New FDA Label Change Rule
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.22.08
The FDA has posted on its website a final rule regarding label changes for drugs, biologics and medical devices. The new rule allows manufacturers to change a product's label to reflect newly acquired information or to add or strengthen language regarding contraindications, precautions, warnings or adverse reactions, provided that there is a sufficient causal association with the product. The new rule allows manufacturers to submit these label changes through "changes being effected," or CBE, supplements, rather than through prior approval supplements. FDA's rationale for this change was to ensure that scientifically accurate information appears on FDA approved labeling.
Consumer advocacy groups argue that the new rule sets a higher standard for adding new safety information to labeling, and thus shields manufacturers from product liability. FDA disagrees, stating in the preamble to the regulation that the new rule merely formalizes FDA's existing labeling standards and policies, and in no way changes the labeling standards under which manufacturers are required to provide warnings regarding risks.
FDA Final Rule - Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices [PDF]
This material is made available for information purposes only, and should not be relied upon to resolve specific legal questions.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
