Mediation of Food and Drug Disputes

Over the last several decades, mediation has been used as an effective tool in diverse causes of action. Mediation has been used to effectively help resolve a variety of cases, including highly publicized food and drug disputes. This strategy may be used in cases involving product liability, shareholder disputes related to the value of stock when safe measures were not used, adverse side effects and other problems plaguing the food or drug process.

In mediation, the parties are able to acknowledge the drawbacks of continued litigation. For plaintiffs, this includes expensive litigation that can potentially drag on for years while they wait for their award. For defendants, this includes negative publicity that can adversely affect the value of their products on the open market and the potential for an unsympathetic jury to award an extreme amount in damages.

Parties involved in mediation who resolve their dispute during this process get to play a direct role in how any settlement agreement is worded. In addition to deciding any fair settlement money award, the parties can also agree to other parameters for their settlement. For example, they may indicate how they want a recall to be carried out. They may agree to the settlement funds going into an escrow account and distributed a certain way. They may agree to new warnings that should be placed on products. In these ways, parties can reach effective solutions to help avoid problems in the future while also feeling that they have worked collaboratively to execute an acceptable agreement.

Why Food and Drug Disputes Are Not Suited to Litigation

Consumers often hear about contentious issues involving food or drug products. Items may be recalled or may be alleged to cause harm though the manufacturer refuses to issue a recall. Class action lawsuits may be formed after adverse side effects are realized from the use of certain products. However, these disputes often cause negative ramifications for both parties of the litigation.

For plaintiffs, the more claimants that form the class dilute the overall award that each individual plaintiff stands to recover. The longer litigation drags on, the more legal fees and costs are incurred so that if the case does eventually settle or is resolved at trial, the more the lawyers make in the process and the less the individual claimants receive in the form of compensation for damages. Food and drug manufacturers are often aware that they have greater leverage in these disputes than the claimants. They may intentionally make litigation drag on while regular people who have medical expenses and other damages from the effects of food or drug products continue to suffer.

For defendants, food and drug issues often create negative publicity for manufacturers. Their public image may suffer if they are perceived by the public as not caring about consumers’ health or safety. The value of their stock may plummet as national coverage of the recall or dispute is provided to the matter. Manufacturers may face ongoing legal expenses that can easily amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars before the case is resolved.

Alternative dispute resolution options like mediation and arbitration minimize the risk for both parties. They give them more decision-making authority during the process, rather than moving the parties toward an uncertain outcome due to decisions made by a judge or jury.