Opioid Epidemic Litigation With Criminal Liability

🔹 Overview of Opioid Epidemic Litigation

The opioid epidemic in the United States led to thousands of deaths and widespread addiction. Legal actions targeted pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and prescribers for their role in over-prescribing, misrepresenting addiction risks, and failing to report suspicious orders.

Criminal liability typically arises under:

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) – for misbranding or false marketing.

Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801–971) – for illegal distribution or diversion.

Wire Fraud / Mail Fraud statutes – for fraudulent marketing practices.

RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) – in cases involving organized, fraudulent opioid schemes.

Civil cases have been more prominent, but criminal prosecutions have targeted executives, distributors, and companies.

⚖️ Case 1: United States v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. (Sackler Family, 2020–2022)

Facts:
Purdue Pharma aggressively marketed OxyContin, downplaying addiction risks. The company allegedly encouraged overprescription and misrepresented opioid safety to physicians.

Criminal Charges:

Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government

Misbranding under the FDCA

Outcome:

Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty in 2020 to three federal felony charges.

Ordered to pay over $8 billion in fines and restitution (criminal and civil settlements combined).

Certain Sackler family members agreed to personal financial settlements but avoided direct criminal charges.

Significance:
Set a precedent for holding pharmaceutical manufacturers criminally liable for misleading marketing that fuels addiction.

⚖️ Case 2: United States v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (2020)

Facts:
Insys, a smaller pharma company, manufactured Subsys, a fentanyl-based opioid. Executives bribed doctors to overprescribe the drug and falsified medical records to secure insurance coverage.

Criminal Charges:

RICO conspiracy

Wire fraud

Kickback violations (Anti-Kickback Statute)

Outcome:

CEO John Kapoor and other executives were convicted and sentenced to prison (Kapoor received 5.5 years).

The company agreed to forfeit $225 million.

Significance:
Highlighted that corporate executives can be individually criminally liable for orchestrating schemes that mislead doctors and insurers.

⚖️ Case 3: United States v. McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health (2019–2022)

Facts:
Three major distributors failed to report suspicious opioid orders, allowing large quantities of oxycodone and hydrocodone to flood vulnerable communities.

Criminal Charges:

Distributors faced Controlled Substances Act violations for failing to detect and report suspicious orders.

Outcome:

McKesson and others agreed to pay $600 million in criminal fines in 2020.

Executives were not individually charged but companies were held criminally liable as corporate entities.

Significance:
Demonstrated that corporate compliance failures in distribution networks can result in federal criminal liability.

⚖️ Case 4: United States v. Mallinckrodt PLC (2021–2022)

Facts:
Mallinckrodt, a generic opioid manufacturer, allegedly failed to report suspicious orders and misrepresented distribution compliance.

Criminal Charges:

CFA violations under the CSA

Misreporting and record-keeping violations

Outcome:

In 2022, the company agreed to $35 million criminal fine as part of a broader $1.6 billion settlement with states and municipalities.

Significance:
Showed smaller manufacturers could face direct criminal fines for failure to comply with opioid distribution rules.

⚖️ Case 5: United States v. Cephalon, Inc. (Teva Pharmaceuticals, 2008–2011)

Facts:
Cephalon promoted off-label use of Actiq (fentanyl) and other opioids for chronic pain without FDA approval, overstating benefits and minimizing addiction risks.

Criminal Charges:

Misbranding under the FDCA

Conspiracy to misrepresent drug risks

Outcome:

Cephalon paid $425 million criminal and civil fines in 2008.

Four senior executives were personally charged; some received probation and fines.

Significance:
One of the first major criminal prosecutions against opioid marketing practices, laying the groundwork for later Purdue and Insys cases.

⚖️ Case 6: United States v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2020)

Facts:
Teva pleaded guilty for overcharging Medicaid programs for opioid medications and participating in kickback schemes to physicians for opioid prescriptions.

Criminal Charges:

Felony False Claims Act violations

Wire fraud for fraudulent billing

Outcome:

Paid $225 million in criminal fines

Executives were individually scrutinized; some reached plea agreements

Significance:
Demonstrated that financial misreporting tied to opioid sales can also trigger criminal liability.

⚖️ Case 7: United States v. Mallory, Pharmacists and Doctors in “Pill Mill” Operations (2014–2017)

Facts:
Several doctors and pharmacists in Florida operated “pill mills,” prescribing opioids without legitimate medical purpose and collaborating with pharmacies to distribute them widely.

Criminal Charges:

Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (CSA)

Healthcare fraud

Money laundering

Outcome:

Dozens of physicians and pharmacists sentenced to 5–30 years in federal prison.

Assets forfeited, including clinics and bank accounts.

Significance:
Highlighted that individual prescribers and dispensers face criminal liability alongside manufacturers and distributors.

🧩 Key Legal Lessons

Legal ElementTypical ChargesCase Example
Misbranding / misleading marketingFDCA felonyPurdue Pharma, Cephalon
Fraud / KickbacksWire fraud, Anti-Kickback StatuteInsys Therapeutics, Teva
Distribution failuresCSA §842McKesson, Mallinckrodt
Off-label promotionFDCA & conspiracyCephalon, Insys
Individual criminal liabilityConspiracy, money launderingPill Mill prosecutions

✅ Conclusion

Criminal prosecutions in the opioid epidemic target corporations, executives, distributors, and prescribers. The U.S. legal system uses FDCA, CSA, RICO, and fraud statutes to hold actors accountable for contributing to addiction and overdose deaths. Over the past two decades, these cases have established strong precedents for corporate criminal liability, individual executive liability, and accountability for distribution compliance failures.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments