Reject Novel Liability Theory for Rx Drugs: WLF
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) says California’s First District Court of Appeals should overturn a trial court ruling that advances a “radical new theory of liability for manufacturers of non-defective prescription drugs.” A WLF statement says the case involves Gilead’s HIV/AIDS drug tenofovir disproxil fumarate (TDF).
Although the plaintiffs allege injury from TDF, WLF says, they allege no defect with the drug’s design, manufacture, marketing, or labeling. In denying Gilead’s motion for summary judgment, the post says, the trial court ruled that Gilead could be held liable in tort simply for not developing tenofovir Alafenamide (TAF), a completely different drug from TDF.
“To be clear,” WLF says, “the plaintiffs do not argue that Gilead should be liable for not implementing a reasonable alternative design of the same drug under well-settled California product liability law. Rather, they contend that Gilead should be liable in tort for not developing and selling an entirely different product.”
WLF says its amicus brief explains why eliminating the product defect element from product-based claims would open the door to untethered liability and undermine product innovation. “And because nothing in the trial court’s ruling limits this new tort theory to prescription drugs,” it adds, “the decision invites a torrent of abusive suits against the makers of other beneficial and non-defective products.”