Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding plaintiffs are “not required to prove they or their physicians relied on [defendant’s] alleged misrepresentations about the drug”
• explaining that “the statute does not require that the purchase be caused by the unlawful practice” and “class members are not individually required to show what they would or would not have done had the product not been misrepresented and the risks known.”
• “because Plaintiffs alleged Vioxx was worth less than the product as represented, they stated an objectively ascertainable loss under the MMPA using the benefit-of-the-bargain rule”
• plaintiffs prescribed Vioxx filed class action claim against drug manufacturer, claiming manufacturer’s failure to disclose health risks constituted unlawful merchandising under MMPA
• where plaintiffs alleged prescription drug they purchased was worth less than the product as represented, they stated an objectively ascertainable loss under the MMPA using the benefit-of-the-bargain rule
• “[A]n unlawful practice under the MMPA may be demonstrated by the defendant’s conduct[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).