About 200 users of
The label referred to permanent hair loss in the “adverse reactions” section and two other places, clearly and consistently warning of the precise injury the plaintiffs allegedly suffered, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the label was nonetheless inadequate because permanent hair loss wasn’t ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.