The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Theranos (D) tried to develop the 'Edison' device. The goal was to be able to take a few drops of blood from a patient's finger placed into a 'nanotainer' capsule, and reliably conduct hundreds of blood tests, all outside a lab. The project did not get that far because the blood drawn from Ps as clients was actually tested at laboratories. Ps allege that D did 90 percent of the blood testing at its Scottsdale lab, which 'only performed analyses on venipuncture tests' and that d 'outsourced a limited number of 'highly complex' tests to third-party, university-affiliated labs. Ps allege that D knew that 'the Edison technology was . . . still in development and not ready-for-market' and that 'none of the testing services . . . were reliable or certified. D had entered into a partnership agreement with Walgreens, under which Walgreens invested $140 million in D . . . and agreed to place and operate clinics, which it called 'Wellness Centers,' at Walgreen Pharmacies in Arizona and California. Walgreens, along with D, sold blood and other clinical testing services to individuals. Ps allege that Walgreens entered into this agreement with D even though 'Walgreens was aware of numerous serious red flags about the [blood] tests that put it on notice about the unreliability of the tests. Ps allege that Walgreens and Theranos (Ds) knowingly and intentionally concealed vital information from consumers, their doctors, and the public at large, including that the 'Edison' 'tiny' blood technology was, throughout the time the 'tiny' blood draws were being administered, still in-development, not ready-for-market, and nowhere near in a position to serve the purpose of providing reliable blood test results. Ps allege that Ds 'concealed material information about the unreliability of all of the testing services, and about the grossly deficient nature of the testing facilities and equipment.' Ps claim that Ds falsely touted' the non-Edison blood tests 'as . . . meeting the highest standards of reliability, [being] industry-leading in quality, and [being] developed and validated under, and compliant with federal guidelines.' Ps allege that 'in reality, Ds knew, the D tests were dangerously unreliable, had not been validated as advertised, and did not meet federal guidelines as advertised. Ps claim that Ds' misrepresentations vitiated whatever consent Ps had given. Ds moved to dismiss Ps’ complaint.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.