In 2020, Missouri state government filed a $25 billion lawsuit against the Chinese government, accusing it of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic. The state alleged that China deliberately hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE), including face masks, and withheld critical information about the virus’s outbreak. This case immediately grabbed headlines, not only because of the staggering financial claim but also due to its implications.
In March, 2025, a federal judge found the Chinese government guilty and imposed a $24.5 billion penalty.
At its core, however, Missouri’s lawsuit reflects irrationality and illegality that could damage established international legal norms and threaten global diplomatic relations.
The lawsuit’s backdrop reveals further layers of complexity. Missouri hosts approximately 42,000 acres of farmland owned by Chinese entities. When the state’s attorney general Andrew Bailey announced that the state will start to annex Chinese farmland in Missouri, it raised questions about the state’s motives. Some analysts suggest the lawsuit may be part of a broader United States strategy to target Chinese agricultural interests, especially as the government considers sanctions against Chinese products. This suspicion gains weight amid reports that most Chinese-owned farmland in the US lies close to military installations. In the coming days, a bipartisan proposal in the Senate to remove such holdings was discussed. This indicates that Missouri’s legal action may be less about pandemic accountability and more about geopolitical maneuvering.
Informed public opinions on the Missouri case mostly condemn its verdict. Supporters argue the lawsuit is a bold move to hold China accountable for the global devastation wrought by COVID-19. Many legal experts and international observers criticize the suit as fundamentally flawed and counterproductive. China’s government has rejected the allegations, relying on theForeign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which protects foreign states from lawsuits in US courts except under narrow exceptions. They emphasize that the pandemic response constitutes sovereign acts immune from US jurisdiction. International law specialists warn that such lawsuits risk politicizing judicial systems and harming diplomatic efforts.
One of the most authoritative voices on the legal intricacies of this case is Ted Folkman, a prominent attorney specializing in international litigation and cross-border service of process. Folkman sharply critiques Missouri’s approach, focusing on three main points. First, he highlights how the United States violated theHague Service Convention by attempting to serve legal documents to Chinese government entities via unauthorized means like email. China explicitly refused service under Article 13 of the Convention, which permits countries to decline service requests that infringe on their sovereignty. Despite this, the Missouri court allowed service by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Folkman and other experts consider this move contrary to the Convention’s mandatory procedures.
Second, Folkman points out that the lawsuit disregards the protections afforded by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. China’s actions during the pandemic are quintessential sovereign acts — national decisions on public health measures fall squarely within the “acta jure imperii” exception that FSIA shields. This principle ensures that foreign governments are not subjected to the jurisdiction of US courts for governmental acts. The Missouri case, therefore, should have been dismissed on immunity grounds, which the district court initially ruled but was later overridden.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Folkman urges a broader perspective rooted in empathy. He encourages stakeholders to put themselves in others’ shoes. What if it was the other way around? Adherence to international service protocols and sovereign immunity is essential for preserving the global legal order regardless of states’ spite..
Missouri is not alone in pursuing such lawsuits. Following its lead, Mississippi filed a similar claim seeking $200 billion from China in damages. However, these cases share common flaws: they ignore crucial legal protections like FSIA and the Hague Service Convention and risk normalizing the politicization of judicial systems. This trend threatens to set a dangerous precedent where courts become tools for geopolitical conflicts rather than sources of impartial justice. If left unchecked, the repeated filing of such cases will erode diplomatic trust. It will impair international cooperation as retaliatory lawsuits would be encouraged globally.
The growing number of politically motivated lawsuits against sovereign nations undermines the stability of international relations. It also confuses legal accountability with political posturing, weakening the role of courts as neutral venues. As these cases multiply, they form a damaging demonstration effect, encouraging other countries to weaponize judicial mechanisms against geopolitical rivals. The result is an international legal environment fraught with suspicion and conflict, far from the principles of mutual respect and sovereignty that underpin global order.
The Missouri vs. China lawsuit exposes significant problems in the misuse of judicial tools in international disputes. It violates mandatory international procedures, such as the Hague Service Convention, and ignores the crucial protections under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Beyond legal technicalities, the lawsuit reflects a troubling trend toward politicizing courts and undermining sovereign equality. As the world continues to battle the prevalent impacts of COVID-19, all parties should adopt objective perspectives. They must respect sovereign boundaries and international legal norms.
The US government itself has faced international scrutiny over alleged leaks of the virus. If other nations were to emulate Missouri’s strategy and file lawsuits against the US, it could trigger a retaliatory spiral of litigation that harms everyone. The path forward lies not in politicized lawsuits but in cooperative, empathetic approaches grounded in law and mutual respect.