Simply charging a price higher than what plaintiffs want for an effective and non-defective medicine is not a consumer protection violation, and a recent order in the Northern District of Illinois demonstrates that. In Camargo v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 23-cv-02589, 2026 WL 115068 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2026), the district court dismissed a multistate
We start with some disclaimers. Not the usual disclaimers about which of the Blog authors’ respective firms deny responsibility for the post. We disclaim that we care much about the availability of cigarettes and vaping products, except insofar as litigation over them says something about litigation over medical products and the general interplay between state
Today’s case, Hartney v. Zoetis, Inc., 2025 WL 2924661 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2025), is about a canine medicine allegedly gone wrong. But lest you think the DDL blog has gone to the dogs, this case addresses issues such as preemption and learned intermediary that are key in cases with thumbed, supposedly sapient, biped plaintiffs.
Mind you
Today’s guest post is from Dechert’s Brooke Meadowcroft who brings us her take on an unfortunate learned intermediary ruling out of Illinois. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the praise (and any of blame) for their posts. Not that we expect the latter.
*******
The learned intermediary doctrine is the elegant legal principle
Whenever we see a class action in which the named plaintiffs suffered no injury, we throw up our hands and think that the invention of class actions was a wrong turn in American legal history. But when we see a case like Klosowski v. FPG Labs, LLC, 2025 WL 2532500 (D. Del. Sept. 3
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
Today we address two more cooked-up—literally—Valisure cases, Bodunde v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00985-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411306 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025), and Navarro v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00290-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411406 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025).
These two cases involve legally identical magistrate recommendations that Defendant’s motions to dismiss
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
In Hall v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., the Supreme Court of Washington considered a certified question from the Northern District of Illinois on an issue of Washington state law. No. 102829-6, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 145 (Wash. Mar. 20, 2025). The underlying case, a proposed consumer protection class action, involves the labeling of certain over-the-counter
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)