Atripla Lawsuit

Atripla is a drug that contains tenofovir, a compound that can block the spread of HIV. However, some of those who took Atripla are now suing drugmaker Gilead Sciences. In their lawsuits, victims claim Atripla and similar HIV drugs can cause permanent harm to the kidneys and bones.

What Is an Atripla Lawsuit?

Atripla has been used to treat HIV since 2006. This drug was among many HIV treatments made by Gilead and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, recent lawsuits link Atripla to severe kidney damage and bone density loss. This is because Atripla contains a compound called tenofovir disoproxil (TDF), which stops the spread of HIV but poisons the human body in high doses.

Though TDF can be very harmful, Gilead may not have properly warned those who took Atripla of the health risks. As a result, victims have suffered from side effects such as osteoporosis, kidney failure, broken bones, and renal impairment.

Some of these victims filed lawsuits against Gilead to receive financial compensation for their injuries.

Compensation can help pay for:

  • Costs of medical care
  • Lost wages if the victim couldn’t work
  • Pain and suffering
  • Other costs related to their injuries

As of 2019, Gilead continues to sell Atripla even though it is harmful to human health. If you used Atripla and developed kidney bone or problems, a lawsuit may be in your best interest.

Filing an Atripla Class-Action Lawsuit

When multiple people affected by the same issue file a lawsuit together, it is known as a class-action lawsuit.

Class-action lawsuits related to Atripla have already been filed against Gilead. For example, 140 people from over 30 states filed a class-action lawsuit against Gilead in 2018. This lawsuit is still ongoing as of 2019.

If you are looking to file an Atripla class-action lawsuit, you will need an attorney.

A lawyer can help you:

  • Fill out legal paperwork correctly
  • Gather documents and evidence to build your case
  • Stay up to date as the case progresses

Without a lawyer’s help, it can be extremely hard to receive any compensation because, if you file a lawsuit against Gilead, the company will work with skilled lawyers to defend themselves.

Other Atripla Lawsuit Types

While class-action lawsuits have been filed against Gilead, there are other options available. Most mass torts and product liability lawsuits (such as those surrounding dangerous drugs) are actually not filed as class-action lawsuits.

When you work with a lawyer, they can determine if a class-action lawsuit will be best for you. If not, they will help you find a better option.

Common types of Atripla lawsuits include:

  • Personal Injury: A personal injury lawsuit is similar to a class-action lawsuit except with only one plaintiff (person who files the suit). In a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff will need to show how the defendant (person/company they are suing) is responsible for their illness or injury.
  • Wrongful Death: If someone used Atripla and died of complications, their family members may file a wrongful death lawsuit. Through these lawsuits, families receive compensation to cover medical expenses as well as their grief and suffering.

Once you and your lawyer decide on a lawsuit, the case will be filed. Your lawyer will work with you throughout the process and try to get you the most compensation available.

Settlements vs Trials

Lawsuits conclude either through an out-of-court settlement or a trial.

Here are the benefits and drawbacks of each: 

  • Settlements: In a settlement, neither party admits fault and the case is dropped. The plaintiff will receive a lump sum of money. Most lawyers will want to settle the case out of court, as it saves time and money when compared to a trial. However, the plaintiff may receive less compensation through a settlement than a trial.
  • Trials: During a trial, both sides present their case before a judge and jury. One side will then be declared the winner. A trial may award a plaintiff (injured) with more money — but only if they win. If the defendant (HIV drug manufacturer) wins, the plaintiff gets nothing. And even if the plaintiff wins, the defendant could appeal the decision and overturn it later on.

An attorney can help you determine if a settlement or trial will be better for your particular case.

Legal Help for Atripla Health Problems

TDF drugs like Atripla may have helped people live longer with HIV, but it also put them at risk of permanent kidney and bone damage. Sadly, Gilead could have avoided this but chose to sell Atripla anyway.

According to legal complaints filed in 2018, Gilead had access to a safer drug called tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) before it sold Viread, its first HIV drug, in 2001.

However, by saving TAF for later, the company could market it as a new, safer drug — and, consequently, increase their profits.

In 2015, Gilead finally released a drug containing TAF. Gilead’s president at the time claimed that patients who switched from Atripla to this new drug could benefit greatly, as it was safer.

However, the company already knew that TAF was safer from the beginning and only sold TDF drugs to make an extra profit.

Gilead misled the public about Atripla’s safety for years, and those already battling HIV had to suffer for it. Lawsuits have already been filed, and more may be likely in the future.

If you currently use or have used Atripla in the past and now suffer from kidney damage or bone loss, legal help is available.

To learn more, get a free case review today.

Author:HIV Drug Justice Editorial Team
HIV Drug Justice Editorial Team

HIV Drug Justice educates people about the risks of HIV drugs, which can cause kidney failure and bone damage. Our site is managed by the HIV Drug Justice Editorial Team, a group of concerned writers, editors, journalists, and illustrators. Our team helps readers understand what medical and legal options are available if they used dangerous HIV drugs and developed serious health problems as a result.

Last modified: September 17, 2019

View 1 References
  1. Holley, et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018)