United States: Second Circuit's Caronia Decision Striking Down On First Amendment Grounds The Criminal Conviction Of A Pharmaceutical Sales Representative For Off-Label Promotion Could Have Broad Implications

Last Updated: January 8 2013
Article by Martin Seidel, Jason Jurgens, Brian T. McGovern, Adam S. Lurie and Ryan J. Andreoli

Most Read Contributor in United States, December 2018

On December 3, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the conviction of Alfred Caronia ("Caronia"), who had been tried and convicted of participating in an unlawful conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce in violation of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA").1 In its 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit held that the government's prosecution of Caronia for engaging in truthful promotion of an approved drug, albeit for off-label uses, violated Caronia's right of free speech under the First Amendment.2 As discussed below, this decision could have far-reaching consequences on the ways in which pharmaceutical companies market and sell prescription drugs, as well as the government's continued efforts to restrict off-label promotional practices.3

Factual Background

In March 2005, Caronia was hired by Orphan Medical, Inc. ("Orphan") as a Special Sales Consultant to promote the prescription drug Xyrem.4 In July 2005, Caronia began participating in Orphan's "speaker program" for Xyrem, which enlisted practicing physicians to promote the drug to other physicians.5 Several months later, a government cooperator posing as a physician interested in Xyrem recorded his conversations with Caronia and one of the physicians hired by Orphan as a promotional speaker (Dr. Peter Gleason).6 During these recorded conversations, Caronia and Gleason promoted Xyrem for unapproved or "off-label" indications and for use in unapproved patient populations.7 Caronia was subsequently charged with and convicted of participating in an unlawful conspiracy to introduce Xyrem into interstate commerce when Xyrem was "misbranded" within the meaning of the FDCA.8

Regulatory Framework

Before a prescription drug can be sold to consumers, it must be approved by the FDA for one or more intended uses.9 However, once a drug is approved by the FDA for a particular indication or intended use, it may be prescribed by physicians (and used by patients) for both the approved use(s), as well as any other indication the physician deems medically appropriate.10

While the FDCA does not specifically prohibit pharmaceutical companies from marketing FDA approved drugs for unapproved or "off-label" use, it does prohibit "'[t]he introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any . . . drug . . . that is . . . misbranded.'"11 "A drug is misbranded [for purposes of the FDCA] if, inter alia, the drug's labeling fails to bear 'adequate directions for use'. . . which FDA regulations define as 'directions under which the lay[person] can use a drug safely and for the purposes for which it is intended. . . .'"12 Pursuant to FDA regulations, a drug's intended use is generally determined "by reference to 'the objective intent of the persons legally responsible for the labeling of drugs.'"13

The Second Circuit's Decision

On appeal, Caronia argued that his conviction should be overturned because he had not misrepresented the safety or efficacy of Xyrem, and the government could not, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit him from truthfully promoting the drug.14 The government, on the other hand, argued that Caronia's conviction did not implicate the First Amendment because Caronia was not prosecuted for engaging in protected speech. Rather, the government asserted that Caronia's promotional statements only served as evidence of the intent (or intended use) necessary to establish that "misbranding" had occurred.15 In reversing Caronia's conviction, the Second Circuit rejected the government's assertion that the First Amendment did not apply, holding that the government had in fact prosecuted Caronia for speech relating to off-label uses of Xyrem, and that the government had never sought to limit its use of evidence regarding such speech to the issue of intent.16

After determining that the First Amendment applied to the statements at issue, the Second Circuit then addressed whether the restrictions imposed on Caronia's speech could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the four-part test established by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).17 The Second Circuit determined that the first two prongs of Central Hudson were easily satisfied. With regard to the first prong, the Second Circuit determined that the speech at issue (promoting off-label use) concerned a lawful activity (off-label use of approved drugs), and could therefore warrant First Amendment protection.18 With respect to the second prong, the Second Circuit determined that the government had a substantial interest in drug safety and public health, which could justify some form of restriction on the protected speech.19

The Second Circuit concluded, however, that the government could not satisfy the third and fourth prongs of the Central Hudson test. With respect to Central Hudson's third prong (the requirement that the regulation at issue directly advance the governmental interest asserted), the Second Circuit stated that: "[a]s off-label drug use itself is not prohibited, it does not follow that prohibiting the truthful promotion of off-label drug usage by a particular class of speakers would directly further the government's goals of preserving the efficacy and integrity of the FDA's drug approval process and reducing patient exposure to unsafe and ineffective drugs."20 Finally, with respect to the fourth prong of Central Hudson (the requirement that the regulation at issue be narrowly tailored to further the asserted governmental interest), the Second Circuit determined that "the government's construction of the FDCA to impose a complete and criminal ban on off-label promotion by pharmaceutical manufacturers is more extensive than necessary to achieve the government's substantial interests."21 Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated Caronia's conviction, holding that:

we decline to adopt the government's construction of the FDCA's misbranding provisions to prohibit manufacturer promotion alone as it would unconstitutionally restrict free speech. We construe the misbranding provisions of the FDCA as not prohibiting and criminalizing the truthful off-label promotion of FDA-approved prescription drugs.22

Caronia's Implications For Off-Label Promotion

Since the Caronia decision was issued on December 3, 2012, numerous legal commentators have expressed their views on how the decision will affect pharmaceutical companies' future marketing practices, as well as the government's future efforts to restrict off-label promotion.23 However, it is important to recognize the limitations that the Second Circuit placed on its own decision. In that regard, the Second Circuit expressly stated that:

[o]ur conclusion is limited to FDA-approved drugs for which off label use is not prohibited, and we do not hold, of course, that the FDA cannot regulate the marketing of prescription drugs. We conclude simply that the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech promoting the lawful, off-label use of an FDA approved drug.24

Thus, while this decision provides a powerful defense for both pharmaceutical companies and their employees in misbranding and related cases, including civil False Claims Act matters, it is clear that Caronia only applies to truthful, non misleading promotion of FDA-approved drugs for off-label uses. The holding of Caronia should not in any way limit the government's ability to prosecute pharmaceutical companies and/or their representatives for, among other things: (i) marketing drugs which have not yet received FDA approval for any use; or (ii) false or misleading statements regarding approved drugs (including in connection with promoting such drugs for off-label uses).

It is also important to note that the Second Circuit's decision in Caronia is the first decision from a federal circuit court of appeals to directly address the constitutionality of the government's efforts to restrict off-label promotion of prescription drugs. While Caronia is binding precedent within the Second Circuit, it would not be binding on the other circuit courts of appeals if they are called upon to address the same or similar issues.25 Thus, the Caronia decision could result in the government attempting to evade Caronia by bringing all actions seeking to impose criminal or civil liability for misbranding based on off-label promotion in district courts outside of the Second Circuit (i.e., forum shopping).26 In addition, the government may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, which could (and likely would) delay the ultimate resolution of the Caronia case.

In light of this uncertainty, and the continued potential for aggressive off-label enforcement efforts, life science companies that engage in the promotion of FDA approved drugs should not alter their compliance efforts. In fact, the Caronia decision may increase the risk that company employees take their compliance obligations less seriously and thereby expose their companies to greater enforcement risk. Thus, companies must remain as vigilant as ever in their compliance efforts. Nonetheless, Caronia is clearly an important decision for life science companies and their employees, and they should closely monitor any further developments, including in the courts and by regulators and the Department of Justice.

Footnotes

1 United States v. Caronia, No. 09-5006-cr, 2012 WL 5992141, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2012).

2 Id. The majority opinion in Caronia was written by Judge Denny Chin and was joined by Judge Reena Raggi. Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented in a separate opinion in which she asserted that the restriction imposed by the government on Caronia's speech (even assuming, which Judge Livingston disputed, that the government had prosecuted Caronia for his speech) was constitutional. Id. at *26.

3 In recent years, many of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world have entered into settlements with the government to resolve claims of criminal and/or civil wrongdoing in connection with off-label promotion of prescription drugs. These settlements have collectively required the pharmaceutical industry to pay billions of dollars in fines and penalties to resolve the government's claims.

4 Orphan was subsequently acquired by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Id. at *3.

5 Id. at *4. Xyrem is a "powerful central nervous system depressant," which at the time of Caronia's alleged misconduct had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") solely to treat narcolepsy patients for cataplexy (a condition associated with weak or paralyzed muscles). Id. at *3. Soon thereafter, Xyrem was approved by the FDA to treat narcolepsy parties with excessive daytime sleepiness. Id.

6 Id. at *4.

7 Id. at **4-5. The government never asserted that Caronia's statements about Xyrem were false or misleading. Id. at *13 n.11. Rather, the government's claims were based entirely on the theory that Caronia had promoted (or participated in promoting) Xyrem for unapproved uses and/or patient populations. Id. at *9.

8 Id. at **5, 7. Prior to trial, Caronia moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that the FDCA provisions at issue impermissibly and unconstitutionally restricted his First Amendment right to free speech. Id. at *6. The district court denied that motion, and the case proceeded to trial. Id. Orphan and Gleason were also charged under the misbranding provisions of the FDCA, and both pled guilty. Id.

9 Id. at *1.

10 Id.

11 Id. at *2 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 331(a)) (alterations in original).

12 Id. (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 352(f); 21 C.F.R. § 201.5(a)).

13 Id. (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 201.128). In Caronia, the Second Circuit noted that while the FDCA does not specifically prohibit off-label promotion, the FDA has taken the position that off-label promotion constitutes "misbranding." Id. at *3 (reciting the FDA's position that "[a]n approved drug that is marketed for an unapproved use (whether in labeling or not) is misbranded because the labeling of such drug does not include 'adequate directions for use'") (quoting FDA, Draft Guidance, GoodReprint Practices for the Distribution of Medical Journal Articles & Medical or Scientific Reference Publications onUnapproved New Uses of Approved Drugs & Approved or Cleared Medical Devices 2-3 (2009)). In addition, the government has repeatedly (and successfully) prosecuted pharmaceutical companies for misbranding based on off-label promotion. Caronia, 2012 WL 5992141, at **2-3 .

14 Id. at *8.

15 Id.

16 Id. at **9-10. In reaching its conclusion that Caronia's statements regarding off-label uses of Xyrem were protected by the First Amendment, the Second Circuit relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health,Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), where the Supreme Court held that "[s]peech in aid of pharmaceutical marketing . . . is a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Id. at 2659.

17 Caronia, 2012 WL 5992141, at **11-15. The Second Circuit determined, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell, that a "heightened" level of scrutiny was appropriate because "[t]he government's construction of the FDCA's misbranding provisions to prohibit and criminalize the promotion of off-label drug use by pharmaceutical manufacturers is content- and speaker-based. . . ." Id. at *12. Like the Supreme Court in Sorrell, the Second Circuit was not required to determine the particular level of "heightened" scrutiny to be applied in such circumstances, because it concluded that "the government cannot justify a criminal prohibition of off-label promotion even under Central Hudson's less rigorous intermediate test." Id.

18 Id. at *13.

19 Id.

20 Id. at *13.

21 Id. at *14. The Second Circuit stated that "[n]umerous, less speech-restrictive alternatives are available, as are non-criminal penalties," and then went on to list some of those alternatives. Id.

22 Id.

23 See, e.g., Katie Thomas, Ruling Is Victory for Drug Companies in Promoting Medicine for Other Uses, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/ruling-backs-drug-industry-on-off-label-marketing.html (quoting a former chief counsel of the F.D.A. as stating that Caronia is "'very significant . . . because it's going to make F.D.A., in its promotion cases, focus on the kinds of speech that are more likely to harm consumers, such as false or misleading marketing versus something that is not approved'"); Alison Frankel, Seismic Fallout from Ruling on Drug Marketing & FreeSpeech?, Thomson Reuters News & Insight, Dec. 4, 2012, http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/12_- _December/Seismic_fallout_from_ruling_on_drug_marketing_and_free_speech_/ (quoting an attorney who submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit in the Caronia case as stating that the decision "'guts the FDA's regulatory regime' and erects'an absolute roadblock' [to] 'the FDA's grotesquely aggressive approach' to off-label marketing prosecution").

24 Caronia, 2012 WL 5992141, at *14.

25 As noted above, Judge Livingston wrote a dissenting opinion in Caronia in which she vehemently disagreed with virtually every aspect of the majority's constitutional analysis. In particular, Judge Livingston asserted that "[t]he majority's decision today extends heightened scrutiny further than the Supreme Court ever has, and calls into question a fundamental regime of federal regulation that has existed for more than a century." Id. at *27. Judge Livingston also noted the potential impact the majority's decision could have on the government's ability to regulate activity and prosecute individuals for conduct in other contexts involving truthful speech, such as insider trading schemes and antitrust conspiracies. Id. at *21 n.5. If another circuit court (or the U.S. Supreme Court) is called upon to evaluate the constitutionality of the government's efforts to curb off-label promotion, it could adopt Judge Livingston's reasoning in Caronia, and find that those restrictions survive constitutional scrutiny.

26 On December 12, 2012, less than ten (10) days after the Caronia decision was issued, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and the Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i.e., outside of the Second Circuit) alleging that the pharmaceutical company Wyeth LLC had violated the FDCA by misbranding the drug Protonix during the time period from February 2000 through June 2001. While the complaint in that action asserted that certain of Wyeth's promotional materials for Protonix were misleading, the primary theory asserted in the complaint was that Wyeth misbranded Protonix by promoting the drug for off-label use. See Complaint ¶ 30, United Statesv. Wyeth LLC, No. 12 cv-12308 (D. Mass. filed Dec. 12, 2012), ECF No. 1 ("As Wyeth knew and understood, Wyeth did not seek or obtain approval from the FDA for the use of Protonix tablets for symptomatic GERD, and Wyeth's promotion for that condition misbranded the drug"). The same day the complaint was filed in the Wyeth action, the Department of Justice announced that Pfizer, which acquired Wyeth in 2009, had entered into a settlement to resolve the action for $55 million. See DOJ Press Release, Pfizer Agrees to Pay $55 Million for Illegally Promoting Protonix for Off-Label Use (Dec. 12, 2012), http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/December/12-civ-1488.html .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions