Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
58. Should the court grant the motion?
In an advertisement promoting sales of a particular drug, a drug company claimed that the drug was safe for children. Suit was filed against the company on behalf of a child who allegedly was harmed as a result of taking the drug. At the time the child took the drug, the available medical studies supported the company's claim that the drug was safe for children, but later research proved that the drug actually was harmful to children. The company has moved to dismiss the suit on First Amendment grounds.
Under a state law, a drug company that makes a false factual claim about a prescription drug is strictly liable in tort to any user of the drug.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The existence or degree of government regulation of a manufacturer does not render the First Amendment inapplicable to expressive activity by the manufacturer.
C is incorrect. The actual malice requirement applies in cases of defamatory speech about public officials or public figures, but it does not apply in cases involving false or misleading commercial speech.
D is incorrect. As stated above, the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech that is false or misleading, regardless of whether the company's claims about the drug were a matter of public concern.