This story is pretty disappointing, but I wouldn’t be shocked if the lawsuit went through. Women are suing because the birth control patch gave them blood clots and strokes, even though every commercial for said patch (and the similar pill) mentions these side effects.

The company went through every typical step for drug marketing. They got FDA approval. When a study showed patches are more dangerous than pills are, the drug’s labeling was adjusted to show that fact — even though another study found no difference between the methods of contraception. (Regardless, the company isn’t really required to compare its product to others, just to warn of the risk of blot clot and stroke.)

The fact of the matter is that no behavior is risk free, so the most we can demand of companies is that they accurately advise consumers of the increased risks their products pose. If a company does this — and there’s no reason to believe they haven’t — it’s unreasonable to demand compensation.

An interesting undercurrent to this is the intricacy of tort law. You can sue someone for something that’s not explicitly illegal — for example, you can have a chainsaw in your yard, but the neighbors can sue if their kids play with it. Similarly, people have argued that following gun control laws doesn’t exempt firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits.

I would argue, however, that in highly regulated industries like drugs and guns, following the law should put you in the clear. If you passed the FDA’s already-too-burdensome screening process and affixed a warning label, or if you ran the necessary background checks on a gun purchaser, I think it’s fair to say you’ve done your due diligence.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.