Arnold & Porter’s Consumer Advertising Law Blog, reported late last week on the status of the long-running Nexium class action litigation – the plaintiffs and their counsel likely had terrible cases of acid reflux over the weekend after learning that U. S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno had granted AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Take a look at the post by Randy Shaheen and John Eason.
Posted by Randy Shaheen
AstraZeneca, maker of the blockbuster acid reflux drug Nexium, may have finally ended its five-year class action litigation battle with the Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund, other third party payors, and individual plaintiffs. On May 6, 2010, in Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca, Inc., the US District Court of Delaware granted AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to state claims of consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The court’s opinion, written by Judge Eduardo Robreno, is enlightening in its canvassing of several state consumer protection statutes and, in the process, detailing some nuanced distinctions in consumer protection law, such as the difference between a causation and reliance requirement and between a product purchased for “personal, family or household purposes” and for commercial purposes. It also underscores the high threshold for pleading causation and reliance in consumer fraud actions. [Here’s the rest of the post.]