Latest Implied Preemption Case Reviewed
Three Winston & Strawn attorneys say the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding implied preemption of a putative class action suit against McNeil Nutritionals over its Lactaid dietary supplement. The attorneys write in an online post that the suit claimed the company violated FDA labeling requirements by marketing Lactaid as a dietary supplement rather than as a drug, even though it was marketed as a treatment for lactose intolerance. The suit also said the labeling violated state law claims related to unfair or deceptive trade practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment, and was misleading to consumers.
A federal district court had dismissed the complaint because no reasonable consumer could find Lactaid’s product labels deceptive, the attorneys write. The 1st Circuit Appeals Court upheld the dismissal, but said the reason was that the claims were impliedly preempted by FDA’s enforcement authority.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari [hearing the appeal] affirms that conflict preemption with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) may bar some state law product liability claims,” the lawyers conclude. “In terms of whether a conflict exists between the claim and the FFDCA, the underlying allegations will be dispositive. Thus, defendants facing state law claims such as failure to warn, deceptive practice, or misrepresentation should conduct a conflict analysis to determine whether the alleged conduct is tortious solely because it violates the FFDCA. If so, preemption could be a tool to dismiss these claims.”