Last week, the jury in Natera v. Guardant Health, located in the U.S. District Court for the North District of California, found that Natera must pay $292.M in actual and punitive damages for false advertising about their liquid biopsy-based cancer screening tests. Meanwhile, the court dismissed the precision oncology defendant’s counterclaims of false advertising against Guardant Health. Further, the jury, whose decision is one of the largest Lanham Act false advertising verdicts in U.S. history, also found that Natera engaged in a deliberate campaign to mislead clinicians about Guardant’s laboratory developed tests (LDTs).
Since the case served as a central pillar of my Student Note, the verdict’s consequences are intriguing and may validate companies that advertise their assays as LDTs, versus more rigorously reviewed and expensive 510k-approved tests. This decision will also likely act as impetus for future companies’ efforts to advertise cancer liquid biopsy tests, despite recently established regulation by the FDA’s on LDTs this past spring. However, with the incoming presidential administration and the demise of the Chevron Doctrine, we will have to see whether the FDA (and by extension the FTC), will have power regarding what diagnostic companies can truly claim about their LDTs. While this will likely apply regardless of a company’s plans to advertise to a learned intermediary (like physicians) or directly to consumers, I look forward to seeing how it eventually shakes out (either in the regulatory or litigation sphere).
--
1moGreat achievement! Thank you Bolt team for making this possible and thank you Prof Zeller for the great presentation