IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

2:07-md-01871

Court:

Pennsylvania Eastern

Nature of Suit:

P.I.: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability

Multi Party Litigation:

Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

CYNTHIA M. RUFE

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. May 23, 2025

    Class Of Health Plans Certified In Avandia Marketing MDL

    A Pennsylvania federal judge has certified a class of health plans in multidistrict litigation over GlaxoSmithKline's alleged deceptive marketing of the drug Avandia in which the plans claim they wouldn't have paid higher premiums for the drug if they'd known about its potential cardiovascular risks.

  2. December 13, 2017

    GSK Beats Heart Attack Suit In Diabetes Drug MDL

    A Pennsylvania federal judge on Tuesday tossed a suit against GlaxoSmithKline LLC in multidistrict litigation related to the safety of its diabetes drug Avandia because the patient who brought the allegations didn't demonstrate his doctor would have avoided the treatment had he known of its risks.

  3. March 01, 2017

    Calif. County Can't Take Avandia Ad Claims To State Court

    A Pennsylvania federal judge on Tuesday rejected Santa Clara County, California's efforts to dismiss its false advertising claims from multidistrict litigation over GlaxoSmithKline PLC's diabetes medication Avandia in order to refile them in state court, ruling the federal courts correctly took jurisdiction when the county filed suit five years ago.

  4. February 03, 2017

    GSK Says New Claim Has No Evidence In Avandia MDL

    GlaxoSmithKline PLC told a Pennsylvania federal court Thursday that third-party payors in multidistrict litigation alleging the company misrepresented the safety of its Avandia diabetes drugs are now claiming for the first time and with no supporting evidence that GSK promised Avandia had cardiovascular benefits.

  5. December 05, 2016

    Payor Swings Back At GSK Sanctions Bid In Avandia MDL

    Third-party payor United Benefit Fund told a Pennsylvania federal court on Friday that it should not be punished with sanctions for seeking to leave a class action alleging GlaxoSmithKline LLC misrepresented the safety of its Avandia diabetes drugs, pointing to evidence that its claims had merit and were not baseless.

  6. November 10, 2016

    GSK Seeks Sanctions Against Payors Quitting Avandia MDL

    GlaxoSmithKline LLC asked a Pennsylvania federal court on Wednesday to sanction two third-party payors that recently asked to drop their class actions against GSK over the safety of its Avandia diabetes drugs, saying they should be punished for pursuing claims for years without the evidence to back them up.

  7. August 26, 2016

    Third-Party Payors Say GSK Skews Avandia Claims

    Third-party payors in a class action alleging GlaxoSmithKline LLC misrepresented the safety of its Avandia diabetes drugs told a Pennsylvania federal judge on Thursday that the pharmaceutical company is distorting what they’re actually claiming.

  8. August 05, 2016

    GSK May See Payor Exit Diabetes Drug Suit On Own Accord

    United Benefit Fund, one of four payors who filed a class action alleging GlaxoSmithKline LLC misrepresented the safety of its Avandia diabetes drugs, took one for the team Friday and asked a Pennsylvania federal court to kill its own claims for a faster resolution.

  9. April 20, 2015

    GSK Dodges Avandia Side-Effect Disclosure Class Action

    A Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled that the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action rolled into multidistrict litigation covering claims that GlaxoSmithKline LLC concealed dangerous side effects of its diabetes drug Avandia failed to show that she was harmed in any way.

  10. July 01, 2014

    GSK Wants 3rd Circ. To Toss RICO Claims In Avandia MDL

    GlaxoSmithKline LLC on Monday asked the Third Circuit to toss racketeering claims in three class actions accusing the drugmaker of hiding heart disease risks associated with the diabetes drug Avandia, arguing the plaintiffs haven't alleged a clearly identifiable injury.