United States: The Learned Intermediary Rule In Consumer Protection Claims

Last Updated: October 17 2016
Article by James Beck

We recently posted about a new California decision that was notable, in part, because it applied the learned intermediary rule to often-asserted (and equally often abused) California consumer protection statutes. See Andren v. Alere, Inc., 2016 WL 4761806, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016) (where "misrepresentations and omissions claims are based on a failure to warn" the learned intermediary rule applies" to claims under the two major California consumer protection statutes (CLRA & UCL)). Since we haven't addressed this issue recently (one guest post from 2007), we thought it would be a good idea to examine more generally decisions that also apply the learned intermediary rule to consumer fraud claims. Andren is definitely not an outlier, although in a lot of states precedent is not extensive.

We'll start with California. We know of several other cases reaching essentially the same result. One of them, Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 3148923, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013), is mentioned in Andren. Saavedra, a multi-plaintiff case also applying the laws of Massachusetts and Missouri (in addition to California), found the learned intermediary rule applicable to all three states' consumer protection statutes, based on uniform precedent:

Every case that this Court has found, and that the parties have identified, that has specifically addressed the questions has found that the learned intermediary doctrine applies to consumer protection claims predicated on a failure to warn.

Id. at *3. Thus, Saavedra "concur[ed] with the great weight of authority and conclude[d] that the learned intermediary doctrine applies to the consumer protection claims at issue."

Another relevant California case was not cited in Andren − the appellate decision in In re Vioxx Class Cases, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 83 (Cal. App. 2009). Vioxx held that the individual actions of learned intermediary prescribers physicians precluded class certification in cases under the same statutes:

[A]ll physicians are different and obtain their information about prescriptions from myriad sources. . . . [P]hysicians consider many patient-specific factors in determining which drug to prescribe, including the patient's history and drug allergies, the condition being treated, and the potential for adverse reactions with the patient's other medications − in addition to the risks and benefits associated with the drug. When all of these patient-specific factors are a part of the prescribing decision, the materiality of any statements made by [defendant] to any particular prescribing decision cannot be presumed.

Id. at 99 (footnote omitted). Thus, the Vioxx court presumed, albeit without holding, that the learned intermediary rule applied so that the physicians – rather than patients – are the recipients of information from manufacturers of prescription medical products. For other similar California law cases, see Weiss v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 2010 WL 3387220, at *5 (Cal. App. Aug. 30, 2010) (similar result in unpublished affirmance of UCL/CLRA class certification denial); In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 865041, at *20 (S.D. Ill. March 13, 2012) (denying class certification under UCL "[b]ecause [the drug] is a prescription medication, [so] the question of uniformity must consider representations made to each putative class member and her prescribing physician") (applying California law); In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 751 F. Supp.2d 277, 288 (D. Mass. 2010) (applying learned intermediary prescriber-centric causation principles to UCL; denying summary judgment) (applying California law); In re Paxil Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 242, 246 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (rejecting argument that the learned intermediary rule "becomes irrelevant under [the UCL]").

As discussed in Saavedra, the learned intermediary rule has been applied to consumer protection actions in other states, such as Texas. The primary decision cited in Saavedra is In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 955 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Tex. 1997), aff'd, 165 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1999), also holding that consumer protection claims are subject to the learned intermediary rule where brought against manufacturers of prescription medical products:

The gravamen of all of Plaintiffs' causes of action, including . . . violation of the DTPA [the Texas consumer fraud statute], is that [Defendant] failed to adequately warn of or disclose the severity of [the implant's] side effects. Therefore, the learned intermediary doctrine applies to all of Plaintiffs' causes of action. Additionally, whether the failure to warn is couched as an affirmative misrepresentation or a misrepresentation by concealment, the allegation collapses into a charge that the drug manufacturer failed to warn. If the doctrine could be avoided by casting what is essentially a failure to warn claim under a different cause of action such as violation of the DTPA or a claim for misrepresentation, then the doctrine would be rendered meaningless. Therefore, this summary judgment motion, based upon application of the learned intermediary doctrine, is dispositive of all of Plaintiffs' claims.

Id. at 709. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed specifically on this point, making an "Erie guess" that Texas would apply the learned intermediary rule to its consumer protection statute. In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 165 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1999).

Guessing, however, is no longer necessary in Texas. In Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. 2012), the Texas Supreme Court adopted the Norplant decision's reasoning in toto – including the block quotation from above. "If the [learned intermediary rule] could be avoided by casting what is essentially a failure to warn claim under a different cause of action such a violation of the DTPA . . ., then the doctrine would be rendered meaningless." Id. at 168. Thus, the Centocor court concluded, "We find the Norplant I court's application of Texas law persuasive." Id. at 169. Whenever "the crux" of the claim "rests on [the defendant's] alleged failure to provide an adequate warning of the potential risks and side effects" of a prescription medical product, "the learned intermediary doctrine applies." Id. See also Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. v. Medrano, 28 S.W.3d 87, 94 (Tex. App. 2000) (agreeing with Norplant); Bean v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 965 S.W.2d 656, 664 (Tex. App. 1998) (applying learned intermediary rule to consumer protection case without discussion); Jordan v. Geigy Pharmaceuticals, 848 S.W.2d 176, 182 (Tex. App. 1992) (learned intermediary prescriber-centric evaluation of DTPA claim); Gonzalez v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 930 F. Supp.2d 808, 814 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (following Centocor); Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc., 2005 WL 1515402, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2005) ("[t]he learned intermediary doctrine applies to all causes of action, including DTPA violations, based on a failure to warn"); Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 121 F. Supp.2d 614, 620 (S.D. Tex. 2000) ("the learned intermediary doctrine applies to claims under the DTPA"), reversed on other grounds, 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002); Dyer v. Danek Medical, Inc., 115 F. Supp.2d 732, 740-41 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ("learned intermediary doctrine applies to all causes of action, including . . . DTPA violations, based on a failure to warn"); A.B. vs. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, 2013 WL 2917651, at *26-27 (Pa. C.P. April 5, 2013) ("the LID properly applies to Plaintiffs' DTPA claim" under Texas law); Banks vs. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, 2013 WL 2321107, at *20-21 (Pa. C.P. April 5, 2013) (same).

Pennsylvania is another state with numerous decisions applying the learned intermediary rule in consumer protection cases. A recent decision sums up the relationship between the two in Pennsylvania:

Under Pennsylvania law, a medical device manufacturer has a duty to warn implanting physicians about the dangers of a medical device, but has no duty to warn patients directly. . . . Because a medical device manufacturer does not have a duty to disclose information directly to the consumer under Pennsylvania law, a consumer does not have a cause of action under the UTPCPL [the Pennsylvania consumer fraud statute] against the manufacturer of a medical device. This is because the UTPCPL requires proof of justifiable reliance and causation, and such requirements cannot be present when the defendant is a medical device manufacturer that did not sell its product directly to the patient or have a duty to warn the patient directly. As one court has further explained, the "learned intermediary [i.e., the doctor] breaks the chain in terms of reliance, since the patient cannot obtain [a] prescription [device] without the physician no matter what [the patient] believe[s] about [the device]." Thus, it is only the prescribing physician who can provide the grounds for justifiable reliance" under the UTPCPL.

McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 1161578 (E.D. Pa. March 22, 2016). McLaughlin cited numerous other UTPCPL/learned intermediary rule cases for these propositions: In re Avandia Marketing, Sales, Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2013 WL 3486907, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2013); Kee v. Zimmer, Inc., 871 F. Supp.2d 405, 411 (E.D. Pa. 2012); In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 4006639 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2011); Zafarana v. Pfizer, Inc., 724 F. Supp.2d 545, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2010); Kester v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2696467, at *14 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2010); Heindel v. Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. Supp.2d 364, 384 (D.N.J. 2004) (applying Pennsylvania law). Accord In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 4007858, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2011) (reaching same result as other Avandia cases); Smith v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2009 WL 5216982, at *6 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2009) ("It is clear that the learned intermediary doctrine indeed operates to bar Plaintiff's UTPCPL claim") (applying Pennsylvania law).

Numerous Pennsylvania state trial courts (all in Philadelphia County) have reached the same result. In Albertson v. Wyeth, Inc., 63 Pa. D. & C. 4th 514 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. 2003), the court held:

Under the learned intermediary doctrine, a manufacturer of prescription drugs must direct information and warnings to prescribing physicians, not the patient. There can be no cause of action based on defendants' alleged omissions because defendants had no duty to disclose any information directly to plaintiff.

Further, to permit a cause of action under the UTPCPL in this case would effectively make a drug manufacturer the absolute guarantor of the anticipated results and effects of a prescription drug. Pennsylvania law, however, recognizes that some prescription drugs by their very nature can never be made safe. An inconsistency would result if we were to hold that drug manufacturers must guarantee that prescription drugs are completely safe. The premise behind the UTPCPL was not meant to engender such a result.

Id. at 538-39 (quoting and following Luke v. American Home Products Corp., 1998 WL 1781624, at *8 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 18, 1998)) (other citations omitted). Accord S.B. vs. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, No. 10053629, 2013 WL 3286808, at *26 n.173 (Pa. C.P. June 12, 2013) (following Albertson and Luke); Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 WL 7259683 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. May 5, 2008) ("Count II (UTPCPL) is barred by the learned intermediary doctrine and is dismissed"); Greenwood v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 1999 WL 1133313, at *2 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. June 9, 1999) (under "the Unfair Trade Practices Law, success must be based on proof of conduct by the defendant which was directed to the physician"); Hall v. Balderston, 1998 WL 1167030, at *3-4 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 16, 1998) (same), aff'd mem., 748 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 1999).

Illinois is another state with developed law on consumer fraud and the learned intermediary rule. The Illinois Supreme Court held in De Bouse v. Bayer, 922 N.E.2d 309 (Ill. 2009), that under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act the defendant was entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff "fails to allege that her particular doctor was actually deceived by any of [the drug manufacturer's] advertisements or statements." Id. at 319 ("the circuit court erred in denying [defendant's] motion for summary judgment"). Similarly, in Gredell v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. App. 2006), under the same statute, the court held:

[A] valid consumer fraud claim must show that the alleged fraud proximately caused the plaintiff's injury a valid consumer fraud claim must show that the alleged fraud proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. . . . Plaintiff cannot and did not establish that here. Since the [drugs] were marketed to doctors and pharmacists directly, not to individual consumers, the alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions on the [drugs'] labels, packaging inserts and advertising materials were not seen by the public at large. . . . If plaintiff never saw the alleged misrepresentations, he cannot have been deceived by them and any misrepresentation cannot have proximately caused him injury.

Id. at 757 (citations omitted). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit, under the same statute, determined:

[A]s with any other tort, to sustain a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiffs must further allege that damages were proximately caused by the fraud. The defendants pointed to evidence that the package inserts for the implants disclosed the medically relevant risks, that the medical community knew about these risks, and that . . . the physician who performed the procedures . . . knew about the risks. . . . [Plaintiff] did not show what causal link existed between the disclosures (or omissions) and her damages.

Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944-45 (7th Cir. 2005) (applying Illinois law) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accord In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1871, 2011 WL 4007858, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2011) (no causation under Illinois statute where "[p]laintiff has not alleged that any misrepresentations were communicated to him or to his prescribing physician or that either of them relied"); Dhamer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 183 F.R.D. 520, 531 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (class certification under Illinois statute denied because "plaintiff must show that the physician would not have prescribed [the drug], if [defendant] had provided adequate warnings").

Other states have considered the learned intermediary rule in connection with actions brought under consumer protection/fraud statutes have reached the same result. Indeed, in In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002), aff'd, 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004), a case ostensibly applying the consumer fraud statutes of all fifty states, the court observed that "the learned intermediary doctrine presents a barrier to proving that any deceptive representations made by defendant were the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries." Id. at 256. We note that many states have not been called upon to address the learned intermediary rule because claims under their statutes fail on other grounds, such as preemption by exclusive product liability statutes (e.g., Connecticut, New Jersey), non-recovery for personal injuries (e.g., Maine, Washington), or lack of a private right of action (e.g., Iowa).

Another peculiarity on this issue we noticed was how frequently it was decided in aggregated litigation/litigation tourism cases, where courts were deciding the issue based on the law of some other state.

Alabama: Cooper v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2009 WL 5206130, at *10 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2009) (Alabama consumer fraud claim failed where plaintiffs "did not plead a single instance in which they, themselves, or any of their prescribing doctors received a misrepresentation of fact in which they relied upon in either taking or prescribing any of the subject drugs").

Arizona: Bellew v. Ethicon, Inc., 2014 WL 6886129, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 24, 2014) (after holding fraud claims barred by learned intermediary rule, "because the plaintiff's claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act presents the same concerns as her common law fraud claims, this claim is also DISMISSED").

Arkansas: Kreves v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, 2013 WL 3480286, at *30 (Pa. C.P. June 19, 2013) (applying learned intermediary prescriber-centric causation principles to Arkansas consumer protection statute; granting summary judgment because plaintiffs "lack evidence demonstrating Defendants knowingly misrepresented or concealed any information from Plaintiff's prescribing physician").

Delaware: Barba v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2015 WL 6336151, at *5 (Del. Super. Oct. 9, 2015) (in learned intermediary situation, consumer fraud claim stated where the defendant "is aware that the learned intermediary may act in reliance on the representations in treating a consumer patient").

Florida: Scelta v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 404 F. Appx. 92, 94 (8th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff's "statutory claims for deceptive advertising and deceptive trade practices" fails because "the learned intermediary doctrine prevents [plaintiff] from proving that the [defendants'] alleged deception proximately caused his injuries") (applying Florida law); Beale v. Biomet, Inc., 492 F. Supp.2d 1360, 1372-73 (S.D. Fla. 2007) ("the learned intermediary doctrine encompasses all claims based upon a pharmaceutical manufacturer's failure to warn, including claims for . . . violation of state consumer protection laws") (following Norplant).

Indiana: Kantner v. Merck & Co., 2007 WL 3092779, ¶¶22-24 (Ind. Super. April 18, 2007) (claim under Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act "fails because [plaintiff] does not allege reliance by her physician on anything [defendant] said or did, and under the 'learned intermediary' doctrine such an allegation is essential to her claim").

Maine: Doe v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F. Supp.2d 257, 274 n.13 (D. Me. 2004) (with summary judgment granted on learned intermediary rule grounds, no need to "engage in a separate analysis as to whether summary judgment would have been otherwise appropriate" against deceptive trade practices claim), aff'd, 153 Fed. Appx. 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (applying Maine law).

Massachusetts: Linnen v. A.H. Robins Co., 2000 WL 89379, at *6 (Mass. Super. Dec. 14, 1999) (applying learned intermediary prescriber-centric causation principles to Massachusetts consumer protection statute; denying summary judgment on all claims). See also Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 3148923, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) (discussed above, and also applying Massachusetts law).

Minnesota: Flynn v. American Home Products Corp., 627 N.W.2d 342, 351-52 (Minn. App. 2001) (summary judgment affirmed against consumer fraud claims; "plaintiff "presented no evidence that either she or her physician relied on the physician's desk reference, any representations, or the absence of representations made by [defendants] concerning" the drug).

Missouri: Carr-Davis v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2013 WL 322616, at *10 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2013) (plaintiff's failure to prove prescriber reliance under the learned intermediary rule also barred Missouri Merchandising Practices Act). See also Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 3148923, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) (discussed above, and also applying Missouri law).

New Jersey: New Jersey Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 842 A.2d 174, 177-78 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003) (affirming dismissal of consumer fraud claim; advertisements not actionable due to "the intervention by a physician in the decision-making process necessitated by his or her exercise of judgment whether or not to prescribe a particular medication"); Southeast Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer Corp., 444 F. Appx. 401, 408 (11th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff "alleges no facts indicating how it would have independently evaluated [the drug's] medical appropriateness, aside from relying on the intermediaries of prescribing physicians") (applying New Jersey law); In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 4007878, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2011) (quoting and following Zafarana) (applying New Jersey law); Zafarana v. Pfizer, Inc., 724 F. Supp.2d 545, 556 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ("Due to the discretion of the prescribing physician, the injury alleged is entirely hypothetical, and cannot provide the basis for a claim under the NJCFA") (applying New Jersey law).

New York: Becker v. Cephalon, Inc., 2015 WL 5472311, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2015) ("courts, in applying New York law . . ., have found that the ID ["informed intermediary" doctrine] bars claims arising under consumer protection laws that are based on a failure-to-warn theory); Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 432 F. Supp.2d 514, 552 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (learned intermediary rule precludes consumer protection claim "because the consumer protection statute forbids deceptive acts or practices likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, specifically requiring proof that the defendant's acts are directed at consumers . . . while the [rule] dictates that all pharmaceutical information is directed at physicians, not consumer-patients") (emphasis original), aff'd on other grounds, 521 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1101 (2009) (applying New York law).

South Carolina: Carnes v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 6622915, at *3 & n.2 (D.S.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (applying learned intermediary prescriber-centric causation principles to South Carolina consumer protection statute; granting summary judgment).

Vermont: Otis-Wisher v. Medtronic, Inc., 616 F. Appx. 433, 435 (2d Cir. 2015) ("Plaintiff did not constitute a "consumer" under the [Vermont] statute because she did not, for her personal use, purchase [the device], which in any event is not available for consumer purchase, but rather was prescribed the medical device by her doctor").

Wisconsin: Valente v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 48 F. Supp.2d 862, 873 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (applying learned intermediary prescriber-centric causation principles to Wisconsin consumer protection statute; granting summary judgment).

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

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.

James Beck
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
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
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