Underwood Sues Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Marketing Practices
The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court on Tuesday, claims Purdue's actions have contributed to the ever-growing opioid epidemic in New York.
August 14, 2018 at 01:53 PM
4 minute read
New York state is suing Purdue Pharma for allegedly misleading prescribers and patients about the risks associated with opioids, including their addictive nature.
The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court on Tuesday, claims Purdue's actions have contributed to the ever-growing opioid epidemic in New York.
Underwood is seeking to have Purdue disgorge any profits it's made through its allegedly deceptive marketing strategies, and pay restitution and damages to the state. The company would also pay at least $15,000 in civil penalties and change the way it markets opioids.
“Through its actions, Purdue and its owners obtained billions of dollars in profits, at the cost of lost lives and tens of billions of dollars in devastation inflicted on communities that are now awash in opioids and their ill effects,” the lawsuit said. “Purdue now must pay penalties and damages to the state of New York for its unlawful conduct, disgorge its ill-gotten gains, and abate the resulting harm inflicted throughout New York.”
The legal action stems from an ongoing investigation by the state and other governmental entities, according to the complaint. The lawsuit claims Purdue downplayed the risk of addiction associated with the opioids it marketed, including how addictive they are and the dangers associated with that addiction.
A top official at Purdue coined the term “pseudoaddiction” for a person's drug-seeking behavior after being prescribed opioids, for example, according to the complaint. The company called that “pseudoaddiction” because it claimed the patient was seeking more opioids for lasting pain, not because of an actual addiction, the lawsuit said.
“Purdue persisted in promoting its drugs to treat patients with these drug-seeking behaviors, arguing that most of them were experiencing pseudoaddiction related to undertreatment of pain—which could only be remedied by more of Purdue's opioids,” the lawsuit said. “Purdue effectively encouraged medical providers to ignore the hallmarks of actual addiction.”
The allegedly deceptive marketing practices continued after Purdue faced enforcement actions from state and federal officials, the complaint said. The company entered into a global criminal, civil and administrative settlement with the federal government in 2007 for $635 million over misleading marketing activities, according to the complaint. Purdue also entered into an agreement with New York in 2015 in which it pledged stronger oversight of its sales representatives, signs of abuse, and inappropriate prescribing methods, Underwood's office said.
The lawsuit claims the company continued to aggressively market its opioids through in-person visits to health care providers and facilities despite those agreements. Purdue made more than 114,000 visits in New York between August 2015 and December 2017 alone, according to the complaint.
Purdue said in a statement Tuesday that it acted appropriately by communicating with prescribers about the opioids it sells.
“We vigorously deny the state's allegations. The state claims Purdue acted improperly by communicating with prescribers about scientific and medical information that FDA has expressly considered and continues to approve,” Purdue said. “We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA.”
The broad claim the state made in the complaint is that Purdue has behaved negligently through its marketing practices, which have resulted in significant harm to New York's residents, sometimes resulting in death. Underwood said in a statement that Purdue has unjustly profited from a product that has endangered the public.
“Our investigation found a pattern of deception and reckless disregard for New Yorkers' health and wellbeing—as Purdue lined its own pockets by deliberately exploiting our communities and fueling an opioid epidemic that's destroyed families across the state,” Underwood said. “We're now holding Purdue to account for this reprehensible and illegal conduct. Our work won't stop with this lawsuit: our office will continue to lead the multistate investigation of opioid manufacturers and distributors across the country.”
Purdue also said in its statement that it recognizes the opioid crisis and offered to work with the state on solutions to address it.
“We share the state's concern about the opioid crisis. While our opioid medicines account for less than 2 percent of total prescriptions, we will continue to work collaboratively with the state toward bringing meaningful solutions to address this public health challenge,” Purdue said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMajor Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLawsuit Alleging $23 Million Contract Breach Against Biogen Moves Forward
Bristol-Myers Squibb Wins Dismissal of $6.4 Billion Lawsuit Alleging Intentional Delay of Cancer Drug
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250