When it comes to scrutinizing questionable scientific claims, California courts tend to be among the most permissive in the nation, providing fertile ground for aggressive trial attorneys, according to a legal affairs expert at the Center for Individual Freedom.
Timothy Lee, senior vice president of legal and public affairs for the Virginia.-based center, recently penned an opinion piece arguing that nationwide, trial attorneys have weaponized what Lee calls “sham research” for high-stakes litigation against pharmaceutical companies and other targeted defendants.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys exploit questionable, speculative or outright false scientific findings in academic journals, recruit consumers as parties to mass-tort claims and take advantage of low standards of admissible “expert” witnesses to advance the litigation, Lee said in the opinion piece.
“Savvy law firms also invest heavily in marketing campaigns that push their junk science to media outlets, who then amplify their message passively and uncritically,” he said.
In addition, judges and court staffs may lack the knowledge or resources to properly evaluate disputed scientific claims and expert testimony, according to Lee, who has also worked in the field of labor and employment law.
“Overworked, understaffed and lacking the technical background to make proper evaluations, courts frequently admit into evidence research that should be laughed from the room,” he said.
Lee told the Southern California Record that California courts have historically not imposed a “loser pays” approach to civil litigation, opting instead to have both sides pay their own legal fees even when a plaintiff’s case is viewed as weak or based on frivolous claims.
“Generally speaking, California courts are worse (than other states),” he said. “They're much more plaintiff-friendly, and they're much more hostile toward what we would generally see as the typical targeted interest, such as Johnson & Johnson.”
Lee’s view of the California civil justice system received some support this past week with the publication of the 2024-2025 Judicial Hellholes report from the American Tort Reform Federation, which found that the state’s civil court system was the fifth worst in the nation. In fact, California has been on the infamous list 19 times since the annual report was launched.
“It should come as no surprise that when plaintiffs’ lawyers went searching for a favorable jurisdiction to file a new wave of junk science litigation, they looked no further than California,” the report states, alluding to a series of federal lawsuits filed in California against Walgreens, Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson.
The lawsuits alleged that the defendants’ acne products could contain the cancer-causing chemical benzene, posing a health risk to consumers. But the complaints are based on the private lab Valisure’s petition to the federal Food and Drug Administration to recall benzoyl peroxide (BPO) products, and the Judicial Hellholes report questions the actual risk of such contamination.
“The petition goes on to say, ‘The current evidence suggests that on-market BPO products could produce substantial amounts of benzene when stored at above-ambient temperatures, specifically 37°C (98.6°F), 50°C (122°F) and 70°C (158°F),’ temperatures well above those found in a consumer’s home or storage space,” the report states.
Valisure’s conclusions about potential health risks from the heartburn drug Zantac were also criticized in 2022 by a federal judge in Florida, who dismissed multidistrict litigation involving the drug based on questionable scientific claims.
Pharmaceutical companies are targeted in a lot of so-called junk science lawsuits in California and elsewhere, according to Lee.
“A lot of times when you hear about detrimental health effects, you would have to take it in doses no human being would,” he said.