Bayer Continues Aggressive Advertising of Yaz

Bayer is using Yaz as a pilot for the new Google sponsored links format proposed at FDA hearings last week.  The new format was created in response to FDA warnings regarding the lack of safety information provided with sponsored link advertising on sites like Google.  Bayer was on of 14 companies who received a letter from the FDA in April stating that their sponsored links violated FDA rules.  The letter to Bayer said that "omission of risk information is particularly concerning as one of these products, Yaz, has a boxed warning."  Bayer was also notified that its Levitra and Mirena sponsored links were in violation of FDA rules.

The FDA warnings in April caused search rates and sponsored link revenue to plummet.  The drop in online advertising spurred the FDA to hold hearings on the future of prescription drug advertising on the internet and social media.  At those hearings, Google proposed the new format that Bayer is now testing with Yaz.  The new sponsored links contain a headline with a link to the drug's web site, then a line that says "Read important product info here" and a third line which reads "Click to see full safety and prescribing information, including boxed warning." 

Given the recent health concerns with Yaz birth control pills, Bayer seems to be flying in the face of patient safety by using Yaz as a pilot for new online advertising.  Or, maybe Bayer knows that the dangers of Yaz will lead to decreased popularity and they are hoping to squeeze the last bit of profit out of a dying franchise.  Either way, Bayer's choice to feature Yaz in this pilot program is in bad taste to say the least.

New Jersey Courts seek Mass Tort Statuts for Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella Lawsuits

New Jersey Judge Donald Volkert, Jr. made an application to the New Jersey judiciary to designate the 39 cases against drug companies Bayer and Teva over the birth control pills, Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella as a mass tort.  The mass tort designation will allow the cases to be consolidated in one court in New Jersey, rather than in several jursidiction as is now the case.  Judge Volkert, Jr. cited the following reasons to consolidate these cases:

• large number of filings;
• geographic disbursement of parties;
• risk of redundancy and inconsistent filings by different judges, resulting in undue delay and expense;
• increased efficiency by having one judge oversee the issues
• common issues of law and fact, as found by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; and 
• consolidation of the federal court cases by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

According to Law.com, the chief of civil court programs also noted that consolidation of federal cases weighs in favor of a similar move for state litigation because judges hearing federal multidistrict cases tend to coordinate case management with state judges hearing similar cases.

Usually mass tort status requests are made by plaintiffs' counsel, but the rules permit judges to make requests as well.  Since mass tort applications from lawyers typically request a specific venue, plaintiffs lawyers will probably express their preferences in comments to the court.  However, the final venue decision will be decided based mainly on caseloads in various venues.  The three counties being considered are Atlantic, Bergen and Middlesex. 

Public comments on the application for mass tort status will be accepted until December 31, 2009 with a determination expected shortly thereafter.