Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay £469 million in landmark opioid case

  • Video report by ITV News Correspondent Juliet Bremner

A judge in Oklahoma has found Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries helped fuel the state’s opioid crisis and ordered the consumer products giant to pay £469 million ($572 million).

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman’s ruling followed the first state opioid case to make it to trial and could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio.

“The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma,” Mr Balkman said before announcing the verdict.

“It must be abated immediately.”

The judge said the opioid crisis ‘must be abated immediately’. Credit: AP

As soon as the decision was announced at the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Johnson & Johnson said it would appeal against the ruling.

Before Oklahoma’s trial began on May 28, Oklahoma reached settlements with two other defendant groups — a £221 million ($270 million) deal with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and an £69 million ($85 million) settlement with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Oklahoma argued the companies and their subsidiaries created a public nuisance by launching an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign that overstated how effective the drugs were for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter says opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to 2017.

Mr Hunter has called Johnson & Johnson a “kingpin” company that was motivated by greed.

Judge Thad Balkman said the 'opioid crisis' had 'ravaged' the state of Oklahoma. Credit: AP

He specifically pointed to two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, which produced much of the raw opium used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs.

“They’ve been the principal origin for the active pharmaceutical ingredient in prescription opioids in the country for the last two decades,” Mr Hunter said after the trial ended on July 15.

“It is one of the most important elements of causation with regard to why the defendants… are responsible for the epidemic in the country and in Oklahoma.”

Lawyers for the company have maintained they were part of a lawful and heavily regulated industry subject to strict federal oversight, including the US Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, during every step of the supply chain.

They added that the judgment was a misapplication of public nuisance law.

Sabrina Strong, a lawyer for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, said the companies have sympathy for those who suffer from substance abuse but called the judge’s decision “flawed”.

“You can’t sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis,” Ms Strong said.

“Litigation is not the answer.”

Oklahoma pursued the case under the state’s public nuisance statute and presented the judge with a plan to abate the crisis that would cost between £10.3 billion ($12.6 billion) for 20 years and £143 billion ($17.5 billion) over 30 years.

Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson have said that estimate is wildly inflated.