This portion of the article is based on statements made by government plaintiffs in complaints against opioid producers and sellers filed by Ohio, the City of Chicago, New Hampshire, the City of Louisville, and the Cherokee Nation.Google Scholar

Prater, J. B., Comment, “West Virginia's Painful Settlement: How the OxyContin Phenomenon and Unconventional Theories of Tort Liability May Make Pharmaceutical Companies Liable for Black Markets,” Northwestern University Law Review 100, no. 3 (2006): 1409, 1412.Google Scholar

Ausness, R. C., “The Role of Litigation in the Fight Against Prescription Drug Abuse,” West Virginia Law Review 116, no. 3 (2014): 1117, 1122-1129.Google Scholar

Id. at 1130-1137.Google Scholar

Id. at 1157.Google Scholar

Id. at 1158-1163.Google Scholar

In re OxyContin Antitrust Litigation, 821 F. Supp. 2d 591, 593-601 ((S.D.N.Y. 2011).Google Scholar

Prater, supra note 2 at 1409, 1424-1430.Google Scholar

City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 211 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2016).Google Scholar

Schwartz, V. E., Goldberg, P., and Appel, C. E., “Can Governments Impose a New Tort Duty to Prevent External Risks? The ‘No-Fault’ Theories behind Today's High-Stakes Government Recoupment Suits,” Wake Forest Law Review 44, no. 4 (2009): 923, 940.Google Scholar

For example, see the account of the experience of the City of Everett, Washington reported in the Los Angeles Times. See Ryan, H., “City Devastated by OxyContin Use Sues Purdue Pharma, Claims Drugmaker Put Profits Over Citizens' Welfare,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 19, 2017.Google Scholar

Keeton, W. Page et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 30 at 164-65 (5th ed. 1984).Google Scholar

Ausness, R. C., “Tort Liability for the Sale of Non-Defective Products: An Analysis and Critique of the Concept of Negligent Marketing,” South Carolina Law Review 53, no. 4 (2002): 907, 912.Google Scholar

McClurg, A. J., “The Tortious Marketing of Handguns: Strict Liability Is Dead, Long Live Negligence,” Seton Hall Legislative Journal 19, no. 3 (1996): 777, 800-818.Google Scholar

Texas v. American Tobacco Co., 14 F. Supp. 2d 956, 974 (E.D. Tex. 1997); Goldstein v. Philip Morris, Inc., 854 A.2d 585, 590-91 (Pa. Super Ct. 2004).Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146, 149 (Del. 1987).Google Scholar

211 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2016).Google Scholar

Id. at 1070.Google Scholar

18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 (2012).Google Scholar

18 U.S.C. § 1962.Google Scholar

E.g., In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013); Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 187 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar

In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013).Google Scholar

Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Newport Hosp., 272 A.2d 329, 332 (R.I. 1971).Google Scholar

Bouchard v. Price, 694 A.2d 670, 673 (R.I. 1997).Google Scholar

In re North Dakota Personal Injury Asbestos Litig. No. 1, 737 F. Supp. 1087, 1096 (D.N.D. 1990); see also Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett, 701 N.W.2d 523, 566 (Wis. 2005); City of Milwaukee v. NL Industries, Inc., 691 N.W.2d 888, 896 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).Google Scholar

Behrens, M. A. and Appel, C. E., the Need for Rational Boundaries in Civil Conspiracy Cases,” Northern Illinois University Law Review 31, no. 1 (2010): 37, 38.Google Scholar

A few states have abandoned the but for test completely and apply the substantial factor test for causation in all cases. Owen, D. G., Products Liability Law § 11.2 at 770-71 (2d ed. 2008).Google Scholar

Cases holding for the plaintiffs on this issue: See, e.g., City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co., 226 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. 2007). However, plaintiffs prevailed in the causation issue in People v. ConAgra Grocery Prods. Co., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (Ct. App. 2017); City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2005).Google Scholar

This problem occurred when hundreds of manufacturers sold generic versions of DES, a drug that caused cancer in the daughters of the women who ingested it. See Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980) (where the California Supreme Court developed a market share apportionment theory to solve the problem of multiple defendants).Google Scholar

Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, 171 F.3d 912 (3d Cir. 1999); City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2005); Young v. Bryco Arms, 821 N.E.2d 1078 (Ill. 2004); Riordan v. Int'l Armament Corp., 477 N.E.2d 1293 (Ill App. Ct. 1985); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (App. Div. 2003); Ashley County, Arkansas v. Pfizer, 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar

Grossman, D. A., “Warming Up to a Not-So-Radical Idea: Tort-Based Climate Change Litigation,” Columbia Journal Enviro-mental Law 28, no. 1,(2003): 20; Percival, R. V., “Global Law and the Environment,” Washington Law Review 86 (2011): 579, 604.Google Scholar

Kimball, A. G. and Olson, S. L., “Municipal Firearm Litigation: Ill Conceived from Any angle,” Connecticut Law Review 32, no. 4 (2000): 1277, 1288.Google Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., Keeton, R. E., and Owen, D. G., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 44 at 311-13 (5th ed. 1984).Google Scholar

Id. at 313.Google Scholar

Id.at 313-14.Google Scholar

Cf. People v. ConAgra Grocery Prods. Co., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (Ct. App. 2017) (rejected the remoteness argument) with People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (App. Div. 2003) (upholding the defendant's remoteness claim).Google Scholar

Sharkey, C. M., “In Search of the Cheapest Cost Avoider: Another View of the Economic Loss Rule,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 85 (2017): 1017, 1017.Google Scholar

476 U.S. 858 (1986).Google Scholar

Adams-Arapahoe School Dist. No. 28-J, 959 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1992); City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2005).Google Scholar

Cf. Tioga Pub. School Dist. v. United States Gypsum Co., 984 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1993); City of Greenville v. W.R. Grace & Co., 827 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1987); City of Manchester v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 637 F. Supp. 646 (D.R.I. 1986); Detroit Bd. Of Educ. v. Celotex Corp., 493 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).Google Scholar

Ausness, R. C., “The Current State of Opioid Litigation,” South Carolina Law Review 70 (2019): 565, 603.Google Scholar

City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2005).Google Scholar

City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003); City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002).Google Scholar

For example, government plaintiffs did not rely on all of the liability theories discussed above, but chose only those that seemed best suited to the facts of their particular cases. In addition, individual government plaintiffs did not necessarily sue all of the potential defendants. Thus, some sued only opioid manufacturers; others sued only distributors, while a few sued only retail sellers.Google Scholar

Cooper, E. R., “Aggregation and Choice of Law,” Roger Williams University Law Review 14, no. 1 (2009): 12.Google Scholar

Bradt, A. D., “The Shortest Distance: Direct Filing and Choice of Law in Multidistrict Litigation,” Notre Dame Law Review 88, no. 1 (2012): 759, 792.Google Scholar

Bradt, A. D. and Rave, D. T., “Aggregation on Defendants' Terms: Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Federalization of Mass-Tort Litigation,” Boston College Law Review 459 (2018): 1251, 1267.Google Scholar

Bradt, A D., “‘A Radical Proposal’: The Multidistrict Litigation Act of 1968,” University Pennsylvania Law Review 165, no. 4 (2017): 831, 834.Google Scholar

Hines, L. J., “Challenging the Issue Class Action End-Run,” Emory Law Journal 52, no. 2 (2003): 709, 715; Wood, S. M., Note, “The Master Settlement Agreement as a Class Action: An Evaluative Framework for Settlements of Publicly Initiated Litigation,” Virginia Law Review 89 (2003): 597, 603-611.Google Scholar

“Note, The Punitive Damage Class Action: A Solution to the Problem of Multiple Punishment,” University of Illinios Law Review (1984): 153, 166-167.Google Scholar

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1997).Google Scholar

Erichson, H. M., “Informal Aggregation: Procedural and Ethical Implications of Coordination Among Counsel in Related Lawsuits,” Duke Law Journal 50, no. 2 (2000): 381, 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999); Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1997).Google Scholar

28 U.S.C. § 1332.Google Scholar

Burbank, S. B., “The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in Historical Context: A Preliminary View,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 156 (2008): 1439, 1528.Google Scholar

Marcus, R. L., “Cure-All for an Era of Dispersed Litigation? Toward a Maximalist Use of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel's Transfer Power,” Tulane Law Review 82, no. 6 (2008): 2245, 2249.Google Scholar

28 U.S.C. § 1407.Google Scholar

Fallon, E. E., Grabill, J. T., and Wynne, R. P., “Bellwether Trials in Multidistrict Litigation,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 2323, 2326-27.Google Scholar

Bone, R. G., “The Puzzling Idea of Adjudicative Representation: Lessons for Aggregate Litigation and Class Actions,” George Washington Law Review 79, no. 2 (2011): 577, 620 (2011).Google Scholar

Bradt, A. D., “The Shortest Distance: Direct Filing and Choice of Law in Multidistrict Litigation,” Notre Dame Law Review 88, no. 2 (2012): 759, 762.Google Scholar

Prater, supra note 2 at 1409, 1412.Google Scholar

Bradt, A. D. and Rave, D. T., “Aggregation on Defendants' Terms: Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Federalization of Mass-Tort Litigation,” Boston College Law Review 59, no. 4 (2018): 1251, 1258.Google Scholar

Burch, E. C., “Procedural Justice in Nonclass Aggregation,” Wake Forest Law Review 44 (2009): 1, 4.Google Scholar

Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation if a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 2205, 2211.Google Scholar

Brown, S. T., “Plaintiff Control and Domination in Multidistrict Mass Torts,” Cleveland State Law Review 61, no. 2 (2013): 391, 39.Google Scholar

Erichson, H. M., “Informal Aggregation: Procedural and Ethical Implications of Coordination Among Counsel in Related Lawsuits,” Duke Law Journal 50 (2000): 381, 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Redish, M. H. and Karaba, J. M., “One Size Doesn't Fit All: Multidistrict Litigation, due Process, and the Dangers of Procedural Collectivism,” Boston University Law Review 95 (2015): 109, 126.Google Scholar

Ostolaza, Y. and Hartmann, M., “Overview of Multidistrict Litigation Rules at the State and Federal Level,” The Review of Litigation 26, no. 1 (2007): 62-63.Google Scholar

In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, N.D. Ohio, No. 1:18-op-45090 (Dec. 19, 2018).Google Scholar

Fallon, E. E., Grabill, J. T., and Wynne, R. P., “Bellwether Trials in Multidistrict Litigation,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 2323, 2329.Google Scholar

Taylor, G. W., Note, “Big Tobacco, Medicaid-Covered Smokers, and the Substance of the Master Settlement Agreement,” Vanderbilt Law Review 63, no. 4 (2010): 1081, 1086-1092.Google Scholar

Dreveskracht, R. D., “Forfeiting Federalism: The Faustian Pact with Big Tobacco,” Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 18, no. 3 (2015): 291, 293-294.Google Scholar

Sloan, F. and Chepke, L., “Litigation, Settlement, and the Public Welfare: Lessons from the Master Settlement Agreement,” Widener Law Review 17 (2011): 159, 166.Google Scholar

Dagan, H. and White, J. J., “Governments, Citizens, and Injurious Industries,” New York University Law Review 75 (2000): 354, 363.Google Scholar

Player, T. S., Note, “After the Fall: The Cigarette Papers, the Global Settlement, and the Future of Tobacco Litigation,” South Carolina Law Review 49, no. 2 (1998): 311, 322-23.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id. at 325.Google Scholar

Id. at 328-329.Google Scholar

Id. at 329-330.Google Scholar

Bianchini, M. G., “The Tobacco Agreement That Went Up in Smoke: Defining the Limits of Congressional Intervention into Ongoing Mass Tort Litigation,” California Law Review 87 (1999): 703, 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dagan, H. and White, J. J., “Governments, Citizens, and Injurious Indiustries,” New York University Law Review 75, no. 2 (2000): 354, 364-68.Google Scholar

Sloan, F. and Chepke, L., “Litigation, Settlement, and the Public Welfare: Lessons from the Master Settlement Agreement,” Widener Law Review 17, no. 1 (2011): 159, 169.Google Scholar

Haile, A. J. and Kruegar-Andes, M. W., “Landmark Settlements and Unintended Consequences,” University of Toledo Law Review 44, no. 1 (2012): 145, 145-46.Google Scholar

Godesky, L., “State Attorneys General and Contingency Fee Arrangements: An Affront to the Neutrality Doctrine,” Columbia Journal of Law & Societal Problems (2009): 587, 588.Google Scholar

Wood, S. M., Note, “The Master Settlement Agreement as a Class Action: An Evaluative Framework for Settlements of Publically Initiated Litigation,” Virginia Law Review 89, no. 3 (2003): 597, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, G. W., Note, “Big Tobacco, Medicaid-Covered Smokers, and the Substance of the Master Settlement Agreement,” Vanderbilt Law Review 63 (2010): 1081, 1103.Google Scholar

Dreveskracht, R. D., “Forfeiting Federalism: The Faustian Pact with Big Tobacco,” Richmond Journal of Law & the Public Interest 18 (2015): 291, 293-294.Google Scholar

In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 478 F. Supp. 2d 897, 901 (E.D. La. 2007).Google Scholar

Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 2205, 2213.Google Scholar

Grabill, J. T., “Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements,” Seton Hall Law Review 42, no. 1 (2012): 123, 142.Google Scholar

Erichson, H. M. and Zipursky, B. C., “Consent Versus Closure,” Cornell Law Review 96, no. 2 (2011): 265, 277-78.Google Scholar

Lahav, A. D., “Recovering the Social Value of Jurisdictional Redundancy,” Tulane Law Review 82, no. 6 (2008): 2369, 2394.Google Scholar

Id. One verdict for the plaintiff and one for defendant were sent back for retrial. Id. at n. 106.Google Scholar

Erichson, H. M. and Zipursky, B. C., “Consent Versus Closure,” Cornell Law Review 96, no. 2 (2011): 265, 278.Google Scholar

Grabill, J. T., “Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements,” Seton Hall Law Review 42, no. 1 (2012): 123, 144-45.Google Scholar

Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82, no. 6 (2008): 2205, 2213-14.Google Scholar

Erichson, H. M. and Zipursky, B. C., “Consent Versus Closure,” Cornell Law Review 96, no. 2 (2011): 265, 279-280.Google Scholar

Grabill, J. T., “Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements,” Seton Hall Law Review 42, no. 1 (2012): 123, 145.Google Scholar

Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82, no. 6 (2008): 2205, 2215.Google Scholar

Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82, no. 6 (2008): 2205, 2215.Google Scholar

Dodge, J., “Facilitative Judging: Organizational Design in Mass-Multidistrict Litigation,” Emory Law Journal 64, no. 2 (2014): 329, 348.Google Scholar

Grabill, J. T., “Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements,” Seton Hall Law Review 42, no. 1 (2012): 123, 143. In addition, the settlement agreement required plaintiff's attorneys to recommend to their clients that they accept the terms of the agreement and if a client did not consent, the attorney would threaten to withdraw from representing the client any further. Sherman, E. F., “The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 2205, 2215 (2008).Google Scholar

See generally, Dana, D. A., “Public Interest and Private Lawyers Toward a Normative Evaluation of Parens Patriae Litigation by Contingency Fee,” DePaul Law Review 51, no. 2 (2001): 315; Lemos, M. H., “Privatizing Public Litigation,” 104 Georgetown Law. Review 104, no. 3 (2016): 515; Redish, M. H., “Private Contingent Fee Lawyers and Public Power: Constitutional and Political Implications,” Supreme Court Econmic Review 18, no. 1 (2010): 77.Google Scholar

Lemos, M. H., “Privatizing Public Litigation,” Georgetown Law Journal 104, no. 3 (2016): 515, 532-33.Google Scholar

Dana, supra note 104 at 315, 317.Google Scholar

Lemos, M. H., “Privatizing Public Litigation,” Georgetown Law Journal 104, no. 3 (2016): 515, 532 (2016) (citing examples of this practice in suits against lead-based paint manufacturers, poultry companies and HMOs). States have also hired private attorneys to represent them against pharmaceutical companies. McDonald, K. E., Comment, “‘Pay to Sue’ — Contingency Fee Arrangements When Representing the State: A Review of the Section, 25-16-702 of the Arkansas Code,” Arkansas Law Review 66, no. 3 (2013): 775, 776.Google Scholar

Godesky, L., “State Attorneys General and Contingency Fee Arrangements: An Affront to the Neutrality Doctrine,” Columbia Journal of Law and Societal Problems 42, no. 4 (2009): 587, 588 (2009).Google Scholar

Lemos, supra note 107 at 515, 536.Google Scholar

E.g., Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842, (Ct. App. 2008); State of New Hampshire v. Actavis Pharma, Inc., 167 A.3d 1277, 1282 (N.H. 2017); State v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, 951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008).Google Scholar

McDonald, supra note 107 at 775, 792.Google Scholar

Dana, supra note 104 at 325-26.Google Scholar

McDonald, supra note 107 at 775, 783.Google Scholar

Prater, supra note 2 at 1409, 1412.Google Scholar