The White House, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have announced that FDA has initiated “sweeping reforms” and “aggressive enforcement” to address “deceptive” and “misleading” direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising.
FDA
Is There a Duty to Disclose FDA Feedback?
The Trustees of Welfare & Pension Funds of Local 464A – Pension Fund v. Medtronic PLC, 726 F. Supp. 3d 938 (D. Minn. 2024).
Case Highlights
On March 28, 2024, a federal district court held that positive statements about the prospect of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a company’s latest product were not sufficiently alleged to be false or misleading even though the company did not disclose that it had received a Form 483—a form issued by the FDA following an inspection that lists objectionable conditions an investigator believes violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other related acts. The plaintiffs in The Trustees of Welfare & Pension Funds of Local 464A – Pension Fund v. Medtronic PLC (“Medtronic”), 726 F. Supp. 3d 938 (D. Minn. 2024), filed a lawsuit alleging that Medtronic misled investors when it disclosed that the application process for FDA approval for its next generation insulin pump designed to manage type 1 diabetes—the MiniMed 780G (780G)—was “on track.” The plaintiffs alleged that this statement led investors to believe that FDA approval was likely when, in fact, Medtronic had received a Form 483 following the FDA’s inspection of a Medtronic facility, which ultimately led to an FDA warning letter and a decision to delay approval. Medtronic’s stock price dropped when it announced that it could no longer include FDA approval of 780G in its guidance for fiscal year 2023. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had a duty to disclose Medtronic’s receipt of Form 483—which it had received approximately six months before the warning letter was disclosed—given Medtronic’s disclosures that its submission for FDA approval of 780G was “on track.” While the court acknowledged that this was a “close[ ] question,” it found that the complaint did not allege that the “on track” statement was false or misleading. The court distinguished Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharmaceutical Company (“KV Pharmaceutical”), 679 F. 3d 972 (8th Cir. 2012), where the Eighth Circuit held that defendants in that case had a duty to disclose the receipt of Form 483 when they told shareholders that the company was compliant with FDA regulations given “numerous, severe, and pervasive objectionable conditions” covering “the entire range of the defendants’ operations and products.” Here, unlike KV Pharmaceutical, the Medtronic complaint did not allege how the issues raised in Form 483 would necessarily doom or impact the timeline for FDA approval and the defendants never represented that Medtronic was in compliance with all FDA regulations.
Potential Impacts of Most-Favored-Nation Executive Order on Ex-US License Agreements
Introduction
On May 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients”. This order aims to address the perceived imbalance where the United States funds a significant portion of global pharmaceutical profits and pays high prices, while drug manufacturers offer deep discounts to access foreign markets, subsidizing those lower prices through higher prices in the United States. The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to ensure that Americans are not forced to pay almost three times more for the same medicines and have access to the most-favored-nation (MFN) price.
Trump Administration Revives Possibility of MFN Drug Pricing: Key Implications for the Life Sciences Industry
On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO” or “Order”) “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” aimed at significantly reducing U.S. prescription drug prices by aligning them with the lowest prices paid by other developed nations. According to the EO, drug manufacturers “deeply discount their products to access foreign markets and subsidize that decrease through enormously high prices in the United States.” Seeking to rectify this “egregious imbalance,” the EO announced the following policy: “Americans must therefore have access to the most-favored-nation price for these products… [and] should drug manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price, [the] Administration will take additional aggressive action.”
Missed PDUFA Targets: Context, Concerns, and the Case of Stealth BioTherapeutics
The FDA’s commitment to timely drug approvals under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) has been a cornerstone of its regulatory framework. Historically, the agency has maintained a high success rate in meeting its PDUFA goals; however, a handful of delays will typically occur each year for largely idiosyncratic reasons. Since 2021, when the FDA experienced delays due to challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA has generally met or exceeded 90% of its review performance goals for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs). However, recent regulatory upheaval at the FDA has prompted discussions of a potential decline in the previously reliable response rates and the implications for biotech companies and patients awaiting new therapies.
FDA’s Roadmap to Reducing Preclinical Animal Safety Studies: Six Things to Know
On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new initiative to explore ways to reduce preclinical animal safety studies for human drugs and biological products, beginning with an approach to allowing the use of “New Approach Methodologies” (NAMs) in lieu of animal testing for eligible investigational monoclonal antibodies.[1] The agency’s plan marks a significant departure from decades of agency practice, in which life sciences companies developing novel therapeutic products typically have conducted a number of safety studies, including pharmacological and toxicological studies, in various species before progressing to the clinical phase. Below are six key points for life sciences companies to know about FDA’s plans to incorporate NAMs into preclinical evaluations for human drugs and biologics.
FDA’s User Fee Programs at a Crossroads: User Fee Deadlines and Funding at Risk
Gibson Dunn is closely monitoring developments and is prepared to help companies consider and address the implications of potential changes to FDA’s funding structure and authorities, including through regulatory counseling, agency and legislative engagement, and litigation.
Following recent mass layoffs at the Food and Drug Administration and growing criticism from senior administration officials of FDA’s user fee funding programs, the life sciences industry can expect significant changes to both FDA’s ability to meet medical product user fee deadlines and the future of the user fee programs more broadly.
FDA in Flux: What Life Science Companies Should Expect as the Agency Undergoes Staffing Changes
The beginning of the second Trump administration has been marked by significant—and often sudden—efforts to shrink the federal workforce and replace agency leadership to establish and deliver on a new set of priorities. In the past weeks, the administration has pursued a deferred resignation program,[1] terminated employees both in leadership and on probationary status,[2] and announced plans for a forthcoming government-wide reduction in force.[3] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been immune to these changes.