Civil RICO Standing for Misleading Pharmaceutical Marketing in Painters Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that judicial power extend only to “cases” and “controversies”—a requirement commonly understood as standing to sue.1 Article III’s standing requirement embodies a constitutional minimum that the plaintiff must have suffered a concrete injury, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct that a court can redress by a favorable ruling.2 Congress may even specify what is required of a potential plaintiff to satisfy Article III standing under a particular statute. Under the civil provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), a potential plaintiff must be injured “in his business or property” “by reason of” certain predicate acts as defined by the statute.3 Within the past two decades, there has been a wave of opioid litigation against major pharmaceutical corporations.4 A current split among circuit courts of appeals is whether plaintiffs should be able to sue to recover money they would not have paid to pharmaceutical corporations but-for certain misrepresentations.