Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:45:45.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Protection: Online Sale of Prescription Drugs to Minors Not Unconscionable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Charlotte Spears
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Stovall v. Confimed.com, the Kansas Supreme Court held that an out-of-state medical doctor who sold a prescription drug to a Kansas minor over the Internet did not commit an unconscionable act under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). The Shawnee Country District Court had enjoined the doctor from prescribing or dispensing prescription medicine within the state of Kansas, and the doctor appealed the injunction to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to grant injunctive relief, but found no unconscionable conduct under the KCPA.

The appellee, Washington physician Dr. Howard J. Levine, sold the sexual enhancement drug Viagra over the Internet through his online pharmacy. Neither the physician nor the online pharmacy was licensed to practice in Kansas. The purchasers were two Kansas residents, one of whom was a minor. Both purchased the drugs in a sting operation conducted by the Kansas Attorney General and received the drugs after completing an online application.

Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , Summer 2002 , pp. 315 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stovall v. Confimed.com, 38 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2002).Google Scholar
Kan. Stat. Ann. $ 50–623 et seq. (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Stovall, 38 P.3d at 707.Google Scholar
See Id. at 709–10.Google Scholar
See Id. at 709.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id. at 709–10.Google Scholar
Id. at 710.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See Id. at 709.Google Scholar
Id. at 710.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 707.Google Scholar
One such example is as follows: “In determining whether an act or practice is unconscionable, the court shall consider circumstances of which the supplier knew or had reason to know, such as … the supplier made a misleading statement of opinion on which the consumer was likely to rely to the consumer's detriment.” Kan. Stat. Ann. $ 50–627(b)(6) (2000). The Supreme Court of Kansas found that there was nothing misleading about Dr. Levine's conduct, however. See Stovall, 38 P.3d at 714.Google Scholar
Kan. Stat. Ann. $ 50–623 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Stovall, 38 P.3d at 712.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 714. (quoting Willman v. Ewen, 634 P.2d 1061, 1064 (Kan. 1981)).Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id. at 715.Google Scholar
See Raysman, R. Brown, P., On-Line Advertising and Marketing, Technology Law, available at <http://www.brownraysman.com/publications/techlaw/nylj0999.htm> (last visited May 1, 2002).+(last+visited+May+1,+2002).>Google Scholar