I see your point, but there have certainly been accusations that the Sacklers directed operations and while knowing risks associated with drug doses. An NYT art

I see your point, but there have certainly been accusations that the Sacklers directed operations and while knowing risks associated with drug doses. An NYT article from 2019 [1] Sacklers Directed Efforts to Mislead Public About OxyContin, Court Filing Claims lays out the accusations. (I'll try to find the subsequent ruling and add to this.) From that article, albeit citing the prosecutor's case, "... internal Purdue communications are cited by the attorney general of Massachusetts in a new court filing against the company, released on Tuesday. They represent the first evidence that appears to tie the Sacklers to specific decisions made by the company about the marketing of OxyContin. The aggressive promotion of the drug helped ignite the opioid epidemic. The filing contends that Mr. Sackler, a son of a Purdue Pharma founder, urged that sales representatives advise doctors to prescribe the highest dosage of the powerful opioid painkiller because it was the most profitable." [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-ox... Edit to add: Actually, there's a pretty good (and seemingly neutral) history of the Massachusetts case on Wikipedia, with background info and related cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Purdue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Purdue