The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on January 30th that the Federal Trade Commission can prohibit POM Wonderful LLC from making the advertising claim that its products can help in fighting afflictions and ailments such as heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. The appeals court also decided that POM Wonderful requires the support of one clinical trial before it can make any subsequent claims that its products are effective in fighting disease. POM Wonderful had maintained that its advertisements and claims are protected under the First Amendment, a position that was rejected by the appellate court's decision.… Continue Reading
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to fine two manufacturers of green coffee bean extract $9 million for making claims that consumers could lose body weight and fat by using the extract. The FTC alleges that the manufacturers' advertised claims were deceptive and the result of a flawed research study. However, two dissenting FTC commissioners believe that the amount of the fine was excessive because it took into account sales attributed to televised statements that were constitutionally protected and non-commercial in nature.… Continue Reading
Drug and medical device manufacturers are often faced with difficult challenges in determining the country of origin for their products, which are often sourced, processed and manufactured in multiple countries. As detailed by the article "Origin of the Pieces: How to Determine a Pharmaceutical Product's 'Country of Origin,'" written by Reed Smith lawyers Jeffrey Orenstein and Lorraine Campos, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into consideration when answering the country of origin question for a pharmaceutical product - chief among which is who is asking the question. This article provides an overview of the principal regulatory schemes and their country of origin standards in order to help provide clarity to pharmaceutical companies in an often confusing and frustrating process.… Continue Reading
The Ninth Circuit recently confronted an issue of first impression: whether a plaintiff could maintain an action under the false advertising prong of the Lanham Act, where a determination of the alleged falsity would require the court to impinge on the exclusive purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in deciding whether there has been a violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Although limited to the particular circumstances presented, the opinion reaffirmed the exclusive authority of the FDA to enforce the provisions of the FDCA, and indicates that a plaintiff may not maintain a lawsuit premised on the allegation of a violation of the FDCA, where the FDA itself has not acted.… Continue Reading
Lawyers representing clients as plaintiffs in litigation often overlook the fact that a cross-complaint or counterclaim may give rise to an obligation by the client’s liability insurer to provide a defense. A recent decision in favor of Hewlett-Packard, awarding it $51 million, serves as a reminder that insurance coverage must be examined when a cross-complaint … Continue Reading
