Close Menu
Web StatWeb Stat
  • Home
  • News
  • United Kingdom
  • Misinformation
  • Disinformation
  • AI Fake News
  • False News
  • Guides
Trending

‘Captain Shiv Kumar not recalled’: Govt busts misinformation campaign, says Defence Attaché still posted in Jakarta

July 8, 2025

Is Russia really ‘grooming’ Western AI? | Media

July 8, 2025

Kremlin openly preparing for future wars – NSDC Center for Countering Disinformation

July 8, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Web StatWeb Stat
  • Home
  • News
  • United Kingdom
  • Misinformation
  • Disinformation
  • AI Fake News
  • False News
  • Guides
Subscribe
Web StatWeb Stat
Home»False News
False News

Guardant Secures Nearly $293M in False Advertising Lawsuit Against Natera

News RoomBy News RoomDecember 3, 20243 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Telegram Email LinkedIn Tumblr

In a significant legal victory for Guardant Health, a U.S. jury has awarded the company $292.5 million after finding that their competitor, Natera, engaged in false advertising and unfair competition. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Guardant in May 2021, which accused Natera of running a “campaign of misinformation” aimed at undermining Guardant’s Reveal cancer test. The jury’s decision, delivered in early November, sided entirely with Guardant on all claims made in the lawsuit, while dismissing all counterclaims from Natera, which is known for its Signatera cancer test.

Guardant’s Reveal test, launched in February 2021, is designed to detect residual and recurrent colorectal cancer in patients post-surgery, potentially guiding further treatment options like chemotherapy. The lawsuit alleges that Natera began targeting Guardant’s clients shortly after the Reveal’s introduction, attempting to persuade healthcare providers, including reputable institutions like the Mayo Clinic, to opt for Signatera instead. Central to the case were claims made in a promotional email from Natera, which warned against laboratories in the molecular residual disease market making “potentially misleading claims” without peer-reviewed evidence, although it did not explicitly name Guardant’s product.

The court documents indicate that Natera referenced data related to Guardant’s test in its marketing materials, which Guardant’s legal team argued was subject to peer review. The trial witnessed the presentation of allegations from Guardant alongside Natera’s counterclaims, with Natera seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. However, the jury ultimately sided with Guardant, determining that Natera’s actions constituted false advertising and awarding significant punitive damages.

The awarded sum includes $175.5 million in punitive damages, marking it as one of the largest false advertising verdicts recorded historically. This outcome has been highlighted by Guardant as a substantial affirmation of their product’s integrity and a condemnation of unfair marketing practices in the competitive landscape of cancer detection technologies. Natera, on the other hand, has expressed its disagreement with the verdict and plans to request an overturn of the ruling in court.

Despite the legal challenges, Natera ended the third quarter with a robust financial position, reporting $922.3 million in cash and investments, indicating that the company remains financially solvent despite the jury’s judgment. In a statement released following the trial, Natera clarified that its advertising campaign, which was discussed in the trial, only ran briefly in 2021 and emphasized that the case revolved around marketing practices rather than the validity or effectiveness of the Signatera test itself. The company asserted that critical evidence supporting its stance was excluded from the trial.

As the case evolves, the implications of this ruling extend beyond Guardant and Natera, potentially influencing how biotechnology firms navigate competitive advertising and market claims in a tightly regulated industry. The outcome also shines a spotlight on the broader challenges facing cancer testing providers, illustrating the complexities of proving product efficacy amidst aggressive messaging from rivals. With Guardant set to benefit from this verdict, the outcome could reshape the competitive strategies employed by firms in the cancer diagnostics arena moving forward.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
News Room
  • Website

Keep Reading

‘False Narrative’: Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch Says Jane Street Probe Began Under Her Watch

Jane Street Case: Madhabi Puri Buch Slams ‘False Narrative’, Says Probe Initiated Under Her Watch | Business News

ICMAI warns about Fake News

False posts share AI-generated news report about Iran ‘surrendering’ to Israel

IndiGo Indore-Raipur Flight Makes Emergency Landing After Mid-Air False Alarm | India News

Vehicle imports : Govt warns public of false news

Editors Picks

Is Russia really ‘grooming’ Western AI? | Media

July 8, 2025

Kremlin openly preparing for future wars – NSDC Center for Countering Disinformation

July 8, 2025

‘False Narrative’: Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch Says Jane Street Probe Began Under Her Watch

July 8, 2025

Cancer care has created a vacuum for misinformation to flourish

July 8, 2025

Sharon Srivastava: How a Disinformation Campaign Takes Hold

July 8, 2025

Latest Articles

Jane Street Case: Madhabi Puri Buch Slams ‘False Narrative’, Says Probe Initiated Under Her Watch | Business News

July 8, 2025

ICMAI warns about Fake News

July 8, 2025

What is the truth about Defence Attaché?

July 8, 2025

Subscribe to News

Get the latest news and updates directly to your inbox.

Facebook X (Twitter) Pinterest TikTok Instagram
Copyright © 2025 Web Stat. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.