Product Liability Update - April 2023

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,New York,New Jersey
• Law Firm: Foley Hoag LLP
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Product Liability & Safety, Food and Drugs Law, Biotechnology & Nanotechnology
• Author: Mr David Geiger, Peter Ellis and James M. Gross
• Published date: 23 May 2023

Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New York and New Jersey. If you find this update useful, please encourage your colleagues and contacts to also register with us on our website. As always, you can access all of our publications at https://foleyhoag.com.

Included in this Issue:

MASSACHUSETTS

• First Circuit Holds Failure-To-Warn Claims Against Drug Manufacturer Preempted By Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act Because Animal Studies Cited By Plaintiffs Did Not Demonstrate Risks Beyond Those In Studies Already Submitted To FDA And Hence Were Not "Newly Acquired Information" Permitting Defendant To Change Its FDA-Approved Labeling, And There Was "Clear Evidence" FDA Would Have Rejected Labeling Change Because It Later Rejected Similar Labeling With Awareness Of The Cited Studies
  
  
• Massachusetts Federal Court Holds Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Branded Drug Manufacturers Satisfies Long-Arm Statute And Due Process Despite Possibility Plaintiff Took Generic Drug In-State, As Defendants' Out-Of-State Labeling Could Have Harmed Plaintiff In-State Since Generic Labeling Must Follow Branded, And Claims Were "Sufficiently Related" To Defendants' In-State Sales Of Branded Drug; Design Defect Claims Preempted By Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Because Defendants Could Not Have Modified Drug's Active Ingredient Without FDA Approval
  
  
• In Putative Class Action For Reduced Vehicle Value Caused By Allegedly Defective Hoods, Massachusetts Federal Court Dismisses Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims Despite Viable Express Warranty Claim, Holding Plaintiff Cannot Use Broader Jurisdictional Provisions Of Class Action Fairness Act To Evade Magnuson-Moss' Jurisdictional Requirement Of At Least One Hundred Named Plaintiffs, Dismisses Fraud By Omission Claims For Failure To Plausibly Allege Hood Condition Was Essential To Purchase, And Dismisses Tort-Based Implied Warranty Claims Because Alleged Damages Were Purely Economic
  
  
• Massachusetts Federal Court Holds Plaintiff Failed To Prove Personal Jurisdiction Over Surgical Mesh Manufacturer's Parent Or Distributor, As Plaintiff Could Not Prove Manufacturer Was So Dominated By Parent As To Be Its Alter Ego And Hence Impute Its In-State Conduct To The Parent, And Affidavit Established Distributor Did Not Sell Mesh Product In Massachusetts Until...