Tick tick boom: Lyme-blocking claim avoids preliminary injunction

Merial, Inc. v. Zoetis, Inc., 2017 WL 4466471, No. 1:17-CV-1624
(N.D. Ga. Jun. 6, 2017)
Thorough discussions of the effect of disclaimers on literal
falsity/misleadingness are rare, so this one is useful. Merial makes NexGard, flea-and-tick
removal treatments; the latter was the first U.S. prescription monthly
flea-and-tick medication for dogs that could be administered orally. Zoetis
launched its own oral flea-and-tick product, Simparica. The parties’ products
are only dispensed by licensed vets. 
Zoetis ran a TV ad with a display banner stating: “In a
study, Simparica blocked Lyme disease transmission.” A disclosure continues:
“In a study, Simparica killed >98% of deer ticks in existing infestations
within 12 hours, while Lyme disease is typically transmitted in 24-48 hours. In
another study, Simparica was shown to block Lyme transmission from deer ticks.”

A voice-over later states: “Studies show that at the end of
the month, Simparica killed more ticks in less time than both Frontline and
NexGard,” while an animated dog uses its back paws to kick dirt over boxes of
Frontline Plus and NexGard.  The
disclosure on screen: “Studies showed that at the end of the month, 24 hours
after infestation, Simparica killed more deer ticks than Frontline and more
Lone Star, Gulf Coast, brown dog, and deer ticks than NexGard.”

Merial alleged that the first claim relating to blocking
Lyme disease is literally false because Simparica does not “block” Lyme disease,
and that the second claim of killing ticks faster was literally false because
the studies on which Zoetis relied didn’t demonstrate that at the end of the
month Simparica kills “more ticks in less time” as compared to Frontline Plus
and NexGard.
First, Merial argued that no study supports the conclusion
that Simparica worked similar to a vaccine and could completely block Lyme
disease itself. Rather, Simparica at most reduces opportunities for ticks
carrying the Lyme disease-causing pathogen to bite dogs by killing the ticks themselves.  Zoetis responded that killing ticks
effectively blocked the transmission of the disease-causing pathogen, which was
sufficient, and that the “clarifying text” informed the interpretation of the
ad.  Merial responded that the text was
too small and difficult for consumers to read.
“A disclosure is adequate if it is actually communicated to
consumers.”  Zoetis offered an affidavit
that the disclosure was “compliant with network advertising guidelines, which
means that the network compliance attorneys have … confirmed that the
[Clarifying Text is] on screen for a sufficient amount of time to be
comprehensible by viewers.” Zoetis also offered evidence that it conducted
testing and displayed the Clarifying Text for a sufficient length of time for a
consumer to read the information. The court determined that it was appropriate
to consider the disclosure as part of its falsity analysis, because the claim “primes
the viewer to look to the Clarifying Text by stating ‘[i]n a study, Simparica
blocked Lyme disease transmission,’” and the disclosure explains how Simparica blocked Lyme disease.  The disclosure was also part of the full
context of the ad, especially because it appeared simultaneously with the ad,
and Zoetis provided evidence that the text was sufficient to reach consumers.  For purposes of a preliminary injunction,
Merial didn’t show that the disclosure should not be considered.
Merial then didn’t show that, taken together, the claims
were likely literally false.  Merial
argued that Zoetis’s studies didn’t actually test for Lyme disease; only one
study tested for the presence of the pathogen; and only five to ten percent of
dogs exposed to the pathogen exhibit symptoms of Lyme disease.  But the study that didn’t test for the
pathogen still tested for deer ticks, which are the main vectors of Lyme
disease in the United States, and the other study showed that the drug
interfered with the pathogen.  Even
without the disclosure, “block” wasn’t likely literally false, because “block”
can mean to hinder/interpose an obstruction according to the dictionary, and
the drug could arguably do that.  Zoetis’s
interpretation was also reasonable because others use “block” in the same way,
such as an NIH article, “Tick Talk: Block Tick Bites and Lyme Disease” that
noted that “the best way to avoid Lyme and other tick-borne illnesses is to
prevent tick bites in the first place.”  Also, in the context of the entire ad, which showed
Simparica working by killing ticks before they transmit diseases, there was no
claim that Simparica is a vaccine that acts directly on pathogens.
Merial’s challenge to the “faster killing” claims also
failed at this stage.  Merial argued
that, even if Simparica killed more ticks after twenty-four hours, the results
were mixed on whether Simparica killed more ticks at eight or twelve hours. But
the disclosure indicated that the 8/12 hour marks weren’t relevant, because it
specified that “[s]tudies show that at the end of the month, 24 hours after
infestation, Simparica killed more ticks” than Frontline Plus and NexGard.  Also, even on its own, the faster killing
claim hadn’t been shown to be literally false. 
Because the 8 and 12 hour marks were, on the whole, inconclusive as to
which medicine killed more ticks, it was okay to look to the twenty-four hour
mark (the only other mark tested) to determine who killed more ticks in less
time. (The court also found that “killed more ticks in less time” could have
multiple meanings, depending on when the kill rate was measured.)

Merial also argued that the Lyme Disease Claim wrongly went
beyond the studies to claim that Simparica was superior to Frontline Plus and
NexGard across all types of dogs, ticks, and geographies. The parties offered
conflicting affidavits on whether studies mainly using Beagles and certain tick
types could be used in support of broader claims, but that wasn’t enough at
this stage. 

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2nvACqL

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s