Both an op-ed in the LA Times and Alex Tabarrok bemoan the lack of a safe harbor for industries that have to comply with extensive regulations before releasing a product; even getting expensive and time-consuming certification from the FDA that a drug is "safe and effective" won't protect a manufacturer from lawsuits claiming that the product is unreasonably dangerous on flimsy evidence. Such protection exists for medical devices (as opposed to drugs) under federal law, though some courts' narrow view of pre-emption law permit suits to go forward anyway. (Henry I. Miller, "There's a Cure for Frivolous Drug Lawsuits", LA Times, Aug. 16; Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution blog, Jul. 27; Shannon P. Duffy, "FDA's Approval of Medical Device Bars Products Suit", Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 22; see also this site, Jul. 26 and Jul. 26; Overlawyered, Jul. 14 and links therein).
Double Hurdles
Related Entries:
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Romney and self-deporting
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Rehearing sought in Mensing
- Around the web, June 5
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Martin Act abuses
- "Abnormal Use" interview
- Lasker on preemption
- Around the web, March 28
- Teva and Baxter appeal $505 million Nevada propofol verdict
- Breaking: unanimous vote against preemption in Williamson v. Mazda
- Tort reform and federalism
- Regulatory creep in action
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



