for a transfer of the cases.
Given the Senate subcommittee’s earlier deep dive into semiconductor supply chains and compliance, investigators and regulators are likely to keep an eye on how these lawsuits unfold, especially if court proceedings surface new documents or forensic details.
The cases are on the Dallas County docket and are expected to take months just to clear the initial rounds of motions and discovery skirmishes. Hoodline will keep tracking new filings, company responses and any related regulatory moves as the litigation plays out in state court.
