The Rise and Fall of Consumer Advocacy: How The Supreme Court Is Taking Away Your Ability To Protect Yourself

This is the first article of a series exploring the rise and fall of consumer advocacy.

Most people do not bother reading law related news. Rightfully so in my opinion, the stuff can be downright boring. However there is something insidious going on. The Supreme Court recently took away three very important consumer advocacy tools from the American public.

1. You cannot sue a generic drug manufacturer. According to a recent Supreme Court opinion in Pliva, Inc., et al. v. Mensing someone who is hurt by a generic drug cannot sue the manufacturer of that drug. This is because the FDA recognizes that only the company who makes the brand name drug is responsible for the contents of the label. So, for example, if you suffer a heart attack because you used the pain relieving drug Darvocet then you may have a case against Eli Lilly for failing to warn about the risk of heart attack. However, if you took the generic version of the drug Darvocet (propoxyphene and acetaminophen) when suffered a heart attack then you would not be able to sue the manufacturer of that drug.

2. You cannot sue the manufacturer of a vaccine for design defects. The Supreme Court in Bruesewitz et al. v. Wyeth LLC, f/k/a Wyeth, Inc., et al. ruled that a person injured by a vaccine cannot bring a design defect claim against a vaccine manufacturer. Vaccines are relatively simple products. Because they are relatively simple products, innovations in improving safety by design changes are slow.

3. You cannot sue the manufacturers of certain medical devices. The Supreme Court in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. ruled that a person cannot sue the manufacturer of a medical device that goes through pre-market testing. As a result of this ruling, 1000s of people who suffered injuries or died because of recalled wires in defibrillators had their cases dismissed in federal court.

This is a very serious issue. The government has proven to be ineffective at controlling certain corporations who cut corners or make decisions solely on the basis of profit. Without the threat of lawsuits some corporations do not have any incentive to play by the rules. It is important to remember, a corporation is not the smiling CEO. A corporation is an entity created SOLELY to produce a profit. It is up to the smiling CEO to control the corporation to make sure things are done right.

I created the presentation below to address this issue.

Why protecting Big Pharma from lawsuits is a bad idea

View more webinars from Law Offices of Sadaka Associates LLC
What do you think about the death of consumer advocacy? Let me know below.