Tag Archives: fda

“virologist developed” etc. plausibly implies disease prevention

Corbett v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., 2021 WL 4866124, No. 21cv137-GPC(AGS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021) This is a putative class action for violations of consumer fraud statutes in the sale of Sambucol, a dietary supplement that contains a “proprietary extract” … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

competitor succeeds in enjoining sale of competing but non-FDA-cleared medical devices

Telebrands Corp. v. Vindex Solutions LLC, 2021 WL 534361, No. 21-cv-00898-BLF (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) Telebrands sells stuff, including the Hempvana Rocket, a handheld transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit, “a pain-relieving pen that uses TENS therapy in the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

infant/child painkiller case dismissed as preempted

Youngblood v. CVS Pharmacy, 2021 WL 3700256, No. 2:20-cv-06251-MCS-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021) Another infant/children acetaminophen consumer protection case. This one dismisses the claims as completely preempted by the FTCA. Plaintiffs argued that their claims are consistent with the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pom Wonderful applies to pharmaceuticals, but “implied FDA approval” claim still fails

Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., 1 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2021) Belcher alleged that the labels for two of Hospira’s drugs falsely implied that the products and their uses were FDA-approved. The district court rejected that claim on the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“implied gov’t approval” claims don’t work

ImPACT Applications, Inc. v. Concussion Management, LLC, 2021 WL 978823, No. GJH-19-3108 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2021) ImPACT provides training and software, including a proprietary evaluation system. Immediate Post-concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing “provides a neurocognitive test battery that offers … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

no preemption of state claims where FDA didn’t regulate cosmetic talc at all

Johnson & Johnson v. Fitch, No. 2019-IA-00033-SCT, — So.3d —-, 2021 WL 1220579 (Miss. Apr. 1, 2021) The Mississippi AG sued J&J under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act for selling talcum powder products, alleging that J&J failed to warn of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

prescription and OTC products can directly compete; many non-FDCA-based claims survive

Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2021 WL 3417590, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2021 WL 3417590, No. 21-cv-01280-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021) Scilex sells an FDA-approved, prescription-strength topical analgesic self-adhesive patch, ZTlido (lidocaine), which is allegedly often prescribed off-label, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

FDA preemption/preclusion after Pom Wonderful: still powerful for drugs

Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., 2020 WL 5535026, No. 19-cv-00318-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2020) Exela sued Sandoz for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of North Carolina law; tortious interference with prospective business advantage; and Lanham Act … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I can’t believe it’s not (vegan) butter: First Amendment invalidates standard of identity for butter as applied to vegan product

Miyoko’s Kitchen v. Ross, No. 20-cv-00893-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2020) Eric Goldman’s far more anti-regulatory take is here. The California Department of Food and Agriculture told Miyoko’s not to call its “vegan butter” product “butter” (it challenged certain other … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

context matters: “mineral-based” sunscreen with chemical-based active ingredients is plausibly deceptive

Prescott v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2020 WL 4430958, No. 20-cv-00102-NC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 31, 2020) (magistrate) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants deceived consumers by labeling their sunscreens as “mineral-based” when the sunscreens contain active chemical ingredients. As the court explains,   … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment