Lexapro Marketing Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing Forest Laboratories of misrepresenting and concealing material information about the effectiveness of Lexapro in treating major depressive disorder in pediatric patients.

Lead plaintiffs Bonnie and Randy Marcus allege in the Lexapro class action lawsuit that in April of 2009 their 17-year-old son was prescribed Lexapro to treat his ongoing depression. The plaintiffs claim Forest’s labeling of the drug and fraudulent marketing misled them into believing Lexapro was more effective than other drugs at treating depression in adolescents and they overpaid for the drug.

The plaintiffs originally filed the Lexapro class action lawsuit in California, then the case was transferred to the Massachusetts federal court by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and combined with similar lawsuits in amultidistrict class action over claims that the SSRIs are no more effective than a sugar pill in treating depression in children. Forest then filed to dismiss the complaint arguing there is “substantial evidence” that the drug is effective in treating adolescent depression.

Lexapro and Celexa are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. Forest allegedly obtained U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market these drugs for use in children and adolescents in 2009.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted Forest’s motion to dismiss under the California’s safe harbor laws. “The California safe harbor doctrine bars certain claims brought under California’s unfair competition,” states the judge, and “the safe harbor provision, in essence, reflects a judgment by the California Supreme Court that California’s unfair competition law should not be employed to second guess legislative judgment.”

The judge pointed out that “[w]here, as here, Congress has entrusted the FDA to determine 1) whether there is a substantial evidence of efficacy for a particular indication and 2) whether a proposed label is false or misleading in any way, and the FDA approves a label for a certain indication, the safe harbor provision applies to bar a claim that the label was false or misleading,” and, “[f]urthermore, neither of the two potential exceptions to the safe harbor rule applies.”

The judge pointed out that this case is distinguishable from cases involving FDA regulation of food and homeopathic remedies where courts have held that the safe harbor act does not apply noting “the prescription drug industry is subject to comprehensive regulations promulgated by the FDA.” Additionally, the judge pointed out that “[h]ere, where plaintiffs base their claims entirely on the marketing and sales of Lexapro after the FDA approved Forest’s application for an adolescent indication and a proposed label, the safe harbor applies to bar such claims.” The judge also found no other case law that would preclude the application of the safe harbor provisions.

Plaintiffs Bonnie and Randy Marcus are represented by Michael L. Baum of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC.

The Lexapro Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Randy Marcus, et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-11343, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Lexapro and Celexa Marketing MDL is In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02067, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

If you were prescribed Celexa or Lexapro during pregnancy and subsequently gave birth to a child with a birth defect, you may have a legal claim. Visit the SSRI Antidepressant Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation for more details. Compensation specialists are standing by to review your claims for free.