ILNews

Indiana will receive $4.5M in off-label marketing settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Thursday that the state will get nearly $4.5 million from Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. to settle claims that the company illegally marketed its drug, Risperdal.

The overall settlement is a record $181 million, which will be distributed to 36 states, including Indiana, and the District of Columbia. Zoeller says it is the largest consumer protection-based pharmaceutical settlement ever reached.

The complaint was filed in New York, which alleged that from 1998 through at least 2004, Janssen Pharmaceuticals engaged in deceptive and misleading practices in marketing anti-psychotic drugs Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Risperdal M-Tab and Invega for off-label uses.

Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Janssen, agreed to change its marketing of the drugs and end promoting “off-label” uses of the drugs not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The settlement also outlines how Janssen must report clinical research, among other things.

“As part of being the watchdog for consumers, it is the Attorney General’s responsibility to ensure pharmaceutical companies are not marketing drugs for unapproved uses to boost sales,” Zoeller said. “Today’s multistate agreement should send a strong message that off-label marketing is illegal and will not be tolerated.”

Federal law prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from promoting their products for off-label uses, but physicians may prescribe drugs for those uses.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT