Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Perez v. Wyeth and Direct-to-Consumer Ads
Six years ago, in Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc., 161 N.J. 1 (1999), the New Jersey Supreme Court enunciated a novel exception to the learned intermediary doctrine intended to address the rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals. The learned intermediary doctrine is a common law principle, codified in many states, that shields prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers from liability for failing to warn consumers of the potential side-effects associated with their products as long as they have adequately warned prescribing physicians. The Perez court, however, held that when pharmaceutical companies employ DTC advertising, there is an additional duty to warn consumers of potential risks.
Immediately following the controversial ruling, one legal commentator hailed Perez as a “precedent-setting decision likely to have a huge ripple effect within and beyond the pharmaceutical industry.” Ritter N: Learned Intermediary Doctrine: Drug Makers Get a Warning of Their Own. 8 New Jersey Lawyer: The Weekly Newspaper, Aug. 16, 1999, at 1725. Indeed, to many scholars, Perez signaled the end of the age of “doctor knows best,” and thereby the end of the learned intermediary doctrine's relevance. See Perez, 161 N.J. at 4.
Reports of the learned intermediary doctrine's eventual demise, however, were greatly exaggerated. Since Perez, no other jurisdiction that recognizes the doctrine has adopted the DTC exception. Nor, as many predicted, has the learned intermediary doctrine been legislatively eviscerated to combat the continued rise of DTC advertising for prescription pharmaceuticals. Rather, the public policy concerns underlying Perez have proven to be more adequately and efficiently addressed by regulatory enactments of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as self-policing on the part of the pharmaceutical industry itself.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?