Commercial

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently paved the way for a landmark settlement involving Purdue Pharma — the maker of the widely prescribed opioid, OxyContin — approving a controversial bankruptcy deal that shields the Sackler family from future civil lawsuits. The US$7.4 billion (AU$11.24 billion) agreement is one of the largest in U.S. pharmaceutical litigation history and follows years of public outrage, including widespread attention brought by the acclaimed TV miniseries Dopesick.

However, as this case unfolds in the United States, its implications could ripple far beyond, including in Australia, where legal, medical, and regulatory circles are already taking note.

The Backdrop: Purdue Pharma and Dopesick

The legal action centred around Purdue Pharma’s alleged role in fuelling the U.S. opioid crisis through deceptive marketing of OxyContin. Internal documents, whistleblower accounts, and investigative reporting painted a picture of systemic minimisation of addiction risks, aggressive sales tactics, and regulatory blind spots.

This narrative reached a wider audience through Dopesick, a dramatised account of the crisis that aired on Hulu (and internationally via Disney+), which chronicled the human toll of opioid addiction and the corporate decisions behind it. The series shone a spotlight on the Sackler family’s influence and was widely credited with increasing public pressure on lawmakers and regulators.

Key Legal Developments in the U.S.

Under the final settlement terms:

• Purdue Pharma will be restructured into a public benefit company focused on harm reduction.
• The Sackler family, though not admitting wrongdoing, will contribute $7.4 billion to opioid abatement programs and victim compensation.
• Crucially, they will receive immunity from future civil litigation related to the opioid crisis.

This last point remains contentious, with critics arguing it sets a dangerous precedent, allowing wealthy defendants to essentially “buy” legal immunity through bankruptcy manoeuvres.

How Might This Affect Australia?

Although U.S. legal rulings don’t bind Australian courts, the size and structure of the Purdue settlement could influence Australian legal, regulatory, and medical landscapes in several ways:

1. Legal Strategy and Class Actions

Australian law firms and litigation funders may look more closely at pursuing local opioid-related claims, potentially using U.S. documents and findings as persuasive material. Australia already has an active class action environment, and past cases (e.g., mesh implants, Vioxx) demonstrate a precedent for holding pharmaceutical companies accountable.

Moreover, the concept of using bankruptcy to sidestep future claims — though more difficult under Australian law — may be tested here in the future. It raises ethical and procedural concerns about the rights of victims versus the interests of corporate defendants.

Bankruptcy and Liability: A Key Legal Difference

One of the most controversial aspects of the Purdue Pharma settlement is the use of bankruptcy to shield the Sackler family from future lawsuits, even though they did not declare bankruptcy personally. This kind of third-party liability release is permissible under U.S. bankruptcy law but is not available in Australia.

To understand why this is so significant, we can look to the Australian asbestos crisis.

In the early 2000s, James Hardie Industries, a major manufacturer of asbestos products, attempted to restructure its corporate operations offshore to limit its compensation obligations. However, after a public inquiry and significant political pressure, the company was required to establish the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF), a long-term funding vehicle to compensate victims.

Unlike in the U.S., bankruptcy did not insulate James Hardie or its executives from liability. Some former directors faced legal proceedings for misleading conduct. The Australian legal system favoured ongoing corporate accountability and government oversight, not immunity.

This sharp contrast underscores how unusual — and controversial — the Purdue Pharma deal is from an Australian legal perspective. It also signals that any attempt to use similar strategies here would likely face intense judicial and public scrutiny.

2. Tighter Regulatory Scrutiny

The case may pressure the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to examine how opioid medications were approved, marketed, and prescribed over the past two decades. Regulatory reforms or inquiries could follow, especially if public concern grows.

3. Doctors and Prescribing Behaviour

The cultural shift following Dopesick and the U.S. litigation has already made some Australian doctors more cautious about opioid prescribing. This trend may intensify, with clinicians favouring non-opioid alternatives for chronic pain or being more transparent about the risks of addiction.

4. Public Awareness and Potential Litigation

As Australians become more aware of the opioid crisis — primarily through shows like Dopesick — individuals may begin questioning past prescriptions, marketing practices, and the role of healthcare institutions. This could lead to a rise in legal consultations or even domestic lawsuits.

The $7.4 billion Purdue Pharma settlement marks a potentially historic moment in global pharmaceutical accountability. It also forces countries like Australia to ask: could it happen here? And if it already has — what remedies are available?

From legal strategy to medical ethics and drug policy, the ripple effects are just beginning to be felt. Australians who have been affected by opioid medications — or who are concerned about how these drugs were marketed and prescribed — may now feel empowered to seek answers.

Please call us on +612 9283 5599 or complete the free and confidential call-back form below.