Here at the DDL Blog, we love phrases denoting that two things are acting together or in close succession to produce a result. We have written more than once on the “one-two punch” of causation and implied preemption, and who doesn’t appreciate a good “double whammy” in whatever context? Cases with
The Government Has To Preserve Evidence, Too
We spent much of the last six years opposing the government in civil litigation. Sure, a few of the government lawyers had a certain swagger to them, but in most ways litigating against them was similar to litigating against private parties. The government hired and collaborated with many of the same plaintiffs’ attorneys that we
Iowa Can’t Usurp FDA’s Authority Over Vaping Products
States cannot take over enforcement of federal requirements when Congress has entrusted that enforcement exclusively to the FDA. In Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue, No. 4:24-cv-00448, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85732 (S.D. Iowa May 2, 2025), the state of Iowa enacted a law imposing penalties on
Third Party Payer Class Certified in Avandia MDL
The Avandia MDL has been a long, winding, and ultimately meritless road. The FDA approved the drug to treat Type II diabetes in 1999, and the MDL got going in 2007, after a widely publicized, but ultimately disproven meta-analysis purported to show that Avandia presented an increased risk of heart attacks.
That was 18 years
First Amendment Still Prevails Over California’s Prop 65
We reported about a year and a half ago on a Ninth Circuit opinion holding that the First Amendment prohibited cancer warnings required by California’s Proposition 65 because the warnings were government-compelled speech. Because there was no scientific consensus that the product at issue (glyphosate) causes cancer, the compelled warning failed intermediate scrutiny and thus
Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel Finds Personal Jurisdiction Fully Baked In California
The Ninth Circuit filed its anticipated en banc opinion on personal jurisdiction last week, and the result is the broadening of Internet-based personal jurisdiction in an age of ubiquitous online commerce. The district court in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9410 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), had ruled that
Fifth Circuit Holds That Competitors Can Sue Over Unapproved Drugs
No one can sell a new drug without prior approval from the FDA. That rule is codified in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and is not controversial (or at least should not be controversial). Less clear is whether a seller of an FDA-approved drug can sue a competitor under state unfair competition laws
California Consumers Splash Down In NJ Class Action
Plaintiffs often like to sue in New Jersey, but that does not mean they always get what they want. The California plaintiffs in Serrano v. Campbell Soup Co. sued a beverage company in New Jersey, but the court rejected their New Jersey law claims and left them with only one California claim—and even then, only
Notorious Medicare Secondary Payer Plaintiffs Bounced Again
The MSP plaintiffs are at it again, and without success this time around. In MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38647 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2025), the group of law firms formed to file lawsuits under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (hence the “MSP” in the various plaintiffs’ names)
Pixels and Class Certification
We reported a few months ago on a California court that largely gutted a pharma-related privacy class action centered on the alleged disclosure of personal information through the use of computer pixels. Today we bring you another pixel case, but with a different outcome. In Jancik v. WebMD LLC, No. 1:22-cv-644, 2025 U.S. Dist.