PhRMA v. DavidDate Filed: December 8, 2017
District Court: Eastern District of California – No. 2:17-cv-02573; 2:17-at-01323 (PhRMA v. Brown)
Nature of Suit: Pharma Legislation Challenge
Defendant Type: State
Plaintiff Type: Private
Case Info: https://sourceonhealthcare.org/litigation-and-enforcement-highlights-october-2018/|https://sourceonhealthcare.org/litigation-and-enforcement-highlights-september-2018/
Court Document: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/files/dmfile/sb17-complaint.pdf|http://2zele1bn0sl2i91io41niae1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Complaint-re-Revival-of-PhRMA-lawsuit-against-Cal-SB-17-280048062929.pdf|http://2zele1bn0sl2i91io41niae1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PhRMA-CA-Decision.pdf
PhRMA is challenging California’s drug price transparency law SB 17 alleging that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause. SB 17, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed 10/9/17, requires pharmaceutical companies to notify insurers and government health plans 60 days in advance of a price increase above a certain threshold and provide a rationale for it. After California federal court’s dismissed the original suit (PhRMA v. Brown) on procedural grounds, on September 28, 2018, PhRMA amended and refiled its complaint as PhRMA v. David.
Read more on The Source Blog.