About 100 decongestant lawsuits claiming bogus ingredient tossed
By Diana Novak Jones
Nov 13 (Reuters) -A New York federal judge on Tuesday dismissed about 100 lawsuits that claimed Procter & Gamble PG.N, Haleon HLN.L and other companies knowingly marketed and sold over-the-counter medications containing a decongestant that didn’t work.
U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn dismissed the lawsuits against medication manufacturers and grocery chains filed by consumers after a unanimous U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel declared the decongestant, phenylephrine, ineffective in September 2023.
Cogan found that the companies were not obligated to update their labeling with new information about efficacy unless directed by the FDA. He also rejected the plaintiffs’ request that he hold off on dismissing the cases while the FDA considers whether to remove phenylephrine as an ingredient in over-the-counter cold medicines.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did attorneys for Procter & Gamble, Haleon, Walgreens, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson’s former consumer business, all of which were facing claims in the litigation.
Lawsuits over phenylephrine began hitting the docket in September 2023, days after the FDA’s nonprescription drug advisory committee reviewed several studies and concluded that the ingredient, which was part of about 242 million products and generated $1.76 billion in sales in 2022, was essentially no better than a placebo.
The lawsuits claim the companies knew their phenylephrine products were ineffective as decongestants but still marketed and sold them to consumers.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which has tallied 99 phenylephrine lawsuits, centralized the claims in an MDL in New York federal court in December 2023. In June, the companies moved to dismiss a streamlined class action within the MDL that was brought on behalf of New York consumers, arguing that the consumers couldn’t rely on state law to challenge labeling that the companies were required to use under federal law. In October, Judge Cogan agreed with the companies and dismissed the New York case.
Tuesday’s ruling noted that the plaintiffs had agreed that a ruling on the New York motion to dismiss that addressed federal law's oversight of the drug labels would apply to the remainder of the cases in the MDL.
The FDA announced on Nov. 7 that it was considering removing phenylephrine as an ingredient in over-the-counter oral cold medications.
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
