United States: Alabama No Longer An Outlier State: Legislature Says "No" To Innovator Liability


Since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing1, the plaintiffs' bar has been feverishly searching for an alternate theory of recovery when the claimant took a generic prescription drug. One of those alternate theories is "innovator liability," which posits that the brand manufacturer should be liable for injuries caused by the generic equivalent even if the claimant did not ingest the brand manufacturer's product. Plaintiffs rationalize that because the FDA requires the generic manufacturer to copy the brand's label and warnings, the brand manufacturer should be liable.

The innovator theory contravenes a principal foundation of product liability law: that a manufacturer is not liable for injuries resulting from use of another manufacturer's product. Indeed, the logic is undeniable – if a manufacturer did not make the product, it cannot be liable for damages allegedly caused by its use.

In the context of pharmaceutical litigation, this foundational rule was set forth in Foster v. American Home Products,2 which required product identification – a direct evidentiary link between the allegedly harmful product and the allegedly liable defendant-manufacturer.3 The Foster court reasoned that making brand-name drug manufacturers liable for generic manufacturers' activities was unfair and stretched the boundaries of legal foreseeability in product liability law.4

This established law took a step backward with the first mention of innovator liability in Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.5 In Conte, the court concluded that Foster's analysis was flawed because it did not consider concurrent liability, rationalizing that it was reasonable to require brand-name manufacturers to put correct information on their labels or be held liable for its failure to warn.6 The Conte court held that it would not protect the brand-name manufacturer from foreseeable injuries caused by its allegedly inadequate warnings that the generic manufacturers are required to replicate.7

In addition to California, Alabama and Vermont are the only other jurisdictions to apply the innovator liability theory to hold a brand-name manufacturer liable for misstatement or omission for an injury caused by a generic drug manufactured by a different company.8 However, Alabama recently took swift action to curtail the potential Pandora's box of litigation created by the Wyeth v. Weeks decision. In doing so, the Alabama legislature reduced the number of innovator liability states to just two, a considerable minority to the number of states addressing the issue and holding otherwise.9


In our July 2013 Pro Te article, "What Do California, Vermont and Alabama Have In Common?,"10 we reported on what had been deemed the "worst prescription drug/medical device decision of 2014."11 To recap, in Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff claiming injury from a generic product to maintain a misrepresentation claim against the brand manufacturer. The original Weeks decision garnered widespread negative press, thus causing the Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider its original opinion, en banc.

At rehearing, Wyeth argued – supported by the majority of states – that it had no relationship with the Weeks plaintiffs and, thus, it owed them no duty to warn. However, the Alabama Supreme Court emphatically rejected this notion and admonished Wyeth's argument, holding:

Wyeth's argument completely ignores the nature of prescription medication. The Weekses cannot obtain Reglan or any other prescription medication directly from a prescription-drug manufacturer. The only way for a consumer to obtain a prescription medication is for a physician or other medical professional authorized to write prescriptions (i.e. a learned intermediary) to prescribe the medication to his or her patient. When the warning to the prescribing health-care professional is inadequate, however, the manufacturer is directly liable to the patient for damage resulting from that failure. 12

Although one would think – as the majority of states have previously held – that the above rationale would prevent brand-name manufacturer liability in the case of generic ingestion, the Supreme Court rejected such a conclusion, rationalizing:

The substitution of a generic drug for its brandname equivalent is not fatal to Weekses' claim because the Weekses are not claiming that the drug Danny ingested was defective; instead, the Weekses' claim is that Wyeth fraudulently misrepresented or suppressed information concerning the way the drug was to be taken and, as discussed, the FDA mandates that the warning on a generic-drug label be the same as the warning on the brand-namedrug label and only the brand-name manufacturer may make unilateral changes to the label.13

The Alabama Supreme Court again relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Mensing, noting that "the Supreme Court in PLIVA held that it would have been impossible for the generic manufacturers to change their warning labels without violating the federal requirement that the warning on the generic drug must match the warning on the brand-name version, preempting failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers."14 The Weeks Court thus emphasized the FDA's role in drug labeling and restrictions placed upon generic manufacturers, remarking "FDA regulations require that a generic manufacturer's labeling15 for a prescription drug be exactly the same as the brand-name manufacturer's labeling." In further justification of its holding, the Alabama Supreme Court rationalized that:

it is not fundamentally unfair to hold the brand-name manufacturer liable for warnings on a product it did not produce because the manufacturing process is irrelevant to misrepresentation theories based, not on manufacturing defects in the product itself, but on information and warning deficiencies, when those alleged misrepresentations were drafted by the brand-name manufacturer and merely repeated, as allowed by the FDA, by the generic manufacturer.16

Justice Parker, relying on Justice Murdock's 2013 dissent in Weeks, stressed the potentially grave consequences of the court's dissolution of bedrock legal principles of duty and privity, noting:

[n]othing in federal legislation or regulations at issue here requires this Court to ignore, modify, or override our bedrock legal principles of duty and privity with regard to the originator of a pharmaceutical drug and a consumer who has not consumed a drug manufactured by the originator of the drug.17

As recognized by the United States Supreme Court, while a consumer may be left without a remedy absent a legislative change, "it is not this Court's task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre."18


Despite the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to alter the Weeks decision, innovator liability will not stand in the State of Alabama. Less than one year after Weeks, the Alabama Legislature passed Act No. 2015-106 (S.B. 80), effectively abolishing innovator liability in the State of Alabama. Originally introduced in the Alabama Senate, Act No. 2015-106 passed the Alabama House of Representatives on April 28, 2015. With Governor Robert Bentley signing the bill into law on May 1, 2015, Act No. 2015-106 returned Alabama to the majority of states disallowing innovator liability in cases involving generic ingestion.

While the statute will not take effect until November 1, 2015, it states in part:

Section 1. In any civil action for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by a product, regardless of the type of claims alleged or the theory of liability asserted, the plaintiff must prove, among other elements, that the defendant designed, manufactured, sold, or leased the particular product the use of which is alleged to have caused the injury on which the claim is based, and not a similar or equivalent product. Designers, manufacturers, sellers, or lessors of products not identified as having been used, ingested, or encountered by an allegedly injured party may not be held liable for any alleged injury. A person, firm, corporation, association, partnership, or other legal or business entity whose design is copied or otherwise used by a manufacturer without the designer's express authorization is not subject to liability for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the manufacturer's product, even if use of the design is foreseeable.19 (emphasis added).

Theoretically, under this statutory approach, liability is limited to entities that "manufactured, sold, or leased" the product at issue, and may not be imposed on those whose original product design is later copied.

On its face, Act No. 2015-106 makes no mention of pharmaceutical drug products or brand versus generic manufacturers. Instead, the statute applies more broadly to "[d]esigners, manufacturers, sellers, or lessors of products." Regardless, brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers will likely sleep easier knowing innovator liability is no longer a viable claim in Alabama.


Under Alabama Act No. 2015-106, brand-name drug manufacturers may no longer be held liable under Alabama law for misrepresentations in cases where the plaintiff never ingested the brand drug product. Alabama legislatively rejoined the majority of states disallowing innovator liability. Only time will tell if California and Vermont will follow suit.


Arkansas Law

  • Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2013).
  • Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2013).
  • Neal v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-1027, 2010 WL 2640170 (W.D. Ark. July 1, 2010).
  • Fields v. Wyeth, Inc., 613 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (W.D. Ark. 2009).

Colorado Law

  • Sheeks v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., No. 02CV337, 2004 WL 4056060 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Oct. 15, 2004).

Florida Law

  • Metz v. Wyeth, L.L.C., 525 F. App'x 893 (11th Cir. 2013).
  • Guarino v. Wyeth, L.L.C., 719 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2013).
  • Howe v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 8:09-CV-610, 2010 WL 1708857 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2010).
  • Levine v. Wyeth Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
  • Dietrich v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 50-2009-CA-021586, 2009 WL 4924722 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 21, 2009).
  • Sharp v. Leichus, 952 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).

Georgia Law

  • Dement v. Alaven Pharm., LLC, No. 10-EV-009036-3, 2014 WL 2404289 (Ga. Super. Ct. May 27, 2014).
  • Tanner v. Alaven Pham., LLC, No. 10-EV-009036-4, 2014 WL 2404287 (Ga. Super. Ct. May 27, 2014).
  • Swicegood v. Pliva, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
  • Reynolds v. Anton, No. 01A-76719-3, 2004 WL 5000272 (Ga. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2004).

Indiana Law

  • Stewart v. Sanofi Aventis U.S., L.L.C., 15 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (N.D. Ala. 2014).
  • Scott v. Elsevier Inc., No. 11-04445, slip op. (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2014).
  • Short v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 49D12-0601-CT-2187, 2009 WL 9867531 (Ind. Super. Ct. Mar. 25, 2009).

Iowa Law

  • Huck v. Wyeth, Inc., 850 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2014).

Kentucky Law

  • Nicely v. Wyeth, Inc., 451 S.W.3d 694 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
  • Franzman v. Wyeth, Inc., 451 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
  • White v. Elsevier Inc., No. 11-04441, slip op. (Mass. Super. Ct. July 26, 2013).
  • Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2011), pet. for reh'g en banc denied (Nov. 22, 2011), pet. for cert. denied (Apr. 30, 2012).
  • Wilson v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-378, 2008 WL 2677049 (W.D. Ky. June 30, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2011).
  • Morris v. Wyeth, Inc., No. L07-CV-176, 2008 WL 2677048 (W.D. Ky. June 30, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2011).

Louisiana Law

  • Whitener v. Pliva, Inc., 606 F. App'x 762 (5th Cir. 2015).
  • Johnson v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 758 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • Demahy v. Schwarz Pharm., Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012), pet. for reh'g denied (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. denied (Oct. 7, 2013).
  • Stanley v. Wyeth, Inc., 991 So. 2d 31 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Maryland Law

  • Gross v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 10-cv-00110, 2010 WL 4485774 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2010).
  • Foster v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 29 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1994).

Massachusetts Law

  • Kelly v. Wyeth, No. 03-CV-3314, 2005 WL 4056740 (Super. Ct. Mass. May 6, 2005).

Mississippi Law

  • Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc., 750 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • Washington v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., No. 3:12-cv-00126, 2013 WL 496063 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2013).
  • Gardley-Starks v. Pfizer, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Miss. 2013).

Minnesota Law

  • Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2009), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), re-instated in relevant part, 658 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2011).
  • Flynn v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 627 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).

Nevada Law

  • Moretti v. Wyeth, Inc., 579 F. App'x 563 (9th Cir. 2014).
  • Baymiller v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Nev. 2012).

New Jersey Law

  • Coundouris v. Wyeth, No. ATL-L-1940-10, 2012 WL 2401776 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. June 26, 2012).
  • Westerlund v. Wyeth, Inc., No. MID-2174-05, 2008 WL 5592753 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Oct. 20, 2008).
  • Rossi v. Hoffman-LaRoche, No. ATL-L-690-05, 2007 WL 7632318 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Jan. 3, 2007).
  • Sloan v. Wyeth, No. MRS-L-1183-04, 2004 WL 5767103 (N.J. Super. Ct. Oct. 13, 2004).

New York Law

  • Weese v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 153742/12, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 8, 2013).
  • Goldych v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 5:04-CV-1477, 2006 WL 2038436 (N.D.N.Y. July 19, 2006).

North Carolina Law

  • Couick v. Wyeth, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 643 (W.D.N.C. 2010).
  • Stoddard v. Wyeth, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D.N.C. 2009).

Ohio Law

  • Hendricks v. Pharmacia Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00613, ECF No. 47, Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2014).
  • Hogue v. Pfizer, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 914 (S.D. Ohio 2012).

Oklahoma Law

  • Cardinal v. Elsevier Inc., No. 11-04442, slip op. (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2014).
  • Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2013).

Oregon Law

  • Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (D. Or. 2012), adopting Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, 2012 WL 1021084 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2012); see also Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 09-cv-6168, 2010 WL 2553619 (D. Or. May 28, 2010), findings and recommendation adopted by No. 09-cv-6168, 2010 WL 2553614 (D. Or. June 21, 2010).

Pennsylvania Law

  • Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff'd in pertinent part and rev'd in other part, Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 521 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008), vacated and remanded, 129 S. Ct. 1578 (2009).

South Carolina Law

  • Fisher v. Pelstring, No. 4:09-cv-00252, 2010 WL 2998474 (D.S.C. July 28, 2010).

Tennessee Law

  • Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 737 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2013).

Texas Law

  • Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharms., Inc., 751 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • Willis v. Schwarz-Pharm., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 560 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2014), adopting Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge (E.D. Tex. June 26, 2014).
  • Del Valle v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 750 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • Phares v. Actavis-Elizabeth L.L.C., 892 F. Supp. 2d 835 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
  • Craig v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00227, 2010 WL 2649545 (W.D. La. May 26, 2010), report and recommendation adopted by No. 3:10- cv-00227, 2010 WL 2649544 (W.D. La. June 29, 2010).
  • Negron v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 09-16519, 2010 WL 8357563 (Tex. Dist. Ct. May 7, 2010).
  • Finnicum v. Wyeth, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 2d 616 (E.D. Tex. 2010).
  • Hardy v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 9:09-CV-152, 2010 WL 1049588 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2010), report and recommendation adopted by No. 9:09-cv-152, 2010 WL 1222183 (E D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2010).
  • Burke v. Wyeth, Inc., Civil No. G-09-82, 2009 WL 3698480 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009).
  • Cousins v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-0310-N, 2009 WL 648703 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2009).
  • Pustejovsky v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-103-Y, 2008 WL 1314902 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2008).
  • Block v. Wyeth, Inc., 3:02-CV-1077, 2003 WL 203067 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2003).

Utah Law

  • Beutella v. A.H. Robins Co., No. 980502372, 2001 WL 35669202 (Utah Dist. Ct. Dec. 10, 2001).

West Virginia Law

  • Meade v. Parsley, No. 2:09-cv-0038, 2009 WL 3806716 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2009).

Multiple States' Law

  • Germain v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc. (In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig), 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014) (68 appeals involving 22 different states' laws).
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:11-MD-02226-DCR, 2013 WL 5184129 (E.D. Ky. July 29, 2013) (dismissing claims under Georgia and Texas law).
  • Esposito v. Lilly (In re Darvocet), 856 F. Supp. 2d 904 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (dismissing claims under the law of 18 states, including Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas).
  • In re Darvocet, Damon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:11-md-02226-DCR, 2012 WL 3984871 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 10, 2012) (dismissing claims under the law of 9 states, including Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, but allowing claims under California law to proceed).
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:11-md-02226-DCR, 2012 WL 3610237 (E D. Ky. Aug. 21, 2012) (dismissing claims under the law of 8 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and West Virginia).
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:11-MD-02226-DCR, 2012 WL 767595 (ED. Ky. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing claims under the law of 14 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas).


1. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567, reh'g denied, 132 S. Ct. 55 (2011).

2. 29 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1994).

3. Id.

4. Id. at 170-71.

5. 168 Cal. App. 4th 89 (2008).

6. Id. at 109.

7. Id. at 110.

8. Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 2013 Ala. Lexis 2, *59 (Ala. Jan. 17, 2013); Kellogg v. Wyeth, 762 F. Supp. 2d 694 (D. Vt. 2010).

9. The appendix lists 102 judicial decisions, applying the law of 30 states, holding that a brand-name drug manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by a competitor's generic equivalent.

10. "What Do California, Vermont and Alabama Have In Common?" Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 6 No. 3 (September 2013).

11. http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2014/12/thumbs-down-worst-prescription.html.

12. Weeks, 159 So. 3d at 673-674.

13. Id. at 674.

14. Id. at 677.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 684.

18. Id. (citing Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519, 556 (2009)).

19. Act No. 2015-106.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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