Tuesday, the US Supreme Court upheld a $302 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson in a case where the state of California accused the company of hiding the dangers associated with its pelvic mesh products, according to a report by Reuters.
Following precedent, the court declined to hear J&J's appeal for no apparent reason, the report stated.
US Chamber of Commerce
J&J had argued before the Supreme Court that state consumer protection laws, such as those in California, are too nebulous and expose businesses to unforeseen state lawsuits. The US Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations supported the company.
In a statement, California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, hailed the ruling as "a definite victory in our fight for justice."
Supreme Court's decision
The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the case, according to J&J, will result in continued "uneven, unclear, and unfair enforcement that harms both consumers and businesses."
J&J, based in New Jersey, was sued by California in San Diego Superior Court in 2016. The case resulted from a multistate investigation into the marketing of pelvic mesh devices, surgical implants used to treat incontinence and other conditions, by J&J subsidiary Ethicon Inc.
J&J and other mesh manufacturers were already facing a large number of private lawsuits from women who claimed the devices caused pain, urinary issues, bleeding, and other severe injuries. Settlements from the lawsuits total more than $8 billion.
J&J has refuted allegations of wrongdoing and stopped selling pelvic mesh in 2012. The US Food and Drug Administration halted sales of all pelvic mesh products in 2019.
J&J and Ethicon
Later that year, J&J and Ethicon settled allegations that they hid the risks associated with the products with 41 states and the District of Columbia for $117 million.
California chose not to participate in that settlement, and in January 2020, a non-jury trial resulted in a $344 million judgment in favor of California.
A judge determined that Ethicon's marketing materials for the mesh devices and its usage instructions misled doctors and patients by omitting to disclose significant risks, infringing on state laws against unfair competition and deceptive advertising.
The award was reduced by $42 million by a California appellate court in 2017.
