The Lab Whose Junk Science Is Fueling a Frenzy of Litigation
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
(Pa., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that the lower court failed to respect the discretionary rule of judicial gatekeeping when it allowed “junk science” into court room. Also arguing that Pennsylvania law has always required evidence that a particular defendant’s product has caused a plaintiff’s particular injury, not that a category of products in the “aggregate” can cause a generalized category of disease.
On July 20, 2020, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
Law Firms Spent $168M+ on 2.2M Ads in Georgia
ATRA’s Latest Studies Reveal Financial Influence and Lack of Transparency in Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Systems
Two New Reports Analyze Legal Services Advertising Trends and Campaign Contributions
Two New Reports Unveil Disturbing Trends in Legal Services Advertising and Plaintiffs’ Firms’ Political Contributions
In-depth analysis unveils trial lawyers’ staggering advertising and political spending, exposing tactics used to shape public opinion and legal outcomes.