Theranos, Walgreens Blood Test Class Actions Transferred to Arizona

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.

An Alaska federal judge has consolidated four proposed class action lawsuits in Arizona federal court against Theranos Inc. and Walgreens.

U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland granted the transfer order on Wednesday but denied the motion for appointment of lead counsel, stating it was “premature.”

The order joins together a slew of proposed Theranos blood test class action lawsuits filed between May 25 and June 24 shortly after the embattled blood-testing startup revealed it voided two years of results from its Edison “tiny blood tests” over concerns about their accuracy following a Wall Street Journal investigation and subsequent investigations by the federal government.

Theranos, according to its website, gets its name from a combination of the words therapy and diagnosis.

The company collected blood using a revolutionary finger-stick device it called Edison, which takes a few drops of blood instead of using a needle and vial as in traditional tests. Hundreds of different tests can be found on the company’s website.

Among the allegations against Theranos is that the Edison device, advertised as capable of conducting hundreds of blood tests with just a few drops of blood, did not work and produced inaccurate results.

“Bolstered by the enhanced retail presence and credibility provided through its partnership with Walgreens, Theranos had performed roughly 1.8 million lab tests by the end of 2015,” the complaint says. “However, despite the hype, Theranos’s Edison system did not work, and the tests were inaccurate.”

Walgreens had partnered with Theranos for blood tests in its in-store clinics, however the pharmacy chain has since terminated its partnership with Theranos.

The consolidated lawsuits state that Walgreens failed to notify customers when it learned that the Theranos blood test results were not reliable.

“What Walgreens failed to disclose was that it in its desire to expand by ‘transform[ing] community pharmacy’ through a venture into the blood-testing business with Theranos’s technology, it had not fully validated Theranos’ technology,” the complaint states. “Indeed, Walgreens entered into its partnership with Theranos and began promoting the Theranos blood tests and all their big claims without ever even seeing the magical testing device.”

The consolidated class action just adds to the problems for Theranos. Facing scandal after scandal from the revelation of the the faulty blood testing technology to hefty federal sanctions, the company announced it is shutting down their labs and in-store “wellness centers.”

Furthermore, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, findings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services showed that a Theranos laboratory in California employed under-qualified personnel and was failing to implement quality safeguards for a number of tests, which posed an “immediate jeopardy” to patient health.

In addition to the consolidated lawsuits pending in Arizona federal court against Theranos, Holmes’ faces a lawsuit filed by Theranos’ largest investors, Partner Fund Management LP, alleging that Theranos deceived PFM in order to net a nearly $100 million investment from the hedge fund in 2014.

These scandals led to company founder, Elizabeth Holmes, to be banned from the business altogether.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated Theranos class action lawsuit are represented by Keller Rohrback LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

The Consolidated Theranos Blood Test Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Arizona Theranos Inc. Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02138, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

UPDATE: On June 13, 2017, a federal judge pared away several of the plaintiffs’ claims in this consolidated Theranos class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs have a chance to amend defects in their pleadings related to seven discrete claims. Several other claims were dismissed with prejudice.