Gilead Tenofovir Cases (Aug. 3, 2026, No. S283862) ___Cal.5th___ [2026 WL 2223748]
Plaintiffs are users of a prescription HIV drug (TDF) manufactured by the defendant. While conceding TDF was not defective and did not need to be pulled from the market, plaintiffs claimed that the pharmaceutical manufacturer knew there was a lower-risk alternative (TAF) in development but intentionally delayed further testing.
Plaintiffs brought claims for negligence and fraudulent concealment, alleging the manufacturer strategically deferred bringing TAF to market until TDF’s patent expired to avoid cannibalizing TDF’s sales. The trial court and the Court of Appeal allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their negligence claims.
The Supreme Court reversed, remanding to the Court of Appeal to issue a writ of mandate to grant summary judgment on all causes of action. The Court held that a pharmaceutical manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to users of a nondefective drug “when deciding whether and when to commercialize an alternative drug.” The Court doubted plaintiffs’ argument that Civil Code section 1714 allows a negligence cause of action without proof of a drug’s defect. Even assuming a broader duty could exist, the Court found that foreseeability and public policy considerations under Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 compel an exception in this case.
Justice Evans dissented, claiming the majority opinion “provides pharmaceutical manufacturers with sweeping immunity from negligence liability.” She argued that Civil Code section 1714 imposes a duty to exercise ordinary care, that pharmaceutical companies are not entitled to an exemption from that duty, and should be held liable when they act negligently or engage in willful misconduct.
