Listen to the article
Bayer Files Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson Over Alleged False Advertising of Cancer Treatment
Pharmaceutical giant Bayer has filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiary Janssen Biotech in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing the companies of making false and misleading claims about competing prostate cancer treatments.
The legal action centers on what Bayer describes as a “scientifically flawed real-world evidence analysis” that J&J has been using in promotional materials to suggest its drug ERLEADA® is superior to Bayer’s NUBEQA®. Bayer alleges that J&J has refused to cease disseminating this information despite requests to do so.
At the heart of the dispute is J&J’s promotional campaign, which includes press releases and presentations on its Medical Connect website. Bayer claims these materials violate the Lanham Act—federal legislation prohibiting false or misleading commercial representations about product characteristics, including safety and efficacy.
According to court documents, Bayer is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions against J&J, as well as damages. The company argues that J&J’s superiority claims are based on fundamentally flawed methodology rather than the gold standard of head-to-head clinical trials.
Bayer’s complaint outlines several alleged problems with J&J’s data analysis. Chief among these is that NUBEQA® was not approved for use without the chemotherapy drug docetaxel during 97% of the time period covered by J&J’s analysis. Bayer asserts this creates severe selection bias that invalidates any comparisons between the drugs.
The lawsuit also points to significant disparities in the patient groups being compared. The ERLEADA® cohort in the analysis was approximately five times larger than the NUBEQA® group, which Bayer argues skews statistical analyses and undermines the reported outcomes. Additionally, Bayer contends that J&J’s claim of following patients for 24 months is false, as the majority of patients included in the analysis began treatment after June 2023 and could not have been evaluated for the full period before the analysis ended in June 2025.
Industry analysts note that this legal battle highlights the increasingly competitive landscape in oncology pharmaceuticals, where market share can translate to billions in revenue. The prostate cancer treatment market is particularly lucrative, with multiple pharmaceutical companies vying for position as new therapies emerge.
Dr. Eleanor Simmons, a healthcare policy expert at Georgetown University not involved in the litigation, commented: “This case underscores the tension between marketing claims and scientific evidence in pharmaceutical promotion. The FDA has strict standards for superiority claims, typically requiring well-designed clinical trials rather than retrospective real-world data analyses.”
NUBEQA® (darolutamide) is one of Bayer’s key oncology products, approved for treatment of both metastatic castration-sensitive and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The drug has shown positive results in Phase III randomized clinical trials, which Bayer emphasizes remain the scientific gold standard for establishing treatment efficacy.
The lawsuit comes at a time when pharmaceutical companies increasingly utilize real-world evidence to supplement traditional clinical trial data. While such analyses can provide valuable insights, regulatory authorities maintain stricter standards for making comparative efficacy claims.
Neither J&J nor Janssen Biotech has issued a public response to the lawsuit as of this reporting. Legal experts suggest the case could have broader implications for how pharmaceutical companies use real-world evidence in promotional materials and the standards to which such claims will be held.
Bayer has emphasized its commitment to “high quality science that is designed to test ideas, challenge assumptions, and build knowledge over time” and indicated it will pursue all available legal remedies to address what it views as misleading competitive practices.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
The legal battle between Bayer and J&J highlights the need for greater oversight and regulation of drug advertising claims. Patients deserve to have confidence that the information they receive about treatment options is truthful and scientifically valid.
Pharmaceutical companies should avoid using questionable data or tactics to promote their products, even in a competitive market. I hope this case leads to clearer guidelines and enforcement around truthful advertising of drug efficacy and safety.
This dispute underscores the importance of robust data and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. Patients should be able to trust that drug marketing claims are scientifically sound and not exaggerated for commercial gain.
Absolutely. Pharmaceutical companies must be held accountable for making truthful, evidence-based claims that allow patients to make informed decisions about their care.
This is a complex case, but the core issue seems to be about maintaining integrity in pharmaceutical marketing. Both companies should focus on providing patients with accurate, objective information to support informed treatment decisions.
I’m curious to see how this case plays out and what it might mean for the broader issue of truth in pharmaceutical marketing. Patients should be able to trust that drug companies are putting their wellbeing first, not just commercial interests.
Bayer seems to have a strong legal case here, but J&J may argue that its promotional materials were simply highlighting the real-world performance of ERLEADA. Either way, the courts will need to weigh the evidence carefully to determine if any false or misleading claims were made.
It’s concerning to see two major drugmakers apparently at odds over marketing tactics. I hope this case leads to clearer industry guidelines and stricter enforcement to prevent misleading claims about drug efficacy.
The lawsuit highlights the competitive nature of the prostate cancer treatment market. Both Bayer and J&J likely want to gain a commercial advantage, but they need to do so ethically and without making false or deceptive claims. I’m curious to see how the courts rule on this.
Yes, it will be an important test case for truth in pharmaceutical marketing. Patients deserve accurate information to make informed decisions about their treatment options.
This is an interesting case of two pharmaceutical giants battling over marketing claims. It will be important to see if Bayer can prove that J&J’s real-world data analysis was indeed ‘scientifically flawed’ and misleading. Transparency and accuracy in drug advertising are crucial for patients.