We have often characterized preemption as one of the most powerful tools in product liability defense lawyers’ toolboxes. It also gets utilized effectively by lawyers defending against a variety of consumer fraud cases about FDA-regulated products. We have, for instance, covered a number of decisions where plaintiffs complained about a range of food labeling issues
Today’s case – Smith v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — S.E.2d –, 2022 WL 2285920 (Ga. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2022 — does not break new ground. But it is a published decision by a state appellate court and for that reason, it deserves some attention.
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, DC, brought a single
We venture a bit outside our normal drug/medical device arena today for a case involving dietary supplements, but you know we cannot resist a case shot down as an attempt to pursue a private FDCA cause of action. It’s a bit like the refrain to The Christmas Song – “although it’s been said many times,
Sometimes it really is as easy as A, B, C or as simple as 1, 2, 3. Where the FDA has set specific rules for the type of labeling claims a manufacturer can make and the manufacturer abides by those rules, claims by plaintiffs seeking to require something different are preempted. Just like do, re,
Stop us if you have heard this before. A group of plaintiffs bring a purported class action under a range of California consumer protection laws seeking damages related to the purchase of a medical product (or collection of somewhat related medical products) that they claimed failed to comply with FDA requirements. The defendants raise preemption
We have taken a daily multivitamin ever since our doctor told us that we were chronically deficient in a particular vitamin, the one you can get from being out in the sun. Given our chosen line of work, we should not be surprised that we don’t get enough sunlight. We should also not be surprised