Truvada Lawsuit Updates & News (2025)

The California Supreme Court will review an appellate court decision that mandates Gilead Sciences Inc. address allegations of delaying the release of a newer, safer HIV drug to maximize profits from an older version. This review is pivotal for the ongoing litigation, and there is optimism regarding the potential outcome.

In a significant turn of events for the Truvada litigation, Gilead Sciences faced a major setback with the rejection of its federal preemption appeal. Key details of this development include:

Gilead's Preemption Argument: Gilead contended that tort claims related to its drug Truvada were preempted by federal laws governing FDA drug approval processes.

Appellate Court's Unanimous Decision: The appellate court in California delivered a comprehensive opinion unanimously dismissing Gilead's argument. The court concluded that federal preemption does not apply to the product liability claims concerning Truvada.

Impact on Litigation: This ruling represents a significant victory for the plaintiffs in the Truvada cases, clearing a major legal hurdle and paving the way for the litigation to progress.

This outcome marks a crucial juncture in the Truvada litigation, opening the door for further legal proceedings and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases.

In the ongoing Truvada HIV lawsuit in California, the court requested more information to decide how to determine if a prescription drug is "defective." The main question is whether they should look at the risks and benefits of the drug by itself or if they should also think about other safer options available. This choice will have a big impact on the outcome of these lawsuits.

Gilead Sciences' recent attempt to dismiss key aspects of the ongoing HIV drug litigation was overruled by a federal court in California, signifying continued momentum for the litigation. The judge's decision requires Gilead to confront allegations of design defects and insufficient warnings in its TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) drugs.

Gilead's argument for a summary judgment, claiming federal law preemption against strict liability for the alleged defective design, was not accepted by the court. Additionally, the judge upheld the crucial 'failure to warn' claims, which are central to the plaintiffs' case. This outcome represents a significant moment in the ongoing legal challenges faced by Gilead.

Gilead Sciences encountered a major obstacle in its attempt to dismiss the ongoing HIV drug-related lawsuits, as a California federal court recently denied the company's bid for a clean slate. The court mandated that Gilead must address allegations of design defect and inadequate warnings in the litigation, which accuses the pharmaceutical giant of prioritizing profit over the creation of safer HIV medications. Gilead had hoped for a complete dismissal, arguing that federal law preempts claims of defective design related to their TDF drugs. However, the court upheld the essence of the failure-to-warn allegations, considered by many legal experts to be the crux of these cases, rejecting Gilead's argument for a legal dismissal of these claims.

Throughout June, plaintiffs have been relentless in filing lawsuits against Gilead. What's notable is the expansion of litigation to encompass not just Truvada, but other drugs like Viread, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild. All these medications contain Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), the ingredient that has been at the center of the controversy, with plaintiffs arguing its potential toxicity to bones and kidneys.

Highlighting the evolving nature of the legal battle, a group of 19 plaintiffs came forward in May, filing a lawsuit against Gilead in the Northern District of California. Their primary contention is Gilead's alleged failure to adequately warn about TDF’s potential toxicity to the bones and kidneys.

In a bid to streamline the multitude of cases and perhaps pave the way for potential settlements, the first of two summary jury trials began in May. These trials, distinct in nature, are non-binding. Essentially, both parties present their arguments in a private, unrecorded setting, offering insights into the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. The outcomes can influence future litigation strategy and potential settlement discussions.

In a significant development, plaintiffs approached Judge Tigar in April, urging him to reject Gilead’s request. Gilead had sought to dismiss around 650 plaintiffs, alleging these individuals had not provided sufficient information to back their claims. This move by the plaintiffs signifies their intent to ensure that every affected individual gets a fair chance at presenting their case.