14 ms·
Pfizer Penalties Since 2000: $10B
- analog31 4y agoInteresting website. For reference, I checked Ford Motor Company, and they're at roughly 1/2 billion. Microsoft 1/3 billion. My start-up isn't on the list. I paid a $15 penalty for late filing of state sales tax one year. ;-)
- mkoryak 4y agoMaybe we can increase your fines: Please tell us of any laws your startup have broken
- kodyo 4y ago[flagged]
- willcipriano 4y ago[flagged]
- colpabar 4y agoAll the experts are baffled!
- mulletbum 4y agoCan someone point me to one of the 90 incidents that is "Gave false study data." I went through 10 of them and they are all "Advertising where they shouldn't be" or "incorrectly stating costs." Comments in here are like a conservative sess pool and it is 3 comments in. It is like no one read any of the data. Who would have thought?
- rand0mx1 4y agoThere are many users on HN with anti-science bias, data means nothing to them
- coldtea 4y ago[flagged]
- stonogo 4y agoI run in some fairly lefty circles and I can safely state I've never heard of anyone (of ANY political leaning) "root for Pfizer" edit: except their actual paid PR people.
- dang 4y ago"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 40amxn40 4y ago[flagged]
- dilap 4y agoI don't know if anything ever came of it, but a whistleblower in their covid vaccine trial alleged data issues and ignoring negative side effects: > A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson (video 1), emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 Even things like "Advertising where they shouldn't be" are not neccessarily innocuous; e.g. it can be promoting use of a drug in a situation that is known to be unsafe. In lawsuits regarding Bextra (which Pfizer ended up settling for around 1b), > the state alleged that despite the significant safety concerns that led FDA to reject a request to market high dose Bextra for acute and surgical pain, Pfizer conducted a systematic, multi-pronged “off-label” promotional campaign for these very indications.
- johndhi 4y agoI actually used to work for them as a lawyer, indirectly. My view is likely a bit skewed in the other direction, but to me this is mostly evidence of how expensive and impossible it is to do business in healthcare in the United States. How are the laws and regs so unclear that a huge corporation of smart people can't avoid big fines? Part of it is a question of Pfizer's investment in compliance - which I assure you is massive - but also it's a lack of clarity and shifting goal posts. False claims act litigation, for example, is responsible for the second largest settlement listed on this site (phen fen is #1), a notorious and utterly incomprehensible regime where all of the big money settlements relate to aggressive fringe theories asserted by DOJ.
- mulletbum 4y agoI didn't go through all of the False Claims litigation, but the penalties were related to pricing, nothing to do with their science.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoPffffft. Explain why Pfizer keeps making epic regulatory faceplants when much smaller organizations, ostensibly with less industry experience, routinely manage to navigate regulations in the US without issue?
- unmole 4y agoA behemoth like Pfizer is a more attractive target for enforcement agencies?
- forgetfreeman 4y agoNah. Regulators have performance metrics same as everyone. They'll gleefully target 150 headcount biotech firms in a heartbeat if they think there's a win to be had and smaller firms generally dont have the legal war chest required to fight a complianceviolation beef. See Also: OIG going after United Therapeutics on light pretext.
- spamizbad 4y ago
- sschueller 4y agoCredit Suisse paid over 11 Billion in fines in the last 10 years. [1] [1] https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/credit-suisse-unter-druck-die-bussen-sammlerin https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/credit-suisse-unter-druck...
- forgetfreeman 4y agoWe're talking about Pfizer.
- walterbell 4y agoJ&J has $15B in penalties, but has an innovative legal strategy, https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a41191693/johnson-and-johnson-bankruptcy/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a41191693/joh... & https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnso... > Deploying a legal maneuver first used by Koch Industries, Johnson & Johnson, a company valued at nearly half a trillion dollars, with a credit rating higher than that of the United States government, declared bankruptcy. Because of that move, the fate of forty thousand current lawsuits and the possibility of future claims by cancer victims or their survivors now rests with a single bankruptcy judge in the company’s home state, New Jersey.
- lotsofpulp 4y agohttps://www.investopedia.com/texas-two-step-bankruptcy-definition-5225888 https://www.investopedia.com/texas-two-step-bankruptcy-defin... Why would a non corrupt judge allow this “transfer of liabilities”? > In June 2021, one such lawsuit resulted in an appeals court in Missouri ordering the company to pay $2.1 billion to the claimants. Later that year, the company used a divisive merger to create a new subsidiary called LTL Management LLC, transferring its talcum-related liabilities to that subsidiary along with a $2 billion trust intended to provide funding for any potential future claims against LTL.
- DSingularity 4y agoBecause justice is blind. Don’t you love the platitudes that only seem to benefit the establishment?
- ClarityJones 4y agoThe maneuver can be pierced if the plaintiffs prove that the subsidiary was undercapitalized. So, a non-corrupt judge may allow this if the maneuver is genuinely done for accounting / management / etc. reasons and the new subsidiary has sufficient capital to cover the liabilities. A non-corrupt judge may also "allow" it if the plaintiffs never attempt to pierce the veil in the first place. Like a lizard casting off its tail, this may be enough to appease the lawyers representing the class. With the issue never getting to the judge, the judge never has enough information to disallow it.
- coldtea 4y agoAKA "cost of doing business"
- gorbachev 4y agoFor the High Score search for financial offenses: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/summary?offense_group_sum=financial%20offenses https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/summary?offense_g... Bank of America in a league of its own.
- TrickyRick 4y agoTo the surprise of absolutely nobody, the whole list is banks.
- Wronnay 4y agoThe list is about financial-related offences - so there are only financial companies on the list. E.g. here is a list about environment-related offences: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/offense_group/environment-related%20offenses https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/offense_group/env...
- gorbachev 4y agoBoA is an equal opportunity violator. If you click on the name, you'll see that half of its $80B of penalties are from financial offenses and the other half from consumer protection related offenses. I believe Wells Fargo is about to rise in the rankings as well. I didn't see their $3B+ penalty announced last week on their list yet.
- Semaphor 4y agoI wonder if there’s an international list somewhere. As a German, I find it unacceptable that your country name bank is supposedly more criminal than ours.
- mrep 4y agoHaha, Deutsche bank is in there [0]! Rookie numbers though, only 18 billion in fines. [0]: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/deutsche-bank https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/deutsche-b...
- swader999 4y agoSafe and effective!
- TheMagicHorsey 4y agoAnyone that has worked in any highly regulated industry knows that its almost impossible to comply with every rule. Even the regulators themselves, (and the ex-regulators that you hire to run your compliance team) often have absolutely no idea how to get anything done AND comply with all the regs. As an example, its simply impossible to build a factory on a greenfield site in California today and comply with all the regs. Its just insane. Or try to set up a drone testing field anywhere in California.
- hansel_der 4y ago> Anyone that has worked in any highly regulated industry knows that its almost impossible to comply with every rule. true otoh there is something like "compliance with the spirit of the regulation" that is morally acceptable but will be exploited unless fiercely and proactively defended.
- ibejoeb 4y agoIt's certainly true that some regs exist solely as alternative tax regimes, but Pfizer is chock full of really bad stuff. There are numerous instances of falsified study data and many instances of injury. We can't have it both ways. Since we're going down the compulsory dosing route, and we can bypass the necessarily arduous approval process for drugs, someone's gotta pay up when there's a mess. This is the same thing that caused the Boeing fiasco. "It's really hard to certify an airframe" turned into "in this case it's nbd," and that turned into a bunch of planes crashing.
- isitmadeofglass 4y agoThat explains it. Obviously the did nothing write. “Judge, when we illegally marketed this drug to make a fortune while knowing it was actually hurting the patients, we were in fact doing nothing wrong because you see, it’s difficult to set up a drone testing field in California!” It’s like the Chewbacca defense.
- salawat 4y agoLets see some individual links shall we? Fen-Phen: caused cardiovascular/lung dmg. 3.75B https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-american-home-products https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker... Civil and criminal penalties: 2.3B >American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. agreed to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products. Pfizer was required to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion and Pharmacia & Upjohn was required to forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion. The other $1 billion represented a civil False Claims Act penalty. https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-pfizer-inc-3 https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker... Rezulin liver damage. 750 mm >In January 2004 Pfizer announced that it had taken a $975 million charge to cover legal costs, including 35,000 personal injury lawsuits alleging that the diabetes drug Rezulin, which had been sold by its subsidiary Warner-Lambert, caused liver damage. The company did not announce the cost of the Rezulin settements, but it was reported that the amount was $750 million: Celebrex/Bextra 745 mm >Primary Offense: drug or medical equipment safety violation Secondary Offense: product safety violation Violation Description: In October 2008 Pfizer said it was taking a charge of $894 million to cover litigation costs relating to its anti-inflammatory drugs Bextra and Celebrex. Of the total, $745 million was to cover product liability suits relating to the two drugs. Chantix: suicidal/depressive behavior 288m https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-pfizer-2 https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker... Honestly, without even looking at PACER, the fact I'm seeing these plus consumer protection + workplace safety + kickbacks and bribes has me seriously wondering why we don't crack down harder on companies that see the occasional criminal/civil case/willful non-compliance charge as the cost of doing business. I'm almost afraid to look through the legal briefs, because I'm sure either A) it'll destroy what little faith I've managed to hold onto in humanity, or B)it'll just make my drive to go to law school to become a civic pain in the ass that much worse.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- varispeed 4y agoPenalties or costs of doing business?
- pcrh 4y agoFrankly, this is an illustration why punitive action against senior executives is the best way to prevent corporate malfeasance.
- 93po 4y agoI think the best way is to treat corporations like people - they go to prison. Shut down operations for however many years and disallow them from making transactions of any sort during their sentence. Going after executives is just going to lead to scapegoats.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago> scapegoats When you jail the literal person who committed the crime it’s not a scapegoat, it’s just a criminal. Your suggestion doesn’t treat a company like a person it treats a company like the clothes a person is wearing. Commit a crime? Change your clothes. Company gets shutdown, assets gets sold to “company the sequel” execs are free from any criminal consequences and continue as execs at the new company.
- 93po 4y ago> assets gets sold to “company the sequel” > disallow them from making transactions of any sort also > When you jail the literal person who committed the crime it’s not a scapegoat, it’s just a criminal. you're missing my point. they're gonna pin the "crime" on someone who wasn't a major contributor or decision maker for it. they aren't the real criminal.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago> who wasn't a major contributor or decision maker for it. Per definition an executive is a major contributor and decision maker.
- yashap 4y agoI think the largest fine here, the $3.75 billion fine for the American Home Products diet drug in 2002 (https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-american-home-products https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker...), is mis-attributed to Pfizer. American Home Products became Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, who were acquired by Pfizer in 2009, 7 years after this fine. Pfizer weren’t involved with them in 2002, so I don’t see how this five can be reasonably attributed to Pfizer.
- menage 4y agoI think that depends a bit on how many of the folks tainted by the AHP violation are still working at Pfizer. If Pfizer is made up of a bunch of companies that had violations themselves before acquisition, that's probably reflected in the current company culture.
- klabb3 4y agoNot to mention that acquiring a company that’s been massively fined for these reasons is a statement in itself. (Statement being somewhere between “we don’t give a shit” and “good job, even we didn’t think of that”)
- albrewer 4y agoI was thinking more along the lines of "this company just went on sale"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dncornholio 4y agoWithout context, it can either be 'Pfizer is bad' or 'laws are too strict'. I can't make an educated guess.
- monsecchris 4y agoPretty good rundown of one of the largest pharma fines: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... For extra bonus points I think they did miss the part where J&J specifically targeted minorities in their advertising for these products that they knew caused cancer.
- ranting-moth 4y agoI couldn't see any summary for total prison time for individuals. Does anyone know if that's because there hasn't been a any or is is just missing? I somehow feel with a $10B (which include bribes/kickbacks) there ought to have been some.
- mlcrypto 4y agoFunny how fast these drug companies gained the undying trust of every liberal overnight. Almost like it was orchestrated
- Mistletoe 4y agoYes and 19.8 million people are still alive because of it in the first year. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... For comparison, World War I was 40 million casualties.
- t0bia_s 4y ago[flagged]
- ausbah 4y agoI don't have the domain expertise nor the time to address everything you've posted - and maybe these aren't valid reasons to distrust what you've shared - but I'm skeptical of your conclusion bc many are unreviewed studies from over a year ago by authors who don't have relevant background, and few are straight up right wing rags full of conspiracy theories & other nonsense.
- z3c0 4y agoSince COVID, I've noticed a "quantity over quality" strategy deployed en massé by the pseudo-intellectual right. It allows one to give the impression of a well-researched response without doing any of the needed work. It's almost as if they realize that posting a wall of links will daunt most into not questioning them, even if most of the links wouldn't survive a hint of scrutiny.
- t0bia_s 4y ago[flagged]
- wutheringh 4y ago
- mchusma 4y agoLooking at the top settlements here I think as a society we would be better off without these able to be this big. Generally speaking they all seem to relate to off-label use (which I think we should generally be more permissive of) and false claims. But looking through one case, https://www.seegerweiss.com/drug-injury/rezulin-lawsuit/ https://www.seegerweiss.com/drug-injury/rezulin-lawsuit/ it seems that liver damage was a known side effect. I don't see any real indication that this was hidden, it was a part of the FDA filing. It seemed like a "net positive", and then later it was decided "no, probably not". The issues here seem more related to binary FDA categories. It basically either: 1) Banned 2) Approved and must be covered by insurance When there really can and should be more categories of risk, like: 1) Banned because we know this is super bad 2) Not banned, but not recommended 3) Not banned, seems ok but there are bad side effects or other concerns that warrant attention 4) Not banned, seems good, lots of good data and this should definitely be covered This would allow companies to put drugs in the market to help people, but set realistic expectations. There is no fraud if the data is there and the categories are clear.