California Supreme Court Sides with Manufacturers in Novel Duty to Innovate Case
In another victory for the NAM Legal Center and manufacturers everywhere, California’s highest court has rejected a radical tort law change that would have held manufacturers liable for non-defective products (Reuters, subscription).
What’s going on: In early August, “[i]n a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of negligence claims against Gilead by an estimated 24,000 patients using an HIV drug it produced, over its decision more than 20 years ago to stop developing an alternative drug that had fewer side effects.”
- In March 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the case, brought by patients who used Gilead Sciences’ successful HIV/AIDS pharmaceutical tenofovir disoproxil fumarate but argued that Gilead should have continued to develop an alternative drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, which they called “safer.”
- In the brief, the NAM urged the California Supreme Court to reject the notion that manufacturers have a legal duty to bring a potentially better product to market.
Why it’s important: The California Supreme Court’s decision, which reversed the decision of a lower court, “declines to … recognize, for the first time anywhere, sweeping liability for injuries caused by a concededly non-defective drug because the manufacturer allegedly failed to make a different drug available sooner,” Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the majority opinion.
- He added that imposing such liability would have jeopardized “pharmaceutical innovation, public health and patient safety.”
The last word: As the NAM wrote in its amicus brief, “There has never been … a duty to develop and sell a potentially better or safer product. So long as a product is not defective and is lawfully advertised and sold, that product’s fate should be determined by the market, not by the courts.”
