Ruling shields scientific opinions

Share this article:

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals says a New York federal court correctly ruled that scientific opinions in a journal article could not give rise to claims of deceptive advertising. The court dismissed an appeal brought by Ony, Inc., a producer of surfactants, over a journal article that compared the effectiveness of several types of surfactants.

“The district court correctly concluded that plaintiff has failed to state a claim based on publication of the article itself because the challenged statements are protected scientific opinion,” the appeals court wrote in Ony, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

In a decision based on the presumed competence of a specialized audience to not be misled, the appellate judges said that distribution of such article excerpts cannot be challenged so long as the excerpts don't mislead readers as to the article's conclusions.

Courts, they wrote “are ill-equipped to referee” such controversies. “The trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer-reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.”
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Email Newsletters


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?