Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING NEWS: Zoloft Marketing Campaign Allegedly Misled Consumers, Health Care Professionals Regarding Effectiveness in Treating Depression, (Feb 5, 2013)

By John W. Arden, J.D., LLM.

Pfizer, Inc.’s marketing of “blockbuster” antidepressant Zoloft deliberately misled consumers and prescribing health care professionals regarding the drug’s ability to treat depression, according to a complaint filed in the federal district court in San Jose, California (Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc., January 30, 2013).

The lawsuit (1) alleged a controversy between Pfizer and a nationwide class concerning whether Zoloft’s drug label was misleading or deceptive in light of clinical trials demonstrating that the drug was no more effective than a placebo in treating depression; (2) claimed that Pfizer violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act by representing to a California consumer class that Zoloft was more effective at treating depression than it actually was and by concealing numerous clinical studies showing that the drug was no better than a placebo; (3) charged that Pfizer violated the California Unfair Competition Law by engaging in the unfair business practice of misleading plaintiff Laura A. Plumlee and a California class regarding Zoloft’s true efficacy; and (4) contended that Pfizer violated the California False Advertising Law by disseminating advertising and labeling that Pfizer knew or should have known were untrue or misleading about the drug’s ability to treat depression.

The complaint described a particular television commercial, allegedly designed to convince consumers that Zoloft was very effective at treating depression. The commercial lists symptoms of depression, explains that depression is a serious medical condition affecting more than 20 million Americans, “goes into a description of how depression works, relying on the chemical imbalance theory that has been rejected by scientists,” and states that “Prescription Zoloft works to correct this imbalance,” the complaint alleged.

“After seeing this commercial, the Plaintiff, like numerous consumers within California, was excited about purchasing and ingesting Zoloft,” the complaint stated. “She specifically relied on this advertisement in making her decision to purchase and ingest Zoloft.”

The plaintiff alleged that Pfizer pursued its advertising and marketing campaign with oppression, fraud, and malice, warranting the award of exemplary damages. She requested a trial by jury, the certification of a nationwide consumer class for which she would act as representative, the certification of a California consumer class for which she would act as representative, a permanent injunction against Pfizer’s further violation of California law, and restitution, disgorgement of profits, actual or compensatory damages, exemplary or punitive damages, attorney fees and costs of suit.

The case is 5:13-cv-00414-PSG.

Attorneys: Michael L. Baum (Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.); Christopher L. Coffin (Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P.)

Companies: Pfizer, Inc.

News: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews