Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay USD 572 million for opioid addiction crisis
Washington: An Oklahoma judge has ordered US health care giant Johnson & Johnson to pay USD 572 million in damages for its role in fostering the state's opioid addiction crisis.
In the first civil trial of a drugmaker over an epidemic that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths, Judge Thad Balkman on Monday said prosecutors had demonstrated that J&J contributed to a "public nuisance" in its deceptive promotion of highly addictive prescription painkillers.
"Those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans," he said. According to the ruling, the company and its Janssen pharmaceuticals division will fund an "abatement plan" for care for addicts, families and communities ravaged by the crisis.
"The defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance," Balkman said. J&J was the first pharmaceutical company tried over the US opioid crisis, which fuelled over 70,000 overdose deaths in 2017 alone.
But there are some 2,000 outstanding lawsuits against many drugmakers and distributors filed by state and local governments, many overwhelmed by the costs of an epidemic that has only slightly abated.
Most of those are being rolled into a case to go to trial in October in Ohio that will likely set the basis for potentially many billions of dollars in settlements across the country.
Prosecutors had sought USD 17 billion in damages against J&J for an abatement program to be spread over 30 years.
But Balkman said the state had not made a strong case for the future costs of the crisis to it and the community beyond one year, and so limited his ruling to that.
J&J's shares rose about two percent to USD 130 in after-market trade following the decision. The company immediately said it would appeal the decision.
"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome," said J&J executive vice president Michael Ullmann.
"The unprecedented award for the state's 'abatement plan' has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the company's medicines or conduct."
J&J argued that the law was being inappropriately applied and that its products had a very small role in the addiction epidemic in Oklahoma and nationally.
Balkman said J&J had promoted its drugs by telling doctors and patients that pain was not being treated enough and that "there was a low risk of abuse and a low danger" in the drugs themselves.
"The defendants used the phrase 'pseudoaddiction' to convince doctors that patients who exhibited signs of addiction... were not actually suffering from addiction, but from the undertreatment of pain," he said in his decision.
He also said the company consciously downplayed risks it knew were present, pointing to the 2007 USD 600 million fine in a Virginia trial of Purdue Pharma, one of the leading prescription opioid makers, for misleading the health industry and the public about the highly addictive properties of its Oxycontin painkiller.
J&J is the first drugmaker to go to trial and the case is seen as a bellwether for thousands of possible criminal and civil suits over the seeming uncontrolled distribution of highly addictive painkillers like oxycodone and hydrocodone, and J&J's Nucynta and Duragesic, between 2000 and 2015.
Two other major drugmakers accused in the same suit, Purdue Pharma of the United States and Israel's Teva, settled with Oklahoma before the case went to trial.
Purdue, which produced the widely abused opioid Oxycontin, agreed to pay the state USD 270 million in March and Teva negotiated an USD 85 million settlement.
Dozens of local and state governments across the country have also already exacted settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors to address their problems.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Iran says no response to US outreach for talks amid escalating conflict
Tehran: Iranian officials have claimed that they have not responded to private communication from the United States seeking talks, even as public statements from US President Donald Trump suggest that Tehran is keen to negotiate amid the ongoing conflict.
According to a report by Drop Site News, two Iranian officials said US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff had sent messages to Iranian authorities, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, last week exploring the possibility of resuming negotiations. The officials said Iran did not respond to these messages and also received communication routed through third countries.
A senior Iranian official was quoted as saying that the decision not to respond was taken at the highest level. “The message here is clear: Iran has once again closed the window for any direct negotiations,” the official said, adding that any decision on ceasefire rests with the country’s Supreme Leader.
In contrast, President Trump has repeatedly stated in public that Iran is seeking talks. “They want to negotiate. They want to negotiate badly,” he said, while also claiming that Iran’s military capabilities have been significantly weakened.
The White House, responding to the report, dismissed the claims as false and criticised the publication. It said the US operation against Iran would continue until its objectives are achieved.
Meanwhile, conflicting accounts have emerged. A US official told Axios that it was Iran that had initiated contact, a claim denied by Araghchi, who said his last communication with Witkoff took place before recent military strikes. “Any claim to the contrary appears geared solely to mislead oil traders and the public,” he said.
Araghchi also rejected the suggestion that Iran is seeking a ceasefire or negotiations, stating in an interview that the country would continue to defend itself. Iranian officials have maintained that they will not consider any ceasefire arrangement unless it ensures an end to future attacks.
The report also indicates that multiple countries have attempted to mediate between the two sides, but Iran has conveyed that efforts should instead be directed towards the US administration.
Amid the conflict, global oil markets have been affected. Iran has threatened to target vessels linked to the US and its allies passing through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a sharp drop in shipping traffic through the route. Iranian officials said the strait remains open in general but restricted for certain countries.
US officials, however, said Iranian ships have been allowed to pass through without being targeted. Rising oil prices and disruptions in supply have led to concerns among global energy companies, with industry leaders reportedly warning of severe economic consequences if the situation continues.
The US has also moved to strengthen its military presence in the region, including deploying additional troops and exploring options to secure maritime routes. President Trump has called for international participation, including from NATO countries and China, though several nations have expressed reservations.
On the ground, the conflict has intensified, with continued missile and drone strikes reported across the region. Iran has indicated that it is prepared for a prolonged confrontation and may expand its strategy to apply pressure on US and allied interests.
Iranian officials have also warned against any attempt to target key infrastructure such as Kharg Island, which handles a major portion of the country’s oil exports. They said any such move would escalate the situation further.
At the diplomatic level, divisions remain visible. While some Gulf countries have blamed Iran for the escalation, Tehran has criticised them for not condemning US and Israeli actions.
The report also notes that the conflict has led to significant casualties in Iran, with authorities claiming over 1,400 deaths and thousands injured. At the same time, regional tensions remain high, with concerns that the conflict could widen further involving other actors.
Iran has indicated that any future ceasefire would need to include broader conditions, including guarantees against further attacks and international oversight.
