Is Merck ethical?

What Choice found

Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.

1–10 of 27

Corporate conduct Confirmed Against

Merck suppressed Vioxx safety data

Merck suppressed important safety information about Vioxx, enabling it to be purchased at a grossly inflated price by end-payors.

1 sourceRead sources
laed.uscourts.gov
Merck's omission, suppression, and concealment of this important information enabled Vioxx to be sold to, and purchased, or paid for by, the End-Payors at a grossly inflated price.
Merck intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently concealed, suppressed, omitted, and misrepresented the dangers, defects, and disadvantages of Vioxx, and advertised, promoted, Case 2:05-md-01657-EEF-DEK Document 64784 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 28

Corporate conduct Allegation Against

Merck is accused of introducing Vioxx for unapproved rheumatoid arthritis use

Merck is accused of introducing and delivering Vioxx for an unapproved use in treating rheumatoid arthritis, violating the FDCA.

1 sourceRead sources
justice.gov
11(c)(1)(C) (the "Plea Agreement") to an Information to be filed in United States of America v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Criminal Action No. [to be assigned] (District of Massachusetts) (the "Criminal Action"), that will allege a violation of Title 21, United States Code Sections 33l(a), 333 (a)(1), 352(f)(1), to wit, that Merck introduced and caused the delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of quantities ofVioxx® for an unapproved use, namely the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, which drug was misbranded within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

Workplace equity Confirmed Against

Merck pays pregnant female reps less

Merck is accused of systematically paying female sales reps less than male employees, especially those who are or were pregnant.

1 sourceRead sources
govinfo.gov
Plaintiffs’ also claim that Merck has systematically paid female sales representatives , particularly those who were, are or had been pregnant, less than similarly situated male employees in all forms of compensation, including base pay, salary increases, and incentive compensation.

Corporate conduct Settlement Against

Merck settles for $58 million over deceptive TV drug ads

Merck reaches $58 million settlement to address deceptive TV drug advertising claims.

2 sourcesRead sources
web.archive.org
Mr Corbett said that in 1999 Merck had launched “an aggressive and deceptive advertising campaign which misrepresented the safety and improperly concealed the increased risks associated with Vioxx.” Hundreds of thousands of consumers demanded prescriptions for the drug before doctors had a chance to understand the side effects, he added.
oag.ca.gov
“Merck’s aggressive television advertising convinced hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek Vioxx prescriptions before the drug’s risk were fully understood,” Attorney General Brown said.
$58 Million Merck Settlement To Change Deceptive TV Drug Adv…
$58 Million Merck Settlement To Change Deceptive TV Drug Advertisements
$58 Million Merck Settlement To Change Deceptive TV Drug Advertisements | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

Corporate conduct Settlement Against

Merck was fined $650 million for fraudulent price reporting

Merck fined $650 million for fraudulent price reporting | Healthcare Finance News.

5 sourcesRead sources
law.georgia.gov
In addition to the monetary recovery, Merck has entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the United States Department of Health and Human Services which will govern its future dealings with the Medicare and state Medicaid programs.
healthcarefinancenews.com
Merck fined $650 million for fraudulent price reporting | Healthcare Finance News
Under two whistleblower settlement agreements, the Merck Company will pay more than $650 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and 49 individual states.
Merck fined $650 million for fraudulent price reporting
justice.gov
Merck has entered into or will be entering into separate settlement agreements, described in Paragraph l(b) below (hereinafter referred to as the "Medicaid State Settlement Agreements") with certain states and/or the District of Columbia in settlement of the Covered Conduct and the State Alleged Medicaid Conduct.
The United States also contends that it has certain administrative claims against Merck as specified in Paragraphs 3 through 5 below, for engaging in the Covered Conduct.
law360.com
By Ben James ( February 7, 2008, 12:00 AM EST) -- Merck & Co. will pay more than $650 million to settle False Claims Act suits that accused the company of overcharging Medicare and paying kickbacks to doctors to get them to dispense the drugs Mevacor, Vioxx, Zocor and Pepcid....
Merck To Pay $650M To Settle Kickback, Pricing Suits - Law360
nbcnews.com
Merck, however, was hiding the steep discounts it gave to hospitals by reporting higher prices to the government, prosecutors said.

Climate & energy Settlement Against

Merck settles for chemical spill pollution

Merck settled with the U.S. Justice Department over a 2000s chemical spill at its West Point facility.

1 sourceRead sources
inquirer.com
Pennsylvania’s water pollution rules have been a source of frustration for Merck since at least the mid-2000s, when the drugmaker had a chemical spill at its West Point facility and had to pay millions of dollars as part of a civil settlement with the U.S. Justice Department.

Corporate conduct Recall Against

Merck recalls BANAMINE® due to particulate matter

Merck voluntarily recalled three lots of BANAMINE®-S injection in the U.S. due to presence of particulate matter.

1 sourceRead sources
fda.gov
Merck Animal Health Issues Voluntary Recall for Three Lots of BANAMINE® / BANAMINE®-S (Flunixin Meglumine Injection) in the U.S., Due to Presence of Particulate Matter
Merck Animal Health Issues Voluntary Recall for Three Lots of BANAMINE® / BANAMINE®-S (Flunixin Meglumine Injection) in the U.S., Due to Presence of Particulate Matter | FDA
1, 2023 – Merck Animal Health, known as MSD Animal Health outside of the United States and Canada, a division of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA. (NYSE:MRK), is voluntarily recalling three batches of BANAMINE®/BANAMINE®-S (flunixin meglumine injection) 50 mg/mL in the United States, used for injection in cattle, swine and horses to the consumer level due to the presence of particulate matter.

Corporate conduct Recall Against

Merck recalls BANAMINE® due to particulate matter

Merck voluntarily recalled four additional lots of BANAMINE®-S injection over particulate matter concerns.

1 sourceRead sources
fda.gov
29, 2023 – Merck Animal Health, known as MSD Animal Health outside of the United States and Canada, a division of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA (NYSE:MRK), is voluntarily recalling four additional batches of BANAMINE® / BANAMINE®-S (flunixin meglumine injection) 50 mg/mL in the United States, used for injection in cattle, swine and horses due to the presence of particulate matter.
Merck Animal Health Expands Voluntary Recall with Four Additional Lots of BANAMINE® / BANAMINE®-S (flunixin meglumine injection) in the U.S., Due to Presence of Particulate Matter | FDA
Merck Animal Health Expands Voluntary Recall with Four Additional Lots of BANAMINE® / BANAMINE®-S (flunixin meglumine injection) in the U.S., Due to Presence of Particulate Matter

Climate & energy Settlement Against

Merck agreed to pay $1,857,395 to settle allegations that the Kelco facility exceeded air pollution limits

In addition, Merck, the former owner of Kelco, has agreed to pay penalties of $1,857,395 to settle allegations that the facility exceeded air pollution limits for several years.

1 sourceRead sources
epa.gov
In addition, Merck, the former owner of Kelco, has agreed to pay penalties of $1,857,395 to settle allegations that the facility exceeded air pollution limits for several years.
(San Francisco) -- Merck and Co. Inc. has agreed to pay more than $1.8 million in penalties and Monsanto Co.

Climate & energy Settlement Against

Merck & Co. agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental laws at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Riverside

The settlement involving Merck & Co. concerns environmental violations.

4 sourcesRead sources
19january2021snapshot.epa.gov
Merck & Co., Inc. Settlement | Enforcement | US EPA
Merck will pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million to the United States within 30 days of the entry of the Stipulation.
Department of Justice today announced that Merck & Co. has agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental laws at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Riverside and West Point, Pa.
epa.gov
Merck & Co., Inc. Settlement | US EPA
Merck will pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million to the United States within 30 days of the entry of the Stipulation.
Department of Justice today announced that Merck & Co. has agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental laws at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Riverside and West Point, Pa.
(Washington, DC - September 28, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice today announced that Merck & Co. has agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental laws at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Riverside and West Point, Pa.
epa.gov
: : STIPULATION AND ORDER BETWEEN PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DEFENDANT MERCK & CO., INC. WHEREAS, Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a complaint in this action (“Complaint”) pursuant to Sections 309(b) and (d) and Section 311(b)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (the “Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), 33 U.S.C.
COMPLAINT
law360.com
By Kaitlin Ugolik ( September 28, 2011, 5:09 PM EDT) -- Merck & Co. Inc. agreed Wednesday to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle claims that it failed to prevent and report discharges of hazardous materials at two pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Pennsylvania, in violation of federal environmental laws....