Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to product liability suits. Hamilton v. AccuTek, the court granted judgment for gun manufacturers for product liability and fraud claims in part because the manufacturers’ attempts to influence federal policies were lawful lobbying attempts.
so why johnson & johnson said on appealing is because they said look, this has nothing to do with why these laws were initially set up. obviously, the attorney general there begs to differ. dana: i m wondering about that too because it is an fda approved drug. oklahoma is saying, well marketed incorrectly but wall street journal writing this today a ruling by an oklahoma judge johnson & johnson to pay 72 million will be shared by everyone who wants a scapegoat for the scores of addiction. but the ruling has four dangerous consequences by opening a vast new arena for product liability suits. the opioid addiction problem is varied and complex and it won t be eased by bankrupting america s pharmaceutical companies. jay and jay is not the only country, purdue for example settled one of these cases. why do they choose to do that and johnson & johnson to appeal? culpability and purdue had no liability associated with the settlement in the state of oklahoma but i agree with the