McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant
This MDL consolidates claims against a global consulting firm alleging it advised opioid manufacturers on strategies to increase prescription opioid sales while allegedly aware of the resulting public-health consequences, a theory of consultant liability distinct from, though factually related to, the much larger National Prescription Opiate MDL against manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. Centralized in the Northern District of California in 2021, the docket carries 235 pending actions from plaintiffs, largely school districts, hospital systems, and individuals, whose claims were not addressed by the consulting firm's separate 2021 settlement, reported at roughly $573 million, resolving related claims brought by a multistate coalition of state attorneys general outside this federal litigation.
What drives resolution risk in the actions still pending here is a comparatively novel liability theory, holding a consulting firm, rather than a manufacturer or distributor, accountable for its advisory role in an opioid-marketing strategy, tested and substantially validated through the earlier state attorney-general settlement but not yet fully litigated to a common resolution across the more varied plaintiff population still active in this MDL. That plaintiff population's diversity, school districts, hospitals, and individuals, each with distinct types of alleged harm, means damages proof is likely to remain more individualized than in a single-theory purchaser-overcharge or personal-injury claim.
For anyone tracking how liability theories in the opioid-litigation landscape have expanded beyond the traditional manufacturer-distributor-pharmacy defendants, this docket is a significant example of consultant-liability theory reaching a real, if partial, settlement outcome at the state level while continuing to be litigated for the broader plaintiff population at the federal MDL level. Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks this kind of expanding-defendant-category litigation as part of the broader opioid-crisis litigation landscape, distinct from but informed by the primary manufacturer and distributor MDL.
That it advised opioid manufacturers on strategies to boost prescription opioid sales while allegedly aware of the resulting public-health harm, a theory of consultant liability distinct from claims against manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies directly.
The consulting firm agreed to pay roughly $573 million to a multistate coalition of state attorneys general to resolve related claims, separate from and outside the scope of this federal MDL.
It holds an advisory firm, rather than a manufacturer or distributor, accountable for its role in shaping an opioid-marketing strategy, a defendant category not traditionally central to opioid-crisis litigation before this docket and the related state settlement.
That liability theories have expanded beyond the traditional manufacturer-distributor-pharmacy defendants to include professional advisory firms, a broadening Criterica Intelligence tracks as part of the wider opioid-litigation landscape.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.