Just last month, Purdue Pharma had agreed to settle their lawsuit with Oklahoma over OxyContin, for at least $270 million, as a result of illegal marketing tactics that had been used to sell the controversial painkiller.
Now, they're facing another lawsuit update by Connecticut, as the AG there prepares plans to file an amended lawsuit against the company and its owners as well.
They've faced accusations of using deceptive marketing and distribution tactics, among other allegations.
It's been suggested that Purdue knowingly misled doctors about their products, when they sought to overstate the benefits and downplay the potential risks of the product.
Because of the controversy and mounting pressure against them over their Oxycontin product, they previously declared that they would drastically cut their US sales staff and stop marketing that product to doctors in the country, but many would say that the damage has already been done.
According to the AG for Connecticut, the expanded lawsuit is going to include directors of the company, shareholders, and officers, who are named as defendants. They will be bringing up more specific details about the alleged misconduct that the company engaged in, particularly with a focus on allegedly highlighting the controversial efforts to boost sales and push addiction.
Purdue and the family behind the company continue to deny the allegations that have been brought up. They've previously attempted to ask the court to toss out suits that have been launched against them over the opioid crisis.
But Connecticut's AG says that the company and the family behind it aren't going to be allowed to "cry poverty” so easily, seeing as it's alleged that they transferred hundreds of millions of dollars fraudulently to members of the family, in an effort to allegedly try and evade liability.
Other states have already filed lawsuits against the company, including Illinois, Oregon, New York, and many more. Purdue executives and directors continue to deny the allegations that have been made and are expected to continue defending themselves against what they say are misleading and cherry-picked attacks.
Pics:
pixabay
This post has been voted on by the SteemSTEM curation team and voting trail. It is elligible for support from @curie.
If you appreciate the work we are doing, then consider supporting our witness stem.witness. Additional witness support to the curie witness would be appreciated as well.
For additional information please join us on the SteemSTEM discord and to get to know the rest of the community!
Please consider setting @steemstem as a beneficiary to your post to get a stronger support.
Please consider using the steemstem.io app to get a stronger support.
I'd say that the first monopoly formed was the state 😂👍 and any system that doesn't respect the consent of the individual to opt in or out, is nothing short of a system of slavery.
It is hard to imagine what standards might exist in a non-existent world. It is alleged that not only did Purdue use deceptive marketing practices but they also then pushed ppl onto higher doses of what they knew full well was addictive, while downplaying the addictive nature, and they had admitted to misleading doctors, regulators, and patients.
I see deceptive marketing tactics to constitute fraud, and you must already know that not all anarchists agree on how to define aggression or what actions might constitute aggression, though fraud has generally been included. As always, with the FDA and drug war, it is clear that government has contributed tremendously to the problem.
An alt fix? There would still be private dispute resolution methods available in a free market but the free market by nature cannot provide such a blueprint for how it might deal with every scenario that springs up.
Some people might want to spend their lives policing cockroaches to make sure that the central mob that violates their individual liberty on a daily basis is "doing what they should," we could just "vote harder," but such a path certainly isn't appealing by any stretch of the imagination; not to me at least. I've never been a fan of trying to get slavery to "work right" or more effectively, I prefer freedom👍👍
I too am curious to hear how @doitvoluntary would articulate an answer to your question. In my opinion these corporate criminals only exist because of government. Entity’s such as the DEA and FDA allow these drug dealers to amass vast fortunes with which they can bribe, coerce, and even “eliminate” anyone who gets in the way of their multimillion dollar marketing schemes.
Posted using Partiko iOS
In an environment where everyone is equal under the law, large corporations would lose their special protections. They would no longer be protected by double standards. If they were sued successfully in a Rights Enforcement Agency's court or similar and chose to ignore the finding, they would lose the protection of that court in the future. There would be consequences basically for them ignoring such "private dispute resolutions." Their customers would be made aware of their decision too. Who would continue to do business with them then? Sure, it is not a perfect system, but a company's reputation would matter. Companies who abused their power would pay a price for that abuse within the market.