Janssen Sued by NJ Over Opioid Sales, Marketing Practices
The state of New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals claiming the company used deceptive practices in the sale of two powerful opioids, Nucynta and Nucynta ER. The company is denying those claims.
November 13, 2018 at 05:47 PM
3 minute read
The state of New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals claiming the company used deceptive practices in the sale of two powerful opioids, Nucynta and Nucynta ER.
The complaint was filed Tuesday in Mercer County Superior Court but has not been made public, in part because Janssen contends that it contains confidential company information since it is based on internal company documents, according to a release from Attorney General Gurbir Grewal's office.
The state has asked in a motion that the complaint be made public, according to the release, which pressed Janssen to release the documents on its own.
Janssen, meanwhile, is contending that it acted appropriately in marketing the products, which were launched in 2011.
“Janssen helped fuel a public health crisis unlike any other our state has faced,” Grewal said in a statement. “The public has a right to know about Janssen's efforts to mislead healthcare providers and patients, and we will fight any effort to keep today's filing hidden from view. Janssen's conduct was illegal, and details about it should not be kept confidential.”
Grewal said this is the first such case brought by the state against a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
The lawsuit charges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey False Claims Act, and the common-law prohibition against creation of a public nuisance.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and alleges that Janssen's marketing campaign minimized the addictive risks of the drugs and claimed they were less addictive than other opioids.
The lawsuit also claims Janssen's campaign was designed to push long-term opioid use, asserting that “[M]any studies show that opioids are rarely addictive when used properly for the management of chronic pain.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the company targeted the elderly and nonopioid users.
The complaint notes that New Jersey bears the cost of prescription drug coverage for low- and moderate-income residents through its Medicaid programs; for active and retired state employees through two different privately administered health plans; and for state employees injured on the job, via workers' compensation benefits. The office claims the state spent an estimated $12.5 million on claims for Nucynta or Nucynta ER between 2010 and 2017.
The complaint said Janssen, along with other opioid manufacturers, “successfully changed the overall medical and public perception of opioids to something not solely for treatment of acute pain and end-of-life care, but also for long-term treatment of chronic pain conditions.”
Janssen sold its U.S. license rights for Nucynta and Nucynta ER to Depomed, now known as Assertio Therapeutics Inc., for a reported $1.05 billion in 2015.
The state has retained Cohen Milstein for assistance, the statement said.
Janssen issued a statement after the lawsuit was filed.
“Our actions in the marketing and promotion of these medicines were appropriate and responsible. The labels for our prescription opioid pain medicines provide information about their risks and benefits, and the allegations made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated,” the company said. “In fact, since 2008, our opioid medications have accounted for less than one percent of the U.S. market for this class of medications (including generics).
“Opioid abuse and addiction are serious public health issues. We are committed to being part of the ongoing dialogue and to doing our part to find ways to address this crisis.”
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
© 2024 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 All$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readJury Awards Horizon $2.4 Million for Fraudulent Billing Against 3 NJ Health Care Providers
2 minute readVirtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Considers Ability to Add Nonparty Doctors to Med Mal Verdict Sheets
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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