California Supreme Court Watch

#24-77 Gilead Tenofovir Cases, S283862. (A165558; 98 Cal.App.5th 911, mod. 99 Cal.App.5th 196a; San Francisco County Superior Court; CJC19005043.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part a petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does a drug manufacturer have a duty of reasonable care to users of a drug it is currently selling, which is not alleged to be defective, when making decisions about the commercialization of an allegedly safer, and at least equally effective, alternative drug?

Petition for review granted: 5/01/2024

Case fully briefed: 10/03/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/06/2026

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed with directions: 8/03/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Gilead Tenofovir Cases (2026) 20 Cal.5th 390.)

“[W]e conclude that drug manufacturers do not owe a duty of care to users of a nondefective drug when making decisions about whether and when to commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug.”

Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, and Desautels* concurred.

Chief Justice Guerrero filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Kruger filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Corrigan and Desautels* concurred.

Justice Evans filed a dissenting opinion.

In the news: Jonathan Stempel, California’s highest court rules for Gilead in ‘duty to innovate’ case, Reuters (Aug. 3, 2026).

In the news: Quinn Wilson, California High Court’s Gilead Ruling Marks Tort Law Sea Change, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 5, 2026).