There’s Something Brewing in your Coffee…But Do We All Need to Know?

Written By Amanda Cramer

 

California is relatively progressive when it comes to most issues. But has it gone too far? A judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that coffee must now carry a warning about a cancer-causing chemical simmering inside each cup. While such a decision may sound ominous, a look inside California’s mechanism for imposing such warnings proves that these cancer notices may be anything but.

Proposition 65

All over California, people cannot seem to escape warning signs in bold, capital letters of the risk of cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms from various products. This all began when California voters passed legislation called Proposition 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Under Proposition 65, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment compiles a list of chemicals, currently at nearly 900, that are known to cause cancer or birth defects. Businesses in California are then required to alert consumers if any of these chemicals are present on their premises. The law relies on citizen enforcement, and it allows anyone to sue. There is no injury requirement, and plaintiffs do not even need to have purchased the product that is the subject of the suit. Further, the law incentivizes private plaintiffs by allowing them, if successful, to share in any civil penalties awarded, in addition to entitling them to seek attorney’s fees.

Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al.

In 2010, a not-for-profit group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, sued 90 coffee retailers, arguing that they were violating Proposition 65 by failing to warn consumers of a chemical in their coffee that could cause cancer. The chemical, acrylamide, forms naturally in some foods as they are cooked at high temperatures, and it has been found to cause cancer in mice in high doses. That danger has placed acrylamide on the Proposition 65 list of cancer causing chemicals.

The case was divided into phases, with the first phase of the trial covering “Defendants’ affirmative defenses of (1) ‘no significant risk level’; (2) First Amendment; and (3) federal preemption.” The court rejected the defendants’ arguments during this phase of the trial and, thus, the defendants moved on to phase two of the case, where a ruling was released on March 28, 2018.

In phase two, the defendants––who include Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc., the J.M. Smucker Company, Kraft Foods Global, and Starbucks, among others––argued that the levels of acrylamide in coffee should be considered safe and that the health benefits of coffee outweigh the risks of acrylamide. The defendants tried to prevail at trial by showing that, while their product may contain acrylamide, considerations of public health would support such an alternative risk level for exposure to the chemical, in addition to showing that this alternative level is supported by a quantitative risk assessment. They presented evidence from renowned experts, such as David Kessler, the former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under both President Bush and President Clinton. Another expert, who performed a quantitative risk assessment of acrylamide, was also used. However, the court ultimately ruled that the “[d]efendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health.”

The defendants are represented by lawyers from many of the nation’s largest law firms. The plaintiff is represented by a four-person firm. Ultimately, this was a David-and-Goliath battle, and David and his slingshot prevailed.

Burden of Proof 

The defendants’ loss might seem surprising, however, much of it may have to do with the high burden of proof they faced in this case. When a plaintiff brings suit under Proposition 65, he or she only needs to show that a chemical in a product sold by a defendant is listed as harmful under the law. The burden is then shifted to the defendant to prove that the chemical is present at such a low level that the product does not require a warning. Here, the defendants had to prove that acrylamide in coffee would not cause one or more cases of cancer for every 100,000 people exposed, over a period of 70 years.

Statistically, meeting this empirical burden was a near practical impossibility for the defendants. The lifetime risk of cancer is one in two; thus, of the theoretical 100,000 coffee drinkers exposed to acrylamide, roughly 50,000 of them would eventually develop cancer for a host of other reasons in 70 years. Therefore, proving that one of those 100,000 people would develop cancer specifically because of acrylamide, rather than family history, genetics, or any other carcinogenic exposures would require a 70-year long study carefully controlling all the exposures to everything on earth in more than 100,000 people. But experimenting with 100,000 people would still not be enough. It would require more than 85 billion participants to build up the statistical power to support a strong claim that acrylamide does not cause cancer in one or more people out of every 100,000. This would become the largest, longest, and costliest study in the history of biomedical research, by orders of magnitude.

Conclusion

While this may all seem daunting, it is important for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers outside of California to be aware. Proposition 65 allows a suit to be initiated against any company with more than 10 employees doing business in California. After a successful suit, not only would a warning be necessary for the product, but companies could also be required to pay penalties of “up to $2,500 ‘per day for each violation.’” This means that even small, New York companies, who have no similar law in their states, but that occasionally sell products to stores in California, should be aware of the listed chemicals under Proposition 65 in order to make their business decisions accordingly.

Although many businesses have been ‘steaming’ over the ruling, they are not the only ones feeling the impact. When cancer notices are brewing everywhere, from indoor garages to the Disneyland Resort to any place that serves alcohol, this may quickly diminish the purpose of the law and make customers overlook such warnings.

 

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

Alexander Nazaryan, Will coffee in California come with a cancer warning?, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 18, 2018).

Brendan Borrell, Are Proposition 65 warnings healthful or hurtful?, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 2, 2009).

California coffee may soon come with a cancer warning, but should consumers worry?, CBS News (Feb. 8, 2018).

Council for Educ. and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al., No. BC435759, (Super. Ct. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018).

David Spiegelhalter, Coffee and cancer: what Starbucks might have argued, University of Cambridge: Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication (Apr. 2, 2018).

Jenna Greene, Daily Dicta: Bitter Brew: What Went Wrong in California’s Coffee Lawsuit, The American Lawyer: Litigation Daily (Apr. 2, 2018).

Nate Raymond, Starbucks coffee in California must have cancer warning, judge says, Reuters (Mar. 29, 2018).

Norman C. Hile, et al., Beware Calif.’s Proposition 65, Law 360 (Jul. 19, 2011).

State of Cal. E.P.A. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment Safe Drinking Water And Toxic Enforcement Act Of 1986, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity (Dec. 29, 2017).

Photo courtesy of CNN.

Detained Immigrant Minors Guaranteed Access to Abortions


Facebook Faced with Data Breach Controversy  

Written By Amy Johnson

 

The New York Times recently revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a data analysis firm based in London, was hired by the Trump Campaign to “harvest private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission.” Facebook has faced growing backlash since the information was revealed – their stocks have been dropping, Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos has stepped down, Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg is expected to brief congressional committees, and as of March 21, 2018, both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have been sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Mark Zuckerberg called the scandal “a major breach of trust” during a recent interview with CNN.

What did Facebook and Cambridge Analytica do?

Cambridge is a company owned by billionaire Robert Mercer. Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser, is alleged to have presided over a project with Cambridge Analytica in which information was obtained to construct and analyze voter profiles. The company worked with the Trump Campaign team to compile millions of United States Facebook users’ profiles to build a program to predict and influence voter choices. This data was obtained through Aleksandr Kogan, a Cambridge University researcher, who created a personality quiz for users to take on Facebook. Once a user linked into the quiz, Kogan was able to access the user’s page and data. Through several hundred thousand quiz takers, Kogan was able to access more than 50 million Facebook users’ profiles, later targeting them with personally-tailored political advertisements. In other words, if a user took the quiz, he or she (and thousands of Facebook friends’ ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’) were accessible.

Kogan’s access to this data was known to Facebook and was consistent with Facebook’s developer application program interface (“API”). The Facebook developer page shows that their application program creator allows developers of apps to not only get user’s account information, but to access information like “friends_interests” and “friends_religion_politics.” However, Facebook’s policy only allowed for the collection of friends’ data for the purpose of improving user experience in the app – not for sale or advertising uses. This “unprecedented data harvesting” of millions of Facebook users’ information by Cambridge Analytica, and more specifically, the use of that data, raises many new questions about Facebook’s role in targeting United States voters in the past election.

In the midst of the reveal of the Cambridge Analytica breach, President Donald J. Trump took to Twitter to discuss his campaign’s success in utilizing social media during his campaign. He tweeted, “Remember when they were saying, during the campaign, that Donald Trump is giving great speeches and drawing big crowds, but he is spending much less money and not using social media as well as Crooked Hillary’s large and highly sophisticated staff. Well, not saying that anymore!”

What Laws Might Apply to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?

With one lawsuit filed, and a potential for more filings in the future, there are several ways that Facebook users and Facebook could proceed to court.

(1) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

The CFAA provides criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized access to computer networks. However, the statute itself focuses on the “authorization” of the “accesser” which, technically, Kogan had. The quiz created required voluntary action on part of the user in taking the quiz, which notified the user of access to their user profiles. In a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the Court stated “a defendant can run afoul of the CFAA when he or she has no permission to access a computer” when the permission granted “has been revoked explicitly.” However, the Court did not say that ‘overstaying one’s welcome’ was a violation of the CFAA. Here, Kogan had authorization to the Facebook profiles and that authorization was not revoked during his access. He may have done more than “welcome,” but it will be up to the courts to determine whether or not this constitutes a violation.

The CFAA also punishes users who exceed authorized access, which could be where Kogan is deemed to be in violation. However, the language in the statute states that exceeding authorized access is accessing “a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled to.” When Kogan created the quiz, he obtained access to information in a way allowed by Facebook’s API; yet, when that information was subsequently used beyond what Facebook allows, it lent itself to a possible violation of the CFAA.

(2) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules

Bloomberg recently reported that the FTC is also investigating whether Facebook violated the terms of the 2011 consent decree between the social media site and the FTC. The decree provided that Facebook needs to be transparent about user privacy and to not deceive its users as to how their data will be used. If a court finds that Facebook violated this policy, the penalty could be up to $40,000 per day per violation. Lawmakers have also asked the FTC to look into whether Facebook should pay damages to individual users. The FTC said in a statement that “it takes very seriously recent press reports raising substantial concerns about the privacy practices of Facebook.” A group of 37 attorneys have sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg for details on Facebook’s privacy safeguards.

(3) Securities Law

Securities law encourages companies to “disclose material information promptly, including disclosures pertaining to cybersecurity matters.” Facebook’s 2014 and 2015 reports have no mention of the Cambridge Analytica incident, and the site, as a whole, mentions data breach as a risk but never discloses if any breaches took place. Moreover, Facebook never reported this incident to investors or to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). It remains to be seen whether the SEC will pursue action against Facebook, along with the potential forthcoming actions of the FTC and individual users.

What’s Next?

Moving forward, users can expect to see hearings, lawsuits, potential jail time, and in general terms, what has been described by some as a regulatory nightmare. For Facebook, pinning this breach on Kogan and Cambridge may be key. If not, users may observe the downfall of the social media tycoon.

 


Sources Cited

Andrew Keane Woods, The Cambridge Analytica-Facebook Debacle: A Legal Primer, Lawfare (March 20, 2018).

Carole Cadwalladr, Emma Graham-Harrison, Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach, The Guardian (March 17, 2018).

Facebook, Inc., v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016).

Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001, Pub. L. 99-474 (1986).

Tiffany Hsu & Cecilia Kang, Facebook Comes Under Scrutiny of Federal Trade Commission, New York Times (March 26, 2018).

Eric Auchard, Jonathan Stempel, Facebook, Cambridge Analytica sued in U.S. by users over data harvesting, Reuters (March 21, 2018).

Dustin Volz, David Shepardson, Munsif Vengattil, Facebook investors fret over costs as Zuckerberg apologizes, Reuters (March 22, 2018).

Photo courtesy of New York Post.

It’s All Political: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Written By Sara D. Lupi

 

“So somebody goes to the polling place and is wearing a shirt, doesn’t say anything about a candidate or a ballot issue, but a particular election judge, one of these people picked by one of the two parties, says, oh, that’s political . . . so now this person has a choice.  The person can wear a bathrobe or some kind of coverup to go in and vote . . . Or the person can be listed as a bad Minnesotan and, at some point down the road, potentially fined $300, found to have committed a petty offense.”  – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Background

During the November 2010 election, Petitioner Andrew Cilek entered his designated polling place in Hennepin County. He was wearing a “Please I.D. Me” button and a Tea Party t-shirt with the message “Don’t Tread on Me” and a Gadsden Flag.  Cilek twice tried to enter the polling place, and on each attempt he was told that he either needed to cover his t-shirt and button, or take them off in order to vote. He refused.  On his third try, Cilek was allowed to vote, but the election judge wrote down his name and address for potential prosecution.

Pursuant to Minnesota election law, Section 211B.11, all political apparel is banned inside a polling place, including political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia.  Campaign-related material promoting specific candidates is prohibited, as well as material “designed to influence and impact voting (including specifically the ‘Please I.D. Me’ buttons)” and “[m]aterial promoting a group with recognizable political views (such as the Tea Party, MoveOn.Org, and so on).”  Election judges at each polling place determine whether an individual is in violation of the statute.  Those in violation are asked to remove the materials or to cover them up.  Those who refuse to comply are still allowed to vote, but their names are recorded for potential prosecution.

Cilek, along with his organization, the Minnesota Voters Alliance (together, Petitioners), filed a lawsuit claiming Section 211B.11 violated the First Amendment, both facially and as-applied.

The District Court dismissed Petitioners claims, and on appeal, the Eighth Circuit upheld the ban against Petitioners’ facial claim and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the as-applied claim, remanding it back to the district court.  Petitioners filed their first petition for a writ of certiorari, which was denied by the Supreme Court, and the case proceeded in the lower courts, where the as-applied challenge was rejected again.  Petitioners then filed another writ of certiorari, limited to the facial challenge.  The Supreme Court granted writ and heard oral arguments on February 28, 2018.

Precedent

In Burson v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court upheld a section of the Tennessee Code which prohibited solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of entrance to polling places.  The Court found the code section to be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of protecting the right of its citizens to vote freely and effectively.

Petitioners’ Oral Arguments

Counsel for Petitioners began their argument by clarifying that the only question before the court was whether Section 211B.11 of Minnesota election law violated the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.  Petitioners asserted that the statute goes beyond prohibiting advocacy for a particular candidate or ballot issue and that it prohibits “self-expression of personal values and associations.”  Petitioners distinguished these facts from Burson by characterizing their display of political material here as “passive” rather than the “active campaigning” which was at issue in Burson.  Petitioners further acknowledged that the State’s interests in protecting a citizen’s right to vote are addressed by anti-intimidation statutes, and they made the argument that there is no “right to vote free of being bothered at all.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy posited the question of whether political speech should be allowed in polling places at all, since voters are there to vote and nothing else.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor built on this question, asking if a state could constitutionally limit any kind of political speech in a polling place, since it is not a public forum.

Respondents’ Oral Arguments

Counsel for Respondents began their argument by establishing that the State’s interest is to “protect the integrity of the elections[,]” which they intended to do “by preserving order and decorum in the polling place.”  The State’s position is that political material worn by voters might confuse and intimidate other voters.  The “test[,]” which Minnesota utilizes in determining if material is prohibited, is whether a “reasonable person would understand that the message that’s being delivered is one regarding electoral choices in the polling place.”

Justice Alito pointed out that in the current political climate, many things have a political implication; therefore, on election day, Alito mentioned how each voter would have to have knowledge of every candidate and every ballot question, thereafter determining if what they were wearing has a political connotation.  Counsel replied by pointing out that a reasonable person would only recognize those political messages that were “well known.”  In response to this, Justice Alito questioned Counsel as to whether rainbow flags on t-shirts would be permitted, or whether an NRA t-shirt would be permitted, as both could be linked to political issues.  Counsel responded that a rainbow flag would be allowed as long as there was not a question related to gay rights on the ballot.  However, an NRA t-shirt would not be allowed, as it has a “clear indication” that it relates to a political issue.

What’s Next?

Although Burson suggests otherwise, it is likely that the Justices will rule in favor of Petitioners, finding the statute not to be narrowly tailored.  As Justice Alito’s line of questioning suggests, in this political climate, many slogans and insignias can have a political connotation. Nevertheless, Respondent’s argument and reliance on Burson, that political material in the polling place could intimidate voters, is a valid state interest.  A decision is expected by June of this year, so we will have to wait a few months to find out if that interest is compelling, as well as whether Minnesota has narrowly tailored its voting laws to address that interest.

 


Sources Cited

Amy Howe, Argument preview: Justices to hear challenges to Minnesota voting dress code, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 23, 2018).

Amy Howe, Argument analysis: Justices debate decorum, line-drawing and “political apparel at the polls, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 28, 2018).

Amy Howe, Justices to hear challenge to Minnesota voting dress code: In Plain English, SCOTUSBlog (Jan. 22, 2018).

Burson v. Tennessee, 504 U.S. 191 (1992).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Minn. Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2017) (No. 16-1435).

Transcript of Oral Argument, Minn. Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018) (No. 16-1435).

Photo courtesy of Pacific Legal Foundation.

USSF: Playing Monopoly or Soccer?

Written By Nick Constantino

 

The North American Soccer League (NASL) announced that it has canceled its 2018 season after it failed to receive a preliminary injunction, which would have prevented the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) from revoking NASL’s Division II status.

Background

USSF is the official governing body of soccer in the United States. The U.S. professional soccer structure, organized by USSF, is split into three different divisions (I, II, and III), with I being at the top of the pyramid, and III at the bottom. Similar to the structure of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), Division I status is the most desirable. NASL’s Division I status signifies the highest level of competition and overall status, with several competitive and financial benefits, including better positioning in international competitions and higher-quality sponsorships and television deals. Those benefits decrease along with the division level.

To meet Division I standards, USSF requires a league to have at least 16 teams, stadiums with a capacity of more than 15,000, and that a certain number of those teams be located in cities that have a population of at least 2 million people. Currently, and likely for the foreseeable future, Major League Soccer (MLS) is the only sanctioned USSF Division I league in the United States.

In contrast, to meet Division II standards, USSF requires leagues to have at least 12 teams, in addition to having teams located in the Eastern, Central, and Pacific time zones. As of this year, the United Soccer League (USL) is the only sanctioned Division II league, which is the reason for NASL bringing a lawsuit.

There are currently no Division III leagues recognized by USSF. However, two leagues are reportedly eying Division III status by 2020.

NASL Fights Back

NASL is a professional men’s soccer league with five teams headquartered in New York City. A group of teams founded NASL in late 2009. From its inaugural season in 2011, it was sanctioned by USSF as a Division II league. However, in August of 2017, USSF revoked NASL’s Division II status because the league fell short of the two requirements, as NASL prepared to host only 8 teams for the 2018 season, none of which were located in the Central time zone.

In response, NASL filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. NASL also requested a preliminary injunction to preserve its Division II status while the court considered the underlying claims.

NASL argues that USSF’s joint financial ties to MLS represent a fundamental conflict of interest, resulting in an antitrust violation that interferes with U.S. Soccer’s independence in setting and applying their standards to NASL and other Division II sanctioning. This is because MLS and USSF are partners in Soccer United Marketing, a company with an estimated value of $2 billion. NASL argues that being corporate partners is motivation for USSF to deny NASL Division II status because USSF is protecting their corporate partner’s interests by not allowing a potential competitor to the MLS. Although NASL and MLS would not be direct competitors if USSF granted the NASL Division II status, the next ‘step up’ for NASL would be Division I status, consequently placing NASL in direct competition with MLS.

Hearing the Injunction

During the preliminary injunction hearing, NASL did not challenge the authority of USSF to establish divisional tiers or even promulgate standards for professional leagues, both issues potentially subject to antitrust regulation. Instead, NASL attempted to eliminate the standards it did not meet, arguing a concerted effort between USSF, MLS, and USL to effectively ‘crowd’ NASL out of the soccer market.

Under federal antitrust laws, a court may issue a preliminary injunction where a party shows (1) irreparable harm; (2) a likelihood of success on the merits of the original claim; (3) a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party; and (4) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. However, the court will only grant an injunction in a situation altering a result already decided (in this case, USSF revoking NASL’s division II status) “upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested.”

Here, Judge Margo K. Brodia found that NASL would suffer “irreparable harm” upon losing its Division II status. She determined that NASL might even fold as a league or lose valuable investors if USSF revoked their Division II status. Both of those factors, she concluded, constitute “irreparable harm.”

She then found that the hardship NASL would suffer “tips slightly” more in favor of NASL, in comparison to the harm USSF would sustain by disrupting its regulatory authority, and that granting the injunction would not harm the public interest.

Despite all of this, Judge Brodia found that NASL failed to prove they were clearly entitled to the relief requested. She determined that, “despite the ample evidence of a conflict of interest between [USSF] and MLS, [NASL] fails to present sufficient evidence of undue influence in the actual standard-setting process.” Judge Brodia did not think that the conflict of interest between USSF and MLS influenced the decision to deny NASL’s status, rather, she found that NASL failed to meet Division II requirements due to their own fault.  Consequently, Judge Brodia denied NASL’s claim.

NASL appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit on December 15, 2017. In their appeal, NASL argued that the District Court abused its discretion in applying the preliminary injunction standard.

On February 23, 2018, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Brodia’s decision.

What’s Next?

On February 27, 2018, NASL’s Interim Commissioner, Rishi Sehgal, announced that the league was cancelling its 2018 season and would be shifting its focus “to securing the longer-term advancement of soccer in this country, not only for the NASL, but for all soccer fans, clubs, and communities impacted by the USSF’s restrictions on competition.”

Just one week after the decision to cancel the upcoming season, NASL dropped down to just three teams. The New York Cosmos, Miami FC, and Jacksonville Armada will instead play this year in the National Premier Soccer League, a semi-professional competition not sanctioned by the USSF.

 

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

NASL Staff, North American Soccer League Announces Cancellation of 2018 Season, NASL (Feb. 27, 2018).

Injunctive Relief for Private Parties, 15 U.S.C. § 26 (1914).

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2014).

Anthony Gruppuso, NASL Cancels Complete 2018 Season After Court Ruling, ESPN (Feb. 27, 2018).

Jeff Carlisle, NASL Sues U.S. Soccer Directors Over Acting to Protect Interests, ESPN (Feb. 6, 2018).

Photo courtesy of NASL.com.

Georgia Tax Bill Clear for Takeoff While Second Amendment Grounds Delta’s Exemption

Written By Erika L. Simonson

Since the February shooting in Parkland, Florida, several companies have ended their relationships with the National Rifle Association (NRA). One corporation, Delta Air Lines, responded to the tragedy with an attempt to “remain neutral” in the national gun debate by removing its discount for NRA members. However, instead of removing itself from the gun debate, Delta found its company at the center of the conversation.

Background

Seventeen students and adults were killed on February 14, 2018, when a lone gunman opened fire in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School with an AR-15 assault rifle. According to The Guardian, this was the eighth shooting of the year in the United States to have resulted in a death or injury.

The nation’s response to Parkland was swift, led in part by the activism of some students present in the high school during the attack. Companies like Walmart, Kroger, L.L. Bean, and Dick’s Sporting Goods announced they would no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21 years of age. REI cut ties with Vista Outdoor, a company that manufactures guns and supports the NRA. MetLife, Hertz, Enterprise Holdings, and United Airlines ended discount programs for NRA members. Finally, Delta Air Lines also ended their NRA discount program in what they called an attempt to “remain neutral” in the national gun debate.

Action in Atlanta

While these companies’ actions were met with both applause and criticism nationwide, Delta became the center of attention for Georgia legislators. Within days of Delta’s statement about removing its NRA member discount and taking a neutral stance, the Georgia legislature struck down a jet fuel tax exemption that would have been lucrative for Delta, the state’s largest private employer.

Georgia began offering this tax break to a financially-struggling Delta after the recession in 2008. The state stopped offering that tax cut in 2015, but it was on track to reinstate it again this year. Days after Delta’s statement, however, the proposed tax break was killed in the Georgia Senate, following a push by Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign the tax bill, sans jet fuel exemption. This missed tax exemption opportunity for Delta will add up to nearly $50 million a year.

Delta and First Amendment Rights

The first free speech case involving a business was decided in 1952 in Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, in which the Supreme Court of the United Stated (SCOTUS) struck down a New York law that forbid the commercial showing of any film deemed “sacrilegious.” In 1976, in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, SCOTUS created the “commercial speech doctrine,” which gave courts the power to strike down laws regulating the market and advertising of products with no artistic, political, or expressive component. More recently, in 2010, SCOTUS held in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. This means that SCOTUS’ previous decisions on freedom of speech would also protect the right of corporations – including Delta – to engage in political speech, symbolic speech, and to be free from compelled speech. In consequence, several media outlets have accused Georgia of violating Delta’s First Amendment rights.

Media outlets often rely on the 2011 decision Sorrell v. IMS Health for support of a First Amendment violation. In that case, SCOTUS struck down a Vermont statute, the Prescription Confidentiality Act, that prohibited the sale or use of a doctor’s prescribing habits for marketing purposes. The Act was passed in response to several pharmaceutical companies using individual doctors’ prescribing habits without the doctors’ consent. SCOTUS held that content-based or speaker-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful goods or services should be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny. This heightened level of scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate with greater certainty that its purposes could not be achieved by means that do not entail speech restrictions.

Therefore, while on its face, Georgia’s “retaliation” against Delta may seem like a violation of Delta’s free speech rights, there is uncertainty as to whether any case would get very far in the courts. This is because this case is distinct from Sorrell, as Georgia did not pass a law that infringed upon Delta’s free speech, rather, Georgia declined to pass a law at all. Further, the Georgia legislators provided seemingly sufficient non-speech reasons for the tax bill.

Conclusion

Atlanta is Delta’s largest hub, at three times the size of the next two busiest hubs. Delta is unlikely to move its corporate headquarters, as it would be costly to separate the headquarters and Delta executives from the busiest hub. Georgia is also inclined to keep ties with the airline, since the Atlanta airport – Hartfield-Jackson – remains the busiest airport in the world. Moreover, Delta employs more than 30,000 people in the state and contributes more than $43 billion to the state’s economy each year.

In consequence, this missed opportunity of a $50-million savings may just be a ‘drop in the bucket’ for Delta, who reported more than $41 billion in revenue last year. So, despite the loss of this exemption, it is not likely we’ll see Delta break ties with Georgia anytime soon. It remains to be seen whether a lawsuit, or hardline conversation, will be born of this controversy.

 

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

 

Sources Cited

Alana Wise, Georgia Lawmakers Kill Proposed Tax Break in Dig at Delta Over NRA Fight, Reuters (Mar. 1, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-delta-air-tax/georgia-lawmakers-kill-proposed-tax-break-in-dig-at-delta-over-nra-fight-idUSKCN1GD6M7.

Citizens United v. Federal Trade Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Danielle Weiner-Bronner, Why Delta and Atlanta Need Each Other, CNN (Mar. 1, 2018), http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/news/companies/delta-atlanta-tax-break/index.html.

Jason Hanna, Faith Karimi and Emanuella Grinberg, Gunman Confessed to Florida High School Shooting, Police Say, CNN (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html.

Joseph Burnstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952).

Julia Horowitz and Jackie Wattles, These Companies are Distancing Themselves From the Gun Industry, CNN (Mar 3, 2018), http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/news/companies/companies-cutting-ties-nra-gun-lobby/index.html.

Julie Creswell and Michael Corkey, Walmart and Dick’s Raise Minimum Age for Gun Buyers to 21, N.Y. Times (Feb. 28, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/walmart-and-dicks-major-gun-retailers-will-tighten-rules-on-guns-they-sell.html.

Lois Beckett, How Many U.S. School Shootings Have There Been in 2018 So Far?,  Gaurdian (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far.

Meagan Flynn, Boycott: REI, Mountain Equipment Co-Op Stop Selling Major Outdoor Brand with NRA Ties, Wash. Post (Mar. 2, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/02/gun-boycott-rei-mountain-equipment-co-op-stop-selling-major-outdoor-brand-due-to-its-weapons-sales-nra-ties/?utm_term=.2c577a8a4071.

Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).

Tiffany Hsu, ‘Our Values Are Not For Sale,’ Says Delta C.E.O. as Airline Considers Ending Divisive Discounts, N.Y. Times (Mar. 2, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/business/delta-nra-discount.html.

Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976).

Photo courtesy of Small Town Rules.

Rick Gates Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges

Written by Lisa Knab

 

Background

Rick Gates, a former campaign official for President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to two criminal charges on February 23, 2018. The plea came less than 24 hours after a grand jury indicted him on a host of new charges.

With 32 total indictments, growing from the initial eight he faced as of October 2018, Gates sent a letter sent to family and friends. In it, he explained that despite his “initial desire to vigorously defend” himself, Gates made the decision to plead guilty in an attempt to protect his four children. In weighing a guilty plea against the costly and time-consuming process of proceeding to trial, Gates stated that he felt he would “better serve [his] family moving forward by exiting [the] process.”

The charges Gates pleaded guilty to include conspiring to defraud the United States and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when trying to secure an earlier plea deal. The conspiracy charge stemmed from an intense investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, which uncovered what prosecutors allege to be a decade-long scheme. Prosecutors claim that Gates, led by long-time business partner Paul Manafort, laundered millions of dollars the pair made while working for a political party in Ukraine. According to the prosecution, the pair used the money to buy property and luxurious goods to support Manafort’s “lavish lifestyle.”

Manafort, who was also indicted on 32 charges, has maintained his innocence. In a statement made shortly after Gates’ guilty plea, Manafort stated that he “had hoped and expected [his] business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove [their] innocence.” Nevertheless, Manafort stated that Gates’ decision did “not alter [his own] commitment to defend [him]self against the untrue piled-up charges contained in the indictments against [him].”

The Plea Deal

As part of the deal, in exchange for admitting to conspiring to defraud the United States and lying to the FBI, the prosecution has agreed to drop various charges, including a forfeiture demand that, if convicted, could have made Gates liable for up to $18 million.

In addition, the deal provides that Gates will cooperate with Mueller and his associates in their continued investigation of Manafort. This is significant because, as Manafort’s long-time, right-hand man, Gates was trusted with information regarding Manafort’s alleged schemes.

Without the deal, and without considering the dropped charges, Gates could have faced up to 10 years in prison on the conspiracy and lying charges alone. However, under the deal, prosecutors have agreed that Gates will receive a recommended sentence of only four-to-six years, as well as a fine between $20,000 and $200,000. The final sentence will factor in Gates’ cooperation in aiding the investigation of Manafort.

Finally, Gates’ lawyer retains the right to advocate for an even lesser sentence based on Gates’ “disproportionate conduct” as compared to Manafort. A status hearing has been set for May 14, 2018, at which time the government will update the court on the status of the case, including Gates’ cooperation up until that point.

Cooperation and Additional Factors

While everyone following the investigations led by Mueller will likely have an opinion on the sentence Gates should receive, the final decision is in the hands of the judge. In addition to considering Gates’ cooperation and “disproportionate conduct,” the judge may consider various other mitigating or aggravating factors. An aggravating factor is a circumstance which would merit a greater sentence, while a mitigating factor is one which would support a lesser sentence.

As explained above, the judge will consider Gates’ cooperation when imposing a sentence. Depending on the actions of Gates in the coming weeks, this could serve as either a mitigating or aggravating factor. In other words, if Gates cooperates only minimally, the judge may view this as cause for a greater sentence. On the other hand, if Gates provides the government with a great deal of useful information concerning the activities of Manafort, the judge may view this as warranting a lesser sentence. Keeping in line with precedent, it is likely the judge will also consider any “disproportionate conduct,” any existence, or lack thereof, of a prior criminal record, as well as whether Gates feels genuine remorse.

Conclusion

While part of Gates’ plea deal includes a recommended sentence of four-to-six years, the actual sentence handed down is dependent upon factors weighed by the judge. The main factor for consideration will be his cooperation with the government in the investigation of Manafort. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether Gates’ actions, over the next few weeks, will play a key role in the fate of Manafort and/or mitigate the length of his own sentence.

 

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, JUSTIA (last visited Feb. 24, 2018).

Debra Cassens Weiss, Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates pleads guilty in special counsel probe, ABA Journal (Feb. 23, 2018).

Devlin Barnett and Spencer S. Hsu, Former Trump campaign official Rick Gates pleads guilty to 2 charges, The Washington Post (Feb. 23, 2018).

Zoe Tillman, Former Trump Campaign Adviser Rick Gates Pleaded Guilty To Conspiracy And Lying To Investigators, BuzzFeed News (Feb. 23, 2018).

Photo created by a court artist, courtesy of VOA News.

Powerball Winner Fights to Remain Anonymous

Written By Meghan Vumback

 A New Hampshire woman (“Jane Doe”) who won a $559.7 million Powerball jackpot in January can begin collecting her money while a Judge determines whether she can remain anonymous.

Background

Jane Doe purchased the Jan. 6 winning Powerball ticket at Reeds Ferry Market in Merrimack, New Hampshire . Upon realizing that the winning numbers matched the numbers on her ticket, she went to the Commission website and read the instructions on the back of her ticket. In following the Commission’s instructions, Jane Doe printed her name, address, city, phone number, and signed the back of her ticket. However, she was not aware that in doing so she was signing away her anonymity.

Upon retaining counsel, Jane Doe learned that the State of New Hampshire allows tickets to be signed by the trustee of a designated trust so that a winner can maintain privacy, and that in signing her name on the back of her winning ticket, she had relinquished her right to that privilege. Essentially, because she used her personal information, and not a designated trustee to sign the back of her lottery ticket, that information will become public once she submits her ticket to the Commission.

Oral Arguments

Jane Doe filed a complaint in the New Hampshire Superior Court in an effort to remain anonymous. Due to the size of her award, she is seeking to have her name, address, and other identifying information exempt from disclosure. She further requests that the Court authorize the winning ticket to be assigned to a trust that she has created for this purpose. Alternatively, Jane Doe requests that she be allowed to “white out” her name and replace the information with that of the trust she created.

Jane Doe is arguing that her privacy interests significantly outweigh the need for her information to become public. As a long-time resident of New Hampshire, and an engaged member of the community, she wishes to continue having the freedom to participate in community events and everyday activities without being targeted as the winner of half of a billion dollars.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office, which is representing the Commission, filed a legal response arguing that releasing Jane Doe’s information is consistent with New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law, in which lottery tickets with the winner’s name, hometown, and prize amounts must be released.

The Attorney General’s office is asserting that the public’s right to know who won the nation’s eighth-largest lottery jackpot does outweigh Jane Doe’s minimal privacy interests. They argue first that failing to publicize her identity could erode trust in the lottery system. Second, they argue that the disclosure of a person’s name and hometown does not implicate substantial privacy interests.

What’s Next?

In order to make a determination on this case, the judge is going to have to look at the totality of the circumstances and balance the interests of both parties to determine which interest prevails: the privacy interests of Jane Doe, or the public’s interests in transparency in the operation of lottery games.

The $559.7 million Powerball jackpot is available for distribution and has been since January 22, 2018. Because Jane Doe has not yet submitted her ticket to the Commission, she is losing about $14,000 a day in interest. In consequence, a judge has allowed for the jackpot to be put into a temporary trust until a final ruling is made. It is unclear when Judge Charles Temple will decide the case.

“Regardless of whether the court ultimately decides in her favor, Ms. Doe has a strong interest in seeing this matter resolved as quickly as possible so that the prize can be claimed without further loss of interest.”

 

 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

Aric Jenkins, New Hampshire’s Attorney General to Powerball Winner: You Can’t Remain Anonymous, Time (Feb. 13, 2018).

New Hampshire Powerball Winner Argues for Privacy But to Also Receive Winnings, CBS (Feb. 13, 2018).

Cleve R. Wootson Jr., All she has to do to collect a $560 million lotto jackpot is make her name public. She refuses., The Washington Post (Feb. 13, 2018).

Maurice Kreis, Jane Doe vs. Right-to-Know in NH: A Tragedy in the Making, InDepth.org (Feb. 16, 2018).

Complaint For Declaratory Judgement and Injunctive Relief and Request for Immediate and Expedited Hearing as Time is of the Essence, Jane Doe v. New Hampshire Lottery Commission (Jan. 29, 2018).

Photo courtesy via WEAU 13 News.

Chuck Norris Hits CBS, Sony With $30M Lawsuit for ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ Lost Profits

Written by Stefani B. Joslin

Background

From 1993 to 2003, actor Chuck Norris starred in the hit television series, Walker, Texas Ranger (“Walker”). When the show began in 1993, Norris entered into a contract with CBS and SONY Pictures over how he and his company, Top Kick Productions (“Top Kick”), would receive profits from the show.

Recently, Norris claimed he has not received the profits that were promised to him not under the agreement. Through Top Kick, he filed suit on January 31st in the Los Angeles Superior Court against CBS and SONY for $30 million, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Agreement

CBS and SONY had contractually agreed to pay Norris, through Top Kick, 23% of the revenue from the show. This agreement also prevented CBS from deducting revenue costs that were unrelated to the production of Walker.

The 23% clause was meant to be stable over time and have similar longevity. A layout of how profit would be calculated through the showing of the program, for instance on television or DVDs, was also set out in the contract. CBS and SONY were obligated to accurately report revenue, as well as other expenses related to Walker, in order for Top Kick to be paid the proper profit percentage. All third party agreements were also to be accounted for and shown to Norris and Top Kick.

The Complaint

Norris’ complaint states three causes of action: (1) breach of contract against CBS; (2) breach of the implied covenant and good faith and fair dealings against both companies; and (3) accounting against both companies.

Norris claims CBS and SONY have materially breached the contract by consciously seeking to market and sell Walker in a way that still collects revenue but does not pay Norris or Top Kick. The companies have allegedly used fees and revenues, through the continuous exploitation of Walker, to materially breach the agreement, failing to pay the profits owed to Norris.

According to Norris, Walker’s success is due to his work and popular image. In direct response to that, Norris alleges CBS used his “imagery” of being a social icon and movie star as the distributor of the Walker series on television and video. “CBS was among the networks that were fully aware of Chuck Norris’ success, history, brand, and image,” Norris’ lawyer stated, “which resulted in CBS agreeing to become the primary distributor of [Walker].”

Norris’ complaint also states the companies have rejected and ignored deals with third parties that were willing to pay premium for Walker, and they “instead chose to engage in self-dealing transactions to benefit only themselves.” One example is Katz Broadcasting, which had a license for Walker and wished to extend its license through SONY for an additional four years, totaling $5 million dollars. SONY, according to the complaint, ignored Katz’s offer and allowed for the license period to lapse, giving Walker away to a lower-tier cable network that was owned by SONY.

Moreover, no agreements or copies were ever presented or reported to Norris or Top Kick, relating to CBS and SONY entering into licensing and other agreements with third parties.  By failing to report these agreements with third parties, as well as ignoring third parties who wanted to pay a larger percentage, Norris claims the companies did not act in good faith within their contractual obligations and have used his popularity and “imagery” as a social icon for exploitation.

The Consequences

With changes in technology, CBS and SONY have been using streaming video-on demand (“S-VOD”), instead of focusing on television and DVDs. This, according to the contract, falls under exploitation. As a result, since 2004, that S-VOD revenue has not been accounted for when calculating Walker’s profit.

The complaint states Top Kick and Norris do not know how much revenue has been generated through S-VOD alone, since the companies had failed to accurately report. With the show’s success and popularity, however, more than $692 million has been generated in total revenue. According to Norris, CBS and SONY have failed to pay him his share “of the profits earned from any, and all, exploitation of Walker.”

Norris and Top Kick have requested a trial by jury. No comment has been made by officials from CBS or SONY.

 

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

Ashley Cullins, Chuck Norris Hits CBS, Sony With $30M Lawsuit over ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ Profits, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 1, 2018,).

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Top Kick Productions v. CBS Broadcasting, CBS Corp., SONY Pictures Television, No. BC-692372 (Super. Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles Ctny.).

Denise Petski, Chuck Norris Sues CBS & Sony TV For $30M Over ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ Profits, Deadline (Feb, 1, 2018).

Douglas Ernst, Chuck Norris takes on Sony, CBS in $30M lawsuit over ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ profits, Washington Times (Feb 2, 2018).

Nicole Bitette, Chuck Norris is suing CBS, Sony for $30 M over ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ profits, N.Y. Daily News (Feb. 2, 2018).

Photo courtesy of Amazon.

The Opioid Crisis: Lawsuits Filed Against Big Pharma and Drug Distributors

Written By Liz Lehmann

On January 23, 2018, Onondaga County (the “County”) joined many cities and counties across the nation in suing pharmaceutical companies and drug distributors over their role in the opioid crisis.

Background

Opioids killed more than 42,000 people in 2016 nationwide, 142 of which were in Onondaga County. Forty percent of all opioid overdose deaths involved a prescription opioid.  The amount of prescription opioids sold to pharmacies, hospitals and doctors’ offices has quadrupled in the last decade, where the overall change in the amount of pain that Americans reported has been unchanged. Studies indicate that many users begin with pills but shift to injecting heroin due to its cheaper cost.

In response, individuals, as well as municipal and county governments, are filing lawsuits against the leading opioid manufacturers and distributors, alleging that the opioid addition stems from the manufacturers’ over-promotion and sales of prescription opioid medications, such as OxyCotin, Percocet, Vicodin, and numerous generics.

The Complaint

The County’s Complaint names over two-dozen defendants, including Purdue Pharma (manufacturers of OxyCotin), Teva Pharma and its subsidiary Cephalon (manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid), Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Endo Health Solutions (manufacturers of oxymorphone and hydrocodone products).

The causes of action consist of negligence, fraud, deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).  The Complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading messages, downplaying the seriousness of prescription opioids and creating false perceptions that they were safe and effective for the long-term treatment of pain.

The County’s claim for relief include costs for providing medical care; treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation services; treatment of infants born from opioid-related medical conditions; care for children whose parents suffer from opioid-related disability; and costs associated with law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid epidemic.

Another Big Tobacco Moment?

The growing number of lawsuits against drug manufacturers and distributors has led some to wonder whether the opioid crisis will deal Big Pharma its Big Tobacco moment. In the 1990s, several states—including New York—sued the major cigarette manufacturers to recover Medicaid and other costs associated with treating sick and dying cigarette smokers. In 1998, the cigarette manufacturers and 46 states entered into a Master Settlement Agreement, imposing prohibitions and restrictions on tobacco advertising and practices that sought to hide negative information about smoking, in addition to the requirement that a tobacco prevention foundation be created. The Agreement also had a $248 billion civil payout, from which hundreds of millions of dollars went to New York State.

Experts and attorneys distinguish the present litigation from the tobacco settlement, however. The big difference? The current cases involve causes of action against companies who appear to be fully compliant with the law. Unlike tobacco, where cigarettes are bought directly from the manufacturer to the consumer and can harm smokers and nonsmokers alike, prescription opioids are individually taken upon the recommendation and advice of a doctor. Addictions arise from the misuse of the prescription opioid. Should the drug manufacturer be responsible for such misuse?

Another shortcoming may be the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate specific instances where drug companies misled doctors or consumers. A recent lawsuit filed by the City of Chicago against Big Pharma had four out of five of its defendant manufacturers dismissed for such lack of specificity. The remaining defendant—Purdue—had already added clear warnings of the risks of addiction to its OxyCotin labels after pleading guilty to criminal misbranding in 2007. Also as a result from the 2007 charges, Purdue changed its manufacturing process to include “abuse-deterrent technology,” making the drugs nearly impossible to crush, snort, or inject.

Overall, as a general matter, it may be difficult for the courts to assign blame when it comes to the opioid epidemic, where pain medications are lawful, approved, and regulated by the FDA, in addition to including many intermediaries.

Big Pharma’s Response

Some of the named defendants have issued public release statements. Regarding this Complaint, Purdue stated:

We maintain that the allegations made in these lawsuits against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated.  Our actions in the marketing and promotion of our opioid pain medicines were appropriate and responsible.  At the same time we recognize that opioid abuse and addiction are serious public health issues that must be addressed. Finding those solutions will require collaboration among many stakeholders across the country.  We look forward to being a part of the ongoing dialogue and finding ways to address the crisis.

Despite Big Pharma’s denial of wrongdoing, settlements have been reached in other lawsuits involving opioid manufacturers and distributors. In late 2015, Purdue paid $24 million in a settlement agreement to the state of Kentucky on the claim that Purdue had marketed their OxyCotin drug as safe. In 2017, Mallinckrodt PLC—a defendant in the County’s present lawsuit—paid $35 million to resolve an investigation into their monitoring and reporting methods for suspicious orders of opioids. Costco paid $11.75 million in 2017 based on an investigation indicating that they had irresponsibly filled improper or incomplete prescriptions.

What’s Next?

Settlement discussions are underway in jurisdictions across the nation.  Some manufacturers, such as Purdue, have proposed a global settlement in an attempt to cease investigations and lawsuits. However, lengthy litigation will likely ensue and it is expected that more cities and counties will join in the legal onslaught.

 

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Sources Cited

Andrew Donovan, Onondaga County Blames Opioid Manufacturers and Distributors for Heroin Crisis, Files Lawsuit, LocalSYR.com (Jan. 23, 2018),

Complaint and Jury Demand, County of Onondaga v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al. (N.D.N.Y. 2018).

Eric Heisig, Federal Judge Presiding Over Opioid Litigation Will hold Jan. 31 Conference for Settlement Talks, Cleveland.com (Jan. 12, 2018).

Erika Fry, Big Pharma Is Getting Hit With a Huge Wave of Opioid Suits, Fortune (Sept. 27, 2017).

Jef Feeley and Jared S. Hopkins, Purdue Approaches States in Bid to Settle Opioid Claims, Bloomberg (Nov. 17, 2017).

Lindsey Pasieka, Opioid Lawsuits, ConsumerSafety.org (2018).

The Master Settlement Agreement: An Overview, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (2015).

Sanja Gupta, Unintended Consequences: Why Pain Killer Addicts Turn to Heroin, CNN (Jun. 2, 2016).

Understanding the Epidemic, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Aug. 30, 2017).

Zachary A. Siegel, Suing Big Pharma for the Opioid Epidemic Is Too Little, Too Late, Medium (Oct. 11, 2017).

Photo courtesy of TLI.