Legal Reform

Public-nuisance lawsuits stifle innovation, and consumers ultimately foot the bill

With arcane rule changes and different policies on absentee voting, we are bracing for lawsuits and recounts that could keep both presidential candidates’ legal teams busy until New Year’s. For once, thankfully, it will not be Florida’s fault.

This is another reminder of how much we have allowed our country to be captured by the legal profession. Whether it’s elections, climate change or the latest corporate scandal, lawsuits have become as American as apple pie.

In the past year alone, personal injury or tort lawsuits have risen more than 7 percent to a whopping 73,000 a year, according to the Department of Justice.

One surprising legal principle that has helped fuel these cases is “public nuisance.”

In the past few decades, plaintiffs’ attorneys have expanded the claim of public nuisance — meant to cover pollution or obstructions that cause harm to property — to include widespread social problems such as climate change and opioid addiction.

The goal is to extract large paydays from firms because of either real or perceived damage. Most companies would rather settle than be publicly dragged by the media. Just ask Elon Musk.

There are, no doubt, legitimate cases where real harm has been done. But many of these cases stem from complex issues that require public-policy solutions rather than judicial rulings, which distort our legal system and set dangerous precedents.

Originally, public nuisance was invoked as a way for local governments to protect the public’s right to access public roads, local parks, and waterways, or to halt domestic disturbances like prostitution or gambling.

But recently, state and local courts have been more open to looser interpretations of public nuisances, leading to gross abuses of our already overly litigious justice system.

For example, in 2000, attorneys went to localities in California to sign on as plaintiffs in a massive lead-paint lawsuit. The claim was that lead paint, later known to be dangerous, was “aggressively marketed” by the producers, constituting a public nuisance.

Over $1 billion was ordered to be paid to the California cities and counties, eventually reduced to $305 million in a settlement. Trial lawyers pocketed $65 million, and judges became empowered to use the law to address larger societal problems. Then came the opioid crisis.

In 2019, Oklahoma used the state’s overly broad public-nuisance statute to sue companies that marketed and distributed opioids. While other drugmakers settled, Johnson & Johnson went to trial. Even with a small share of the opioid market and no causal link found between its products and widespread opioid addiction, they were ordered to pay $572 million in damages, of which $85 million went to the lawyers.

From vaping to plastics to environmental cleanups, the public nuisance legal strategy has increasingly become an effective and profitable way to skip the legislative process and push political agendas against innovation.

Environmental foundations, including one headed by Mike Bloomberg, have funded lawyers and activists to recruit governments to join lawsuits against energy companies for climate change. These attorneys then seek friendly courts where public-nuisance statutes exist or where activist judges are willing to embrace this legal theory.

Some judges have dismissed these public-nuisance claims, ruling that energy producers have contributed significantly to our economic development. But federal appeals courts have allowed California cities, as well as the city of Baltimore, to advance their cases against fossil-fuel producers. And more could be coming.

This trend shows how our legal system is being used to advance anti-innovation political agendas.

This makes our legal system unpredictable, undermines the rule of law and increases the cost of doing business as companies must prepare for future lawsuits, whether they caused any actual harm or not. All of that ends up increasing prices for all consumers. We need smart and better policies, not more lawsuits.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Originally published here.

Public-nuisance lawsuits stifle innovation, and consumers ultimately foot the bill

With arcane rule changes and different policies on absentee voting, we are bracing for lawsuits and recounts that could keep both presidential candidates’ legal teams busy until New Year’s. For once, thankfully, it will not be Florida’s fault.

This is another reminder of how much we have allowed our country to be captured by the legal profession. Whether it’s elections, climate change or the latest corporate scandal, lawsuits have become as American as apple pie.

In the past year alone, personal injury or tort lawsuits have risen more than 7 percent to a whopping 73,000 a year, according to the Department of Justice.

One surprising legal principle that has helped fuel these cases is “public nuisance.”

In the past few decades, plaintiffs’ attorneys have expanded the claim of public nuisance — meant to cover pollution or obstructions that cause harm to property — to include widespread social problems such as climate change and opioid addiction.

The goal is to extract large paydays from firms because of either real or perceived damage. Most companies would rather settle than be publicly dragged by the media. Just ask Elon Musk.

There are, no doubt, legitimate cases where real harm has been done. But many of these cases stem from complex issues that require public-policy solutions rather than judicial rulings, which distort our legal system and set dangerous precedents.

Originally, public nuisance was invoked as a way for local governments to protect the public’s right to access public roads, local parks, and waterways, or to halt domestic disturbances like prostitution or gambling.

But recently, state and local courts have been more open to looser interpretations of public nuisances, leading to gross abuses of our already overly litigious justice system.

For example, in 2000, attorneys went to localities in California to sign on as plaintiffs in a massive lead-paint lawsuit. The claim was that lead paint, later known to be dangerous, was “aggressively marketed” by the producers, constituting a public nuisance.

Over $1 billion was ordered to be paid to the California cities and counties, eventually reduced to $305 million in a settlement. Trial lawyers pocketed $65 million, and judges became empowered to use the law to address larger societal problems. Then came the opioid crisis.

In 2019, Oklahoma used the state’s overly broad public-nuisance statute to sue companies that marketed and distributed opioids. While other drugmakers settled, Johnson & Johnson went to trial. Even with a small share of the opioid market and no causal link found between its products and widespread opioid addiction, they were ordered to pay $572 million in damages, of which $85 million went to the lawyers.

From vaping to plastics to environmental cleanups, the public nuisance legal strategy has increasingly become an effective and profitable way to skip the legislative process and push political agendas against innovation.

Environmental foundations, including one headed by Mike Bloomberg, have funded lawyers and activists to recruit governments to join lawsuits against energy companies for climate change. These attorneys then seek friendly courts where public-nuisance statutes exist or where activist judges are willing to embrace this legal theory.

Some judges have dismissed these public-nuisance claims, ruling that energy producers have contributed significantly to our economic development. But federal appeals courts have allowed California cities, as well as the city of Baltimore, to advance their cases against fossil-fuel producers. And more could be coming.

This trend shows how our legal system is being used to advance anti-innovation political agendas.

This makes our legal system unpredictable, undermines the rule of law and increases the cost of doing business as companies must prepare for future lawsuits, whether they caused any actual harm or not. All of that ends up increasing prices for all consumers. We need smart and better policies, not more lawsuits.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Originally published here.

Coronavirus Will Blow Up Our Legal System, but a Liability Shield Will Help

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, there’s one thought on all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns.

But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills.

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam.

In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward.

For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, that would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these instructions closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100 percent COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, but be cognizant of the risk.

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to the transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence though, should rightfully be held liable.

This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and reporting on the topic has resembled such.

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits.

It is no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. There are already hundreds of law firms pitching “coronavirus lawyers” and many have reassigned entire teams and departments to focus on providing legal advice and counsel for COVID-19 cases.

And much like in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day report finds. And that does not even speak to whether or not these cases have merit or not.

In debating the next level of pandemic relief for Americans, including a liability shield would be a great measure of confidence for responsible and cautious businesses and institutions in our country.

Whether it is the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes.

A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

GOP bill would deter frivolous COVID lawsuits

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, one thought dominates all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns. But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills.

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

A demonstrable lawsuit epidemic already exists. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up the legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame, clogging every level of our courts and keeping judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam. In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward. For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, this would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many institutions and businesses closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100 percent COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, yet be cognizant of the risk.

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence, though, should rightfully be held liable. This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and national reporting on the topic has suggested as much.

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. It’s no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. Already hundreds of law firms are pitching “coronavirus lawyers.”

And much as in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day law firm report finds. And that does not even speak to whether these cases have merit or not.

Whether it’s the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes. A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center. This article was published in the Waco Tribune-Herald.

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES AND SCHOOLS NEED COVID-19 LIABILITY SHIELDS

A Liability Shield For Small Businesses And Schools

Part of this proposal is a liability shield for small businesses and schools, to protect them from unreasonable lawsuits related to COVID-19.

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “The nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable,” he wrote in the Detroit Times.

“There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

“That’s why responsible businesses and schools that follow federal recommendations on health and safety should not be subject to outrageous lawsuits that bring our society to a halt,” said Ossowski. “Only legitimate lawsuits, based on some measure of negligence or recklessness, should be heard in our nation’s courts.”

“For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, a liability shield would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted,” he added.

“Stopping the coming wave of unfounded and frivolous lawsuits will be important if we want to actually identify citizens and consumers who have been harmed by institutions that have not taken the right precautions. That’s why a liability shield is necessary for getting our country back on the right track,” concluded Ossowski.

Learn more about Consumer Choice Center’s #LegalReform campaign here

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Responsible businesses need COVID-19 liability shields

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, there’s one thought on all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns.

But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills. 

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

In this April 15, 2020, file photo, two people walk past a closed sign at a retail store in Chicago.Nam Y. Huh, AP

There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam.

In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward.

For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, that would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100% COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, but be cognizant of the risk. 

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to the transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence though, should rightfully be held liable.

This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and reporting on the topic has resembled such. 

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. 

It is no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. There are already many law firms pitching “coronavirus lawyers” and many have reassigned entire teams and departments to focus on providing legal advice and counsel for COVID-19 cases. 

And much like in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day report finds. And that does not even speak to whether or not these cases have merit or not.

In debating the next level of pandemic relief for Americans, including a liability shield would be a great measure of confidence for responsible and cautious businesses and institutions in our country. 

Whether it is the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes.

A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Originally published in the Detroit Times here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Burned Tort Lawyers Plead Guilty to $200 Million Extortion Racket

Late last year, we covered the criminal case against Virginia-based attorney Timothy Litzenburg and his partners.

He was accused of approaching an international agrochemical company, presumably Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, and threatening to weaponize the media and courts against them unless they gave his law firm $200 million.

The aim was to use recent verdicts to claim glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is a dangerous carcinogen, even though hundreds of studies by reputable bodies, including the FDA, have said there is no evidence for that claim.

In court, it was revealed that Litzenburg’s firm threatened Monsanto by pitching them a massive “consulting agreement” that would make future cases against them from the firm invalid because of the conflict of interest. The hope was that the company would back down and the lawyers would make off with a huge payday.

Last Friday, Timothy Litzenburg, of Charlottesville, and his partner, Daniel Kincheloe each pleaded guilty to extortion after a short trial. They will face sentencing in September.

Litzenburg and Kincheloe also admitted that after making their demand for $200 million from the company, they registered a Virginia corporation for the purpose of receiving money from the company, and that they agreed to split the funds among themselves and their associates, and to not distribute any of the money the company paid them as purported “consulting fees” to their existing clients. Litzenburg and Kincheloe admitted that after making their demand for $200 million, Litzenburg threatened that they and others would commence litigation that would become “an ongoing and exponentially growing problem for [Company 1], particularly when the media inevitably takes notice[,]” and that such litigation would cost Company 1 and its publicly-traded parent company “billions, setting aside the associated drop in stock price and reputation damage.”

WHSV

This case is important because it peels back some layers on our nation’s vastly complicated tort or injury legal system, a pernicious cyclone of veiled threats, millions of dollars, unethical standards, and huge settlements to lawyers that often leave truly injured plaintiffs in the dust.

The incentives that exist in the American legal system make it possible for virtually any legal firm to trump up a case against companies or individuals. Often times, companies will choose to settle these cases for large amounts rather than have the case gain publicity, even if there was no actual harm or injury.

In a sense, the bigger a company is, the more likely they are to have a target on their back, no matter the claim that is brought up in court.

Though there are plenty of legitimate tort cases in which people have been harmed, there are just as many that are just outright frivolous and have no legal merit. Just think of the various cases against Google Maps because people took a wrong route and were struck by a car, or against Burger King because it’s meatless burgers aren’t really “vegan”.

Because the number of cases that can be heard by judges and juries is limited in a given year, the existence of these types of cases means that other cases, with real greviences won’t get heard.

And even if cases with real harms are eventually brought to court, it’s highly likely the plaintiffs will only receive a fraction of their deserved restitution.

It’s a system that overwhelmingly benefits injury lawyers at the expense of those they are supposed to represent.

Earlier this year, an analysis of large class-action lawsuits compiled by the law firm Jones Day found that that class members received an average of just 23 percent of eventual payouts — sometimes in the billions of dollars — and close to two-thirds went straight to lawyers instead.

These large settlements end up costing companies and the consumers that suffer from higher prices, not to mention the hundreds of potential plaintiffs who are not able to have their civil cases quickly heard.

America loves lawsuits. So why can’t you sue a cop for excessive force?

Across the country, people of all backgrounds are in the streets to seek justice.

They feel let down by their institutions, their cities and their nation. They’re not wrong. The shocking death of George Floyd in Minneapolis has awoken many Americans to the pressing issues of police accountability and racial justice.

For a lawsuit-frenzied country, one would think there would be an overwhelming number of lawsuits filed against police officers who abused their power.

But that’s not the case, because of a little-known legal doctrine called “qualified immunity.” It effectively shields all civil servants from being sued for actions they perform on the job.

A recent Reuters investigation found that qualified immunity is a “fail safe” for those who commit police brutality and denies victims of that violence their constitutional rights.

Several elected officials in Washington, D.C., are taking a second look at this policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court is being pressured to revisit the issue, even though justices have consistently upheld it.

Stripping this defense from police officers who use excessive and deadly force in the line of duty would help protect future lives, and restore justice to those who need it most.

in Florida, between 2013-2019, 540 people were killed after altercations with police; 31 percent of them were black, according to the Mapping Police Violence Database.

A Tampa Bay Times database found that of the 772 incidents with officer-involved shootings between 2009 and 2014, there were just 91 lawsuits. It is not known how many resulted in significant settlements establishing negligence, but a similar database in New York shows it’s just a handful every year.

For the families of the innocent victims in police altercations, we want a legal system that can not only prosecute and sentence officers who use excessive force, but also hold them responsible in civil courts.

That should be easy considering the United States — and Florida, specifically — are among the most litigious places in the world. But the majority of civil lawsuits are filed are not based on the negligence of police officers or other civil servants, but against business owners by trial attorneys representing consumers. These cases are often frivolous .

But they ofthen become large class-action lawsuits that take up extraordinary time and resources in the courts, promising huge payouts to the suing legal firms and virtually nothing for class members, all the while slowing down the prosecution of civil wrongs that resulted in injuries and death.

A significant analysis of large class-action lawsuits compiled by the law firm Jones Day finds that class members received an average of just 23 percent of eventual payouts — sometimes in the billions of dollars — and close to two-thirds went straight to lawyers instead.

These large settlements end up costing companies and the consumers that suffer from higher prices, not to mention the hundreds of potential plaintiffs who are not able to have their civil cases quickly heard.

Instead of a judicial system clogged with civil lawsuits that actually end up harming citizens, what about a more accountable legal system that would help deliver justice to the victims and families most harmed by those who are supposed to protect us?

That’s why qualified immunity of police officers and civil servants cannot be allowed to stand, and we must institute legal reform that would help balance justice in our society.

This is the right moment to focus on justice and equality. Making our judicial system more robust and more adept at identifying those who commit civil wrongs should be a priority. We owe this to all victims of violence and those who deserve restitution.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

How liability lawsuits drive up drug prices, stifle innovation, and harm patients

A single drug can cost up to 2 million dollars per treatment. In the light of COVID-19, patient groups and activists have been using the crisis of the moment to call for capping drug and vaccine prices and cracking down on barriers to access for patients. In developing countries, large parts of drug prices are caused by tariffs, taxes, and other regulatory barriers. The United States, on the other hand, has the highest per-capita drug expenditure and drug prices in the world.

Bringing a drug to the US market is usually critical for a company to recoup the roughly 2 billion dollars of development costs per successfully launched medicine. At the same time, the country’s unique legal liability and injury system (called tort law) leads to higher drug prices without necessarily creating benefits for patients. Once a drug has passed the rigorous approval process demonstrating safety and efficacy to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is still subject to various liability laws at the state level.

In the last two decades, Pfizer set aside a whopping 21 billion dollars for settlements following tort lawsuits against the diet drug Fen-Phen. Those who were harmed by the drug were able to seek legal recourse. That said, thousands and thousands of people who were not harmed by the drug were also able to seek compensation. So much so that it is assumed that at least 70% of the payouts went to claimants who weren’t harmed at all by the drug.

Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay 8 billion dollars to one patient for side effects caused by the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. These are just a few examples of a plethora of multi-billion-dollar payments drug companies have been compelled to make after being dragged to court, despite them being deemed safe by the FDA.

Patient advocates who are passionate about lowering drug prices in the USA should take a serious look at liability laws and how their misuse inflates prices. Abolishing liability beyond FDA requirements could reduce drug prices in the United States by 12 to 120 billion dollars a year and therefore give many more patients access to medicines. 

In 2019, US patients spent a total of $360 billion on prescription drugs. Between 3 and 30% of this amount could be freed up for other treatments or price cuts if liability rules for FDA-approved drugs would be reformed. This change might seem radical, but it is what Congress has approved for FDA-approved medical devices. A similar preemption was extended to vaccines in the late 1980s via the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Another impact of lawsuits following product withdrawals of FDA-approved drugs is that they negatively affect new investments in development. Pfizer’s settlement for Fen-Phen alone could have been used to bring 10-15 new innovative and life-saving drugs to patients.

Rather than using these financial resources for more research and development, or to lower drug prices, pharmaceutical manufacturers have to fight law firms who enrich themselves by abusing the US tort system. Tort law on top of FDA regulation is not just stifling innovation, but also an expensive way to compensate for the harm caused to patients. Paul H. Rubin suggests that the costs of settlement for the legal process account for half of the total settlement fees. Reducing this burden could increase the speed of new drugs being developed and reduce their price. Critics of tort reform will say that changing liability rules will endanger patients, but that’s far from the truth. A 2007 study shows that tort law reform in some states led to a total of 24,000 fewer deaths due to price reductions and the arrival of new innovative drugs. That’s something to keep in mind.

As long as we keep existing tort law on top of the FDA approval framework, consumers are being de facto forced to pay a massive markup on drugs in order to get insured against potential side effects. This is a very expensive and inefficient way of insuring patients against harm. 

A smarter way of designing such a compensation scheme is to either expand the vaccine compensation scheme to pharmaceuticals or to allow consumers to personally purchase insurance against such damages. This could, for instance, be supplementary insurance on top of the patient’s existing health insurance plans. Such a system would allow patients who opt-in much lower fees than the existing mandatory tort law system.

Exempting drugs from state tort law would be an easy step to reduce drug prices without putting patients under more risk. American patients would save billions a year and be able to access more treatments than they can currently. This will lead to a net benefit for patients and the health of the nation. Why not give it a try?

“Die Schuldigen nicht in den Skihütten von Ischgl suchen”

Die weltweite Verbraucherorganisation Consumer Choice Center nimmt die Gastwirte im österreichischen Party-Hotspot in Schutz.

Après-Ski im Fokus: Der Gastro in Tirol wird vorgeworfen, zur Corona-Ausbreitung beigetragen zu haben

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top