Product Liability

Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen on the FTC and Advertising Substantiation - Podcast

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust and Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Groups Podcast
Maureen K. Ohlhausen March 04, 2015

One of the Federal Trade Commission’s key duties is to protect consumers from deceptive advertising. The FTC does this, in part, by ensuring that advertisers can substantiate their claims. While executing this duty, the FTC generally seeks to prevent consumer harm while maximizing the amount of useful information available to consumers. Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen believes that, in some cases over the past several years, the FTC has required a heightened level of substantiation, thereby reducing the useful information available to consumers. In a recent decision, POM Wonderful, the D.C. Circuit offered additional guidance on striking the proper balance, echoing themes that Commissioner Ohlhausen has raised in debates with her colleagues at the FTC. Commissioner Ohlhausen discussed this and other recent cases and how the FTC should address deceptive advertising in the future.

  • Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Federal Trade Commissioner

Residual Class Action Awards: Cy Pres - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Theodore H. Frank March 21, 2014

gavel money

Cy pres (from the French cy pres comme —“as near as possible”) originated in the trust context, but has more recently been applied to class action litigation, as courts try to determine what to do with sometimes significant amounts of settlement funds remaining after all identified plaintiff awards have been made.  In recent decades, courts have agreed to award such remaining funds to third party recipients who, while not parties to the underlying suits, are deemed worthy by the court.  Sometimes, the courts have selected these third party recipients based on recommendations from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.  What are the legal underpinnings for such awards to entities or people not party to the underlying case?  What are the policy considerations in making or prohibiting such awards?  These and other questions were discussed by our experts.


  • Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Vanderbilt University Law School
  • Mr. Theodore H. Frank, Founder and President, Center for Class Action Fairness and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy

[Listen now!]

Free To Choose Medicine

Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Bartley J. Madden, Gregory Conko January 27, 2014

Free To Choose Medicine: Better Drugs Sooner at Lower CostThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 39 new medicines in 2012, the largest number in 16 years.1 Some, including the agency itself, are proclaiming a new era of cooperation and productivity for the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.2 But a closer look at what’s happening in the industry reveals deep problems. Development costs are rising, research pipelines are drying up, and as medical science targets more complex diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, it has become increasingly more difficult to translate basic scientific discoveries into marketable products that work well in the clinic....[Read More!]

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 10-08-13 featuring Gregory Dickinson
Gregory Dickinson October 08, 2013

Gregory DickinsonOn June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett. The question in this case was whether federal law preempts state law design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.

In a 5-4 opinion the Court held that State-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are preempted by federal law. The lower appellate court's opinion to the contrary was therefore reversed. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

To discuss the case, we have Greg Dickinson, who is an associate at Harris Beach, LLP.

What is Left of the Alien Tort Statute after Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group and Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Chimène Keitner, Julian Ku, Dean A. Reuter May 13, 2013

What is Left of the Alien Tort Statute after Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum? - PodcastOn April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., holding that the Alien Tort Statute does not have extraterritorial reach.  This halts the recent trend of parties being hauled into United States courts for alleged torts that occurred in another country with no connection to the United States.  This teleforum discusses the implications of this landmark decision.


  • Prof. Chimène Keitner, University of California Hastings College of the Law
  • Prof. Julian G. Ku, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law
  • Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]