It's a National Sport in Some States

I've lived on the west coast, the east coast, up north, and down south in the great country that is America.

The one thing that I've found in most any state is that many (no, make that most) people who drive love to tailgate.  Heck in Utah, it's a national sport.

For reference sake, Tailgating = driving too close behind another vehicle without maintaining a safe stopping distance.  Most statutes define it as failing to leave sufficient space “so as to be able to stop safely without colliding.”

When I took driver training in high school many moons ago, "safe stopping distance" meant 2 car lengths or 2 seconds behind the car in front of you (whichever is greater).  Note, that's car lengths like about how long a typical sedan is - not how long a "smart" car is (which is, essentially, a roller skate).

However, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), State Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Safety Council (NSC), and every single Insurance provider,  "safe stopping distance" equates to:

• The Three-Second Rule: This is the most common guideline for passenger vehicles in ideal conditions. You should count three seconds from the time the vehicle in front of you passes a fixed object (like a road sign) until your vehicle passes the same point.
• Expanded Rules: Driving experts recommend extending the following distance in certain situations:
• In poor weather (rain, snow): Increase your following distance to four to six seconds or more.
• At night or with low visibility: Leave extra space for your reaction time.
• With larger or heavier vehicles: Increase your following distance, as more weight increases the braking distance.
• On slippery surfaces (ice): Give yourself 10 times the normal braking distance

Essentially, "safe stopping distance is based on the road surface at the point and time you are driving your vehicle.

Maybe the reason people love to tailgate is because they don't know or realize what the danger is?  Tailgating is dangerous because:

• Reduced reaction time – You can’t stop fast enough if the car ahead brakes suddenly.

• Rear-end collisions – One of the most common types of crashes, is often caused by tailgating.

• Chain-reaction crashes – On highways, tailgating leads to multi-car pileups.

• Aggressive driving risk – Often linked with road rage, intimidation, or reckless driving.

I remember one time I was driving up the I-5 north just past the Tejon Pass and dropped into a swamp of fog 100 miles long up through the San Joaquin Valley (the bread basket of California).  I mean, you couldn't see 3 feet in front of you.  Cars were reduced from driving 55-100 MPH to a measly 3-5 mph.  

Well, most people.  

There was one idiot who was honking and hugging everyone's bumper like the fog was our fault.  We found him a couple miles up the road wrapped around the rear axle of a semi truck.

The thing is, tailgating is a crime in every state of the union.  For example:

California – Cal. Vehicle Code § 21703: Drivers “shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Texas – Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062: Must maintain “assured clear distance.”

New York – N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1129(a): Must not follow more closely than is “reasonable and prudent.”

Florida – Fla. Stat. § 316.0895: Prohibits following more closely than is reasonable.

Illinois – 625 ILCS 5/11-710: Cannot follow “more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Pennsylvania – 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3310: Drivers shall not follow more closely than reasonable.

Ohio – Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.34: “Assured clear distance” and prohibits following too closely.

Michigan – Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.643: Must not follow closer than is “reasonable and prudent.”

Georgia – O.C.G.A. § 40-6-49: Following too closely prohibited.

Arizona – Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-730: Must not follow too closely for speed, traffic, and road conditions.

Washington – RCW 46.61.145: Drivers shall not follow “more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Colorado – Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1008: Prohibits following more closely than reasonable.

Virginia – Va. Code § 46.2-816: Following too closely prohibited.

North Carolina – N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-152: Prohibits following more closely than is reasonable and prudent.

Massachusetts – Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 14B: Must not follow more closely than is reasonable. 

Utah - Utah Code, Title 41 § 41-6a-711 (Following too closely): The operator of a vehicle may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles, the traffic upon, and the condition of the highway. 

Wait, what does "reasonable and prudent" mean?  The phrase “reasonable and prudent” is the key standard in almost every state’s tailgating statute. It’s intentionally flexible, because lawmakers can’t write a one-size-fits-all “exact number of feet” that works at every speed and in every road condition.

Like I said up above, when a statute says you must not follow more closely than is “reasonable and prudent”, it means:

• You must leave enough space to stop safely if the car ahead slows or stops suddenly.

• The space must adjust based on:

  • Speed (faster = more stopping distance)

  • Traffic density (congested traffic = more caution)

  • Road conditions (wet, icy, or gravel roads require more distance)

  • Vehicle size/weight (trucks need more braking distance than cars)

Legislatures avoid setting a specific distance (like “100 feet”) because safe following distance changes constantly. Instead, “reasonable and prudent” makes it a case-by-case standard, enforced by officers, judges, and juries.

Got that?  It's to the cops discretion whether you were tailgating.

So, if the cop says you were driving too close, you probably were.  Don't argue the issue because you'll just wind up in cuffs with a resisting arrest charge tacked on for your efforts.  

Just sign the ticket and move along. 

So, how have courts viewed tailgating?  Turns out, not well for the tailgater.

Bexar County, Texas – Manslaughter from Tailgating and Reckless Driving (2025)

• A jury convicted a driver for manslaughter following a fatal motorcycle crash near San Antonio, centered on tailgating, speeding, and passing in a no-passing zone. The defendant received a 10-year sentence, plus a concurrent 3-year term for carrying a weapon.

• Relevance: Demonstrates how tailgating combined with other dangerous behaviors can elevate charges to serious crimes—even unintentionally causing death.

Roux v. Coffey, Docket #AC46898 (2025)

• Case summary: A Connecticut appellate court ruled in January 2025 that Live Nation, the concert promoter, was not liable for the death of a 17-year-old, Luke Roux, who was killed by a driver (Jacob Coffey) who had tailgated outside the Xfinity Theater after drinking and then ran a red light. The court determined that property owners don’t generally bear liability for individuals who consume alcohol on their property and later drive and cause harm.

• Significance: The case underscores legal boundaries on premises liability when alcohol and tailgating precede a DUI crash.

Fassett v. Santiam Loggers, Inc., 267 Or. 505, 517 P.2d 1059 (1973) – Truck rear-ended a car after following too closely. Court held that violation of Oregon’s tailgating statute constituted negligence per se, making the trucking company liable.

Harris v. Harman, 253 Va. 336, 486 S.E.2d 99 (1997)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether tailgating contributed to the plaintiff's accident.

• Outcome: The court found that Harris had been tailgating Harman for a considerable period, which distracted Harman. The jury had to determine if this tailgating was the cause of the accident. This case highlights how tailgating can be a factor in determining negligence.

Garnot v. Johnson, 239 Va. 81, 387 S.E.2d 473 (1990)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the rear driver's tailgating was the proximate cause of the rear-end collision.

• Outcome: The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an instruction on following too closely, emphasizing the rear driver's responsibility in maintaining a safe distance.

Meeks v. Hodges, 226 Va. 106, 306 S.E.2d 879 (1983)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the rear driver was following too closely, leading to the accident.

• Outcome: The court found that there was a jury question as to whether the rear driver was following too closely, which contributed to the accident.

Bottom line:  Slow down, back off and pay attention to the conditions of the road.  If you think you're too close or the driver in front of you suddenly taps their breaks and you're having to smash the brakes to avoid an accident, you probably are too close.  

 

So, back the @#%# off my bumper!

 

 

Sometimes the Little Guy Wins

Not that you were asking but do you (gentle reader) know why I got into law?

First and foremost, it was to help the little guy.  

More to the point, to help those who didn't know how to help themselves.  

Overly opressive landlords, power hungry employers, school bullies, tyrant police officer - I just wanted to help alieve the pain aflicted by others on people who couldn't didn't know where else to turn - and I did a pretty good job of it until I couldn't and then I found other ways to help.

Like writing a blog about law and legal stuff to help people know where to go to get more information on their problems.

So, it weighs heavy on my mind when I read stories about people being oppressed.  Note that's "oppressed,"  not entitled.  There are a whole lot of people out in public land that think they deserve retribution simply because they breathe oxygen.

Jerry Hartfield is not one of those entitled ones.

See, back in 1976, Eunice Lowe - a white woman - was found murdered and sexually assaulted at a bus station where she had worked in Bay City, near Houston.  Hartfield, a black man from Kansas, was quickly arrested because his fingerprints were on a Dr. Pepper bottle found at the station.  

You know, I'll bet other people's fingerprints were found at the crime scene but were they arrested?!  Bunch of hicks, they were.

Anyway, and shortly after his arrest, Hartfield confessed to the crime.  That's "confessed" as in coerced.  Also how in blazes can a black man with an IQ in the 50's or 60's be said to be able to understand how to confess to anything?  Regardless and consequently, Hartfield was convicted by a jury of his "peers" and was sentenced to death.

On Sept. 17, 1980, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered him retried because prosecutors had improperly dismissed a juror over her reservations about the death penalty.  However, instead of holding a new trial, prosecutors tried (for three years) to convert Hartfield’s death penalty to a life sentence. 

Uh huh.

They failed in that endeavor so, in 1983, the Texas appeals court again ordered a new trial - which never happened. 

In 2006, with the help of a fellow inmate Hartfield filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and seeking a speedy trial which the court(s) rejected.

After years of being bounced around, Harfield turned to the federal system in 2009 to clear up many of the obstacles that were impeding his case.  

However, in 2011, a federal judge rejected Hartfield’s claims because, the judge wrote, Hartfield had failed to exhaust his state remedies.

Are you kidding me?  A comedy of errors this was!

In 2013, 30 years after it had ordered Hartfield to get his new trial, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged at last that Hartfield had been improperly imprisoned for all those years. But it, too, refused to order him released or retried.

Oh, the humanity!

Finally, in August 2015, Hartfield FINALLY got his second trial.  The problem was that two key witnesses who had testified against Hartfield in 1977 had died, so their original testimony was read into the record annnnd, Hartfield's attorney could not be cross-examined.

Other problems that affected this second trial was that none of the physical evidence — the pickaxe that was allegedly used in the murder, a car allegedly used by Hartfield, or DNA from the victim — was still around and jurors could not hear mitigating evidence from Hartfield’s family since most of them had also died. 

Of course none of that mattered because the jury convicted Hartfield again for murder.  However, this time, Hartfield's attorneys were on the ball and appealed this decision for violating Hartfield's right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment (note: he had been already incarcerated for the better part of 30 years!).

The Texas appeals court agreed and after 35 years, Jerry Hartfield was released.

But all's well that ends well, right?!

Yeah, no.  All the legal wrangling, all the judicial missteps, all the dinking around with a person's life only goes to show how messed up this legal system of ours is.  

I mean, Jerry Hartfield not only splipped throught the proverbial cracks of the legal system - he was royally screwed out of a third of his life! 

I suspect that if there's a silver lining to all this, it's that Jerry got his day in court and the system finally worked in his favor.  Thirty-five (35) years late but at least the court system finally got its act together.

Good on that. 

Word of the Month for June 2026: Exploitation

So, I was wandering through social media land the other day and I came upon a video where a stranger says hello to a child (young female) who is holding her mother's hand.

Mother asks, "do you know that man?" to which Child says no - I don't.  Mother looks back at stranger with a grimmace.

Later, another stranger wishies Child a happy birthday.  Child is confused and,...well, why don't you have a looksee at the video and see if it doesn't hit home with you?

Why this got my attention is what with all the talk about Jeffrey Epstein, I would think posting pictures of your kid(s) and other details of their lives online is just another form of child exploitation.  Before we get any deeper into this, let's define what we're talking about as it relates to exploitation.  

EXPLOITATION is a form of abuse where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to manipulate, coerce, or deceive a person into performing acts—or being used for acts—that benefit the exploiter, usually in exchange for something the person needs or wants, such as affection, money, or food.  This abuse is fundamentally about the power imbalance, meaning that even if a person appears to "consent" or initiates the interaction, they are still considered a victim.

The problem is that under U.S. law, parents generally control the legal rights of their minor children, including decisions about publicity and privacy.  That means a parent usually has authority to share photos of their child.

There is no general federal law prohibiting parents from posting pictures of their children on social media. Most laws instead regulate companies or explicit exploitation.

Two key federal laws show the focus:

• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

  • Regulates websites collecting data about kids under 13.

  • It controls companies, not parents posting pictures.

• Child Pornography Prevention Act

  • Criminalizes sexual or exploitative images of minors.

  • Innocent family photos normally do not fall under it.

So legally speaking, the system assumes parents are acting in the child’s best interests.  Even though posting photos is usually legal, it does becomes illegal in certain circumstances.  

A. Sexualized or exploitative images

If an image is sexualized or intended for exploitation, it can violate federal child-exploitation laws.

Relevant laws include:

• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

• Federal child pornography statutes

  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Sexual exploitation of children), a person commits a federal crime if they: employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in… sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252  (Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors) criminalizes knowingly transporting, receiving, distributing, possessing, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252A (Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography) criminalizes distribution, receipt, possession, access with intent to view child pornography using computers or interstate commerce (internet).

  18 U.S.C. § 2256  (Definitions for Chapter 110) Defines Explicit Conduct to include: 
  (i) sexual intercourse
  (ii) bestiality
  (iii) masturbation
  (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse
  (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.

  That last phrase is where courts apply the Dost test (under United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986)).

• State exploitation laws

  Every state has parallel statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors.  Here are a few examples:

  Utah Code § 76-5b-201 (Sexual exploitation of a minor):  A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor if they: produce, possess, distribute, or view material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  Utah treats this as a second-degree felony or higher. 

  Caifornia Penal Code § 311.4  (Use of a minor in producing obscene matter): Criminalizes employing or coercing a minor to participate in sexual conduct for visual material.

  Tex. Penal Code § 43.26  (Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography):  Criminalizes knowing possession or distribution of visual material depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct.

  N.Y. Penal Law § 263.05  (Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance): Criminalizes employing or inducing a child to engage in sexual conduct for visual depiction.

Why these statutes matter for a social-media scenario is because in the vast majority of family-photo situations, these laws do not apply, because:

• the images are not sexually explicit

• child are not engaged in sexual conduct

• there is no intent to create sexual material.

However, they can apply if someone posts images that meet the statutory definition of:

• lascivious exhibition

• sexual conduct

• sexually explicit performance

even if the image originally came from a family setting.  Courts evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis using the United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) factors.

B. Sharing private information

Posting identifiable details can create legal problems if it crosses into:

• harassment

• stalking

• doxxing

• publication of private facts

For example, revealing address, school location, or personal data could lead to civil liability in some circumstances. 

C. Commercial exploitation of children

This is the fastest-growing legal area.  “Family influencer” accounts sometimes earn large amounts of money from videos or photos featuring children.  Some states now regulate this.

Example:

• Utah H.B. 322 (2025), codified primarily in Utah Code Title 34A (Labor in Private Employment)  
• Requires parents earning significant income from monetized content featuring a child to set aside a portion of earnings in a trust for the child.
• Allows a person who appeared in social-media content as a minor to request deletion or editing once they reach adulthood

• Illionois 820 ILCS 205/1–22 (Illinois Child Labor Law amendments); enacted by SB 1782 (2023). 
• Applies when a child appears in 30% or more of monetized online content.
• Requires a percentage of earnings to be placed in a trust account for the child.
• Allows children to sue parents for unpaid compensation after reaching adulthood.  

• Minnesota H.F. 3488 (2024) amending state child labor statutes.
• Requires compensation and trust accounts for minors appearing in monetized social-media content.
• Children under 14 cannot appear in certain monetized content work.
• Grants the right to request removal of content later in life.  

• Arkansas. Code Ann. § 11-6-101 et seq. (amended by Act 396 of 2023).
• Expands child labor laws to include minors appearing in monetized digital content.
• Requires recordkeeping and compensation protections similar to child-performer laws.

• Montana Code Ann. Title 41 (Child Labor).
• Requires earnings derived from minors appearing in monetized content to be preserved in trust accounts.
• Provides financial protections modeled after child-actor statutes.

• Hawaii Revised Statutes § 390-2 (child labor law). 
• Includes online content creation within the definition of theatrical employment.
• Requires earnings protections similar to the Coogan law.

For point of reference, the Coogan law is named after child actor:  Jackie Coogan.  He was a famous child star in the 1920s who appeared in the film The Kid (1921) with Charlie Chaplin.

Coogan earned millions as a child actor, but when he became an adult he discovered that his parents had spent nearly all of his earnings.  He sued his mother and stepfather in 1938.  The public outrage from that case led California to enact a series of statutes protecting child performers' earnings.

In recent years, a new concept called “Sharenting” has sprung up.  Sharenting (referring to a blend of "sharing" and "parenting") is the practice of parents regularly posting photos, videos, or detailed personal information about their children on social media and internet platforms.  

Sharenting is a widespread phenomenon driven by pride, community, and documenting milestones, but it raises significant concerns regarding child privacy, safety, and long-term digital footprints. 

A few legal issues that arise from Sharenting include: 

• Children cannot consent to a permanent digital record 
• Predators may collect images 
• Identity theft risks 
• Reputational harm later in life

A related phenomenon called Digital Kidnapping has also arisen where strangers take a child’s photos and pretend the child is theirs online.

The core legal problem is this:  Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, and courts are reluctant to interfere with ordinary parenting decisions.  To criminalize ordinary photo sharing, a government would have to overcome:

• First Amendment speech issues
• Parental rights doctrine
• Enforcement problems

So lawmakers usually regulate extreme cases, not normal family behavior.

OK, that's all well and all but where might the law go in the future? As it turns out, there is a growing movement to treat children’s online exposure more like child labor in entertainment.

• Possible future regulations being discussed include:
• Digital consent rights for children
• Limits on monetized family content
• Mandatory earnings trusts (like child actors)
• A child's right to erase online childhood content

Some European countries have already recognizing stronger “child digital privacy” rights.

I guess what all this boils down to is parents really need to get a grip and know that while they say they are looking out for their kids, 'rents need to realize that EVERYTHING they post online is seen by everyone.

NOTE: that's EVERYONE as in not just the intended audience (friends and family), but potentially any person or system that can access, copy, intercept, store, or redistribute the image at any stage of its existence on the internet. 

So, how all this works is: once a photograph is uploaded to a social media platform such as Facebook, X, or Instagram, it becomes accessible to the platform itself, meaning employees, automated moderation systems, content-analysis algorithms, and internal data-processing tools that scan images for policy enforcement, advertising signals, or machine-learning training. 

From there, access may extend to the people the parent intentionally shares it with, but also to anyone those recipients show, screenshot, download, forward, repost, or otherwise distribute the image to, whether deliberately or casually. 

Even when privacy settings limit viewing to a smaller group, any member of that group can duplicate the image instantly and send it outside the platform through email, messaging apps, cloud storage, or other social networks, effectively dissolving the original privacy boundary.

Beyond the human viewers, “EVERYONE” can also include the technical infrastructure that touches the file. The image may pass through servers, backup systems, content-delivery networks, and caching layers that store copies for speed and reliability. 

Those systems may be operated not only by the original platform but also by third-party vendors providing cloud hosting, security scanning, or analytics services. In addition, automated web crawlers, scraping tools, or malicious actors may obtain copies if the content becomes accessible beyond a strict private setting, and once a single copy leaves the original environment it can propagate indefinitely across forums, databases, or file-sharing networks without the knowledge of the original poster. 

In the most expansive interpretation, “EVERYONE” could encompass the platform company and its employees, contractors and cloud providers, the intended viewers and anyone they share the image with, unknown third parties who acquire copies through technical or social means, automated systems that index or analyze the image, and any future recipient who encounters the file long after the parent believed it remained within a limited circle. 

So, to summarize, when you post your child's photograph online so that "EVERYONE" see it, (in this case "EVERYONE" means that the potential audience is not merely a list of friends but an open-ended chain of humans and machines capable of accessing or redistributing the data once it enters the networked environment.

Paranoid yet?

So when next you go to post something about your darling younglings on social media, I hope you keep all this in mind and resist the urge to post those cutsey birthday pictures or baby's first bath or your daughter's first kiss.

Yeah, maybe keep those memories close(r) to the vest. 

 

 

The FDA, Again?!?

You know, it seems just yesterday I was bagging on the FDA.  

In today's blog post, I'm complaining about drugs and why is it the FDA isn't doing a better job of regulating Big Pharma.

In fact, and did you know, that there are ONLY TWO countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the public?  The United States and New Zealand.

That's it.

Did you also know that under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the FDA regulates prescription drug ads. 

That's right.  Pursuant to FDA rules, companies must:

• Present a “fair balance” of risks and benefits.

• Not omit important safety information.

• Ensure claims are truthful and not misleading.

Soooooo, what happens when a pharmaceutical company doesn't present a fair balance of risks and benefit OR omits important safety information OR ensures claims are truthful and not misleading?

Well, they get fined or get sent a really nasty letter.

A letter?  You're kidding right?!

Actually, no.  

Officially, if a company misleads the public (e.g., downplays side effects), the FDA can issue:

• A scary warning letter or Untitled Letters (formal notices to stop certain ads).

• Seizure or injunctions (rare).

• Referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for civil or criminal prosecution.

But, you say, the FDA doesn't really send out letters when there is a clear violation by a BILLIONS in profit each year MULTINATIONAL corporation?

Say it isn't so, Joe!

1. Celgene – Revlimid (2015, Untitled Letter)

• Issue: Promotional materials overstated effectiveness in treating multiple myeloma and downplayed risks.

• FDA Action: Issued an untitled letter directing Celgene to correct the materials.

• Criticism: No fine or sanction, even though Revlimid was a multi-billion-dollar drug.

2. Amgen – Neulasta (2010, Warning Letter)

• Issue: TV ad minimized serious risks (e.g., spleen rupture, acute respiratory distress) and overstated benefits for chemotherapy patients.

• FDA Action: Sent a warning letter. The ad was pulled, but no financial penalties were imposed.

3. Novartis – Tasigna (2013, Untitled Letter)

• Issue: Website and YouTube videos exaggerated the cancer drug’s effectiveness while minimizing life-threatening side effects.

• FDA Action: Issued an untitled letter requiring corrections, but no fines.

4. Otsuka – Rexulti (2016, Warning Letter)

• Issue: Sales reps made false claims to physicians, suggesting Rexulti was safer and more effective than proven.

• FDA Action: Sent a warning letter. Again, no penalties beyond compliance.

5. AstraZeneca – Seroquel XR (2009, Warning Letter)

• Issue: Print ad overstated effectiveness for generalized anxiety disorder and omitted major safety warnings (including metabolic risks).

• FDA Action: Warning letter only — no fines.

OK, OK, so they send out letters.  But no fines/money?  There's gotta be instances where companies who violate the law get fined, right?!? 

Well, yes - fines are levied.  The problem is when the company makes BILLIONS in profit each year, any fine is basically a tickle.  For example:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) – Fined $3 billion (2012)
• Drugs: Paxil, Wellbutrin, Avandia
• Violation: Misbranding, illegal promotion, and failure to report Avandia’s cardiovascular risks.
• Profit in 2012: $7.1–7.5 billion USD  
2. Pfizer – Fined $2.3 billion (2009)
• Drug: Bextra (and others)
• Violation: Off-label promotion, false marketing, and kickbacks.
• Profit in 2009: About $8.6 billion USD
3. Johnson & Johnson – $2.2 billion (2013)
• Drug: Risperdal (antipsychotic)
• Violation: Misbranding and hiding risks, especially promotion to elderly patients despite stroke risk.
• Profit in 2013: $13.8 billion USD
4. Abbott Laboratories – $1.5 billion (2012)
• Drug: Depakote
• Violation: Promoting for unapproved uses (e.g., dementia, schizophrenia).
• Profit in 2012: $6.0 billion USD
5. Eli Lilly – $1.4 billion (2009)
• Drug: Zyprexa (antipsychotic)
• Violation: Off-label promotion (especially to children and elderly) while downplaying diabetes risks.
• Profit in 2009:  $4.33 billion USD
6. Merck – $950 million (2011)
• Drug: Vioxx (painkiller)
• Violation: Misbranding and failing to disclose cardiovascular risks.
• Profit in 2011: $6.27 billion USD
7. Amgen – $762 million (2012)
• Drug: Aranesp (anemia drug)
• Violation: Misbranding, off-label promotion, false claims to Medicare.
• Profit in 2012: $4.3 billion USD
8. Allergan – $600 million (2010)
• Drug: Botox
• Violation: Promoting for unapproved uses (headaches, juvenile cerebral palsy, pain).
• Profit in 2010: $0.28 billion on revenue of $4.8 billion USD
9. Schering-Plough/Merck – $435 million (2006)
• Drug: Temodar, Intron A, others
• Violation: Off-label promotion, false claims.
• Profit in 2006: $1.6 billion USD
10. Purdue Pharma – $634.5 million (2007)
• Drug: OxyContin
• Violation: Misbranding, falsely claiming OxyContin was less addictive and safer than other opioids.
• Total Revenue in 2007: $2.8 billion USD

What does all this indicate?  Simply, that money is no option for some companies.  Even though Purdue Pharma got hit with a $634.5 million fine, it was still not enough to sink the company because there is so much money in drugs.

So, why doesn't the FDA hit Pharma companies harder? Well, up to now, the Feds were in bed with Big Pharma.

The most direct evidence of bribery occurred in the late 1980s, where an industry whistleblower uncovered a major scandal involving FDA officials.

• What happened: Several FDA employees in the generic drugs division were found to have accepted bribes and illegal gratuities from generic drug companies. In exchange, officials sped up drug approvals or provided inside information.
• The outcome: The scandal led to criminal convictions and prompted the FDA to implement new policies to detect fraudulent data submissions and address bribery

Outside of direct bribery, critics point to other structural issues that can create a "cozy relationship" between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. 

• User fees: Since 1992, the FDA's drug division has been partially funded by "user fees" collected from pharmaceutical companies. This system raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, as the FDA becomes dependent on the industry it regulates.
• The "revolving door": It is a common practice for senior FDA officials and drug reviewers to leave the agency and take high-paying jobs at the pharmaceutical companies they once regulated.
  • Potential concerns: This practice raises concerns that former officials could use their inside knowledge and relationships to benefit their new employers.
  • Arguments for the practice: Supporters argue that the deep knowledge of former FDA employees can help companies navigate the complex approval process more efficiently. 

The pharmaceutical industry also has a documented history of paying illegal kickbacks and bribes to healthcare providers, but these cases typically involve influencing doctors' prescribing habits rather than directly corrupting FDA officials.  For instance, in 2016, pharmaceutical executives were charged with a racketeering scheme involving paying kickbacks to doctors to promote an addictive opioid.

 

So, I'm wondering whether any of this is going to stop with the new administration?  Obama didn't care about the kickbacks.  Biden didn't care, either. 

Will Trump, et al. care?  

Time will tell.  

 

In the meantime, what can regular folks do against big pharma and FDA corruption?  

 

Well, we can advocate for legislative reforms, such as increased transparency in funding for researchers and advocacy groups, and reforms to the FDA's fee system that increases industry influence. 

 

We can supporting independent journalism that investigates misconduct, reporting potential conflicts of interest.

 

We can join or support non-profit organizations that work to promote patient safety and advocate for stricter regulations.

 

It's not a lot but at least it's something and sometimes, it's the little things that bring down the mountain.