As the California Supreme Court considers this case this week, it will effectively decide whether courts should serve as arbiters not just of safety but of scientific timelines—a shift that could have lasting consequences for the pace of medical innovation.
This week, the California Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching consequences for medical science.
At issue is Gilead Sciences’ HIV treatment tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. Tens of thousands of plaintiffs allege they suffered side effects while taking the drug.
They are not arguing that the medicine was defective, improperly manufactured, or sold without adequate warnings. Instead, they claim Gilead acted negligently by failing to bring a different, potentially safer drug to market sooner.
In other words, the case turns on a novel legal theory—that a company can be held liable not for what it made but for what it did not make quickly enough. If the courts embrace that reasoning, the implications for drug development could be profound.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Can You Sue A Drug Company For Not Inventing Faster?
Sally C. Pipes
As the California Supreme Court considers this case this week, it will effectively decide whether courts should serve as arbiters not just of safety but of scientific timelines—a shift that could have lasting consequences for the pace of medical innovation.
This week, the California Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching consequences for medical science.
At issue is Gilead Sciences’ HIV treatment tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. Tens of thousands of plaintiffs allege they suffered side effects while taking the drug.
They are not arguing that the medicine was defective, improperly manufactured, or sold without adequate warnings. Instead, they claim Gilead acted negligently by failing to bring a different, potentially safer drug to market sooner.
In other words, the case turns on a novel legal theory—that a company can be held liable not for what it made but for what it did not make quickly enough. If the courts embrace that reasoning, the implications for drug development could be profound.
Read the entire op-ed here.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.