Vol 22, 2013 Annals of Health Law 434
PROSECUTIONS OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law (“MAPIL”).180 In
October 2010, a jury determined that the company’s marketing campaigns
violated the law and awarded the state $257.7 million in civil penalties, and
the company was ordered to pay $73 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.181
A state court of appeals affirmed the verdict, as well as the amount of the
penalties, fees, and costs.182 In State of South Carolina v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, the state claimed that the company violated South
Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.183 In June 2011, a jury awarded the
state of South Carolina $327 million in penalties, and the court denied the
company’s attempts to reduce them.184 In June 2012, in State of Arkansas
v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,185 the jury found that the company
violated Arkansas’ Medicaid fraud law and state deceptive practices act,
and the judge imposed $1.2 billion in civil penalties.186 Although the
company is appealing these verdicts, they amount to more than $1.8
As just this one example shows, the state actions that follow in the
wake of a DOJ allegation are another significant consequence of off-label
marketing. Taking into account the $1.8 billion in currently-standing
verdicts and the recently-agreed-to $181 million settlement, the price tag for
the forty states’ claims could rival the $2.2 billion that Johnson & Johnson
may pay to settle criminal and civil claims with the DOJ over its off-label
marketing of Risperdal.
B. Private Suits
In addition to the potential for action by states, a pharmaceutical
company under the scrutiny of the DOJ may face claims by the consumers
Judicial Court, St. Landry Parish, Louisiana (Oct. 15, 2010).
180. La.R.S. 46: 437.1 through 46: 440.3.
181. Caldwell ex rel. State of Louisiana v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Nos. 11-1184 and
11-1185, Slip Op. at 1 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2012).
183. S. Carolina ex rel. Henry McMaster v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., C. A. 6:07-
1452-HMH, 2007 WL 2022173 (D.S. C. July 10, 2007).
184. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or,
in the Alternative, for a New Trial, State of South Carolina v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2007-CP-42-1438 (Ct. Common Pleas 7th Judicial Cir. Dec. 20,
2011); Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and/or for a
New Trial, State of South Carolina v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No.
2007-CP-42-1438 (Ct. Common Pleas 7th Judicial Cir. Dec. 20, 2011).
185. State of Arkansas v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 60-cv-09-15345,
Circuit Court of Arkansas, Pulaski County.
186. 1 Ark. J.V.R. 1, 8 (Aug. 2012).