California’s New Anti-Pharma Tort Anti-Biz?

California judges invented another “Crazy New Tort” by ruling Gilead can be sued for taking too long to develop an improved HIV drug the pharma company said needed more vetting? So Disney can be sued for not launching new ride fast enough?

As the WSJ editors related: “Some 24K patients have sued Gilead Sciences in California state court for failing to introduce an allegedly safer version of an HIV drug [fast enough] … The plaintiffs don’t argue that the drug is defective or lacked adequate warnings” as required by long-standing tort law precedents across America … [But] … they claim that Gilead should have launched sooner an alternative HIV treatment that carries fewer bone & kidney side effects.” The plaintiffs claim Gilead delayed developing the new drug to max profits from its other HIV medication, while Gilead says it wasn’t clear from its early studies that the new drug would be safer or more effective.”

The upshot, says the WSJ: “Regardless, slow-walking the development of a product isn’t a tort because it doesn’t directly harm someone” as required in the past. Opined the editors: “This will create a disincentive to innovate. As Gilead noted in a statement, ‘the court’s decision will have widespread, negative consequences across all fields of innovation & manufacturing.’ It also creates a Catch-22 for businesses. If they rush to roll out new products, they could be sued for glitches. But if they take too long in some court’s opinion, they could be sued for dawdling.” But, don’t the plaintiffs’ lawyers love this latest reinvention of the law? Mickey beware?

Davd Soul