Purdue Pharma, Sackler Family, and the Opioid Crisis in America
2025 | Anna Dilanyan (Staff Writer)
Introduction
The opioid epidemic has devastated communities across the US since the 1990s, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and leaving many others battling addiction. The painkiller OxyContin is the center of this dilemma, produced by Purdue Pharma, a company owned and run by the Sackler family since 1952. OxyContin is a powerful opioid painkiller, twice as strong as morphine, the widespread use of which later fueled one of the deadliest addiction crises in American history. Despite the company facing charges for its misbranding and misleading marketing practices, the Sacklers have consistently denied personal wrongdoing. The case of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family exposes how corporate greed, unethical marketing, and regulatory flaws contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States. This paper explores how protective frameworks and oversights in policy allowed the Sacklers to avoid full accountability, despite their initiation of a major public health crisis.
Historical Context and Marketing Practices
Purdue Frederick, the original small pharmaceutical company, was bought by two brothers and physicians 1952, Raymond and Mortimer Sackler. Over the years, Raymond’s son, Richard Sackler, MD, joined the team and gained more influence in the company.[1] Later on, Richard played an important role in marketing OxyContin. In 1966, the development and production of painkillers like MS Contin began. Purdue Pharma launched OxyContin in 1996, and it immediately became a popular drug. OxyContin is a high-dose, extended-release version of a short-acting, semi-synthetic painkiller called Oxycodone.[2] Although both medications contain oxycodone as the active ingredient, they are different versions of the same drug, belonging to a drug class called opioids. While immediate-release oxycodone is used to treat moderate to severe pain, such as injury or surgery recovery, OxyContin is reserved for longer-lasting pain from late stages of long-term diseases, like arthritis and cancer.[3] OxyContin is prescribed to be taken every 12 hours because it releases oxycodone throughout the body during a prolonged period. Alternatively, Oxycodone is taken every 4-6 hours for immediate relief.[4]
While aggressively promoting the painkiller, Purdue claimed that the extended-release formula of OxyContin had less than a 1% addiction rate.[5] However, no long-term evidence supported such a claim, yet the company heavily promoted the drug to physicians, especially those who were already known to prescribe high volumes of opioids. According to the American Journal of Public Health, Purdue’s promotional strategies included prohibitively priced marketing campaigns, direct payments to physicians, and thousands of educational conferences aimed at normalizing the use of opioids for chronic pain.[6] Such misinformation is not only dangerous for patients since it downplays the risks of addiction, but it also harms the public trust in the pharmaceutical industry and reveals the serious regulatory issues in drug marketing.
The uncontrolled spread of OxyContin was enabled by the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) inability to regulate pharmaceutical marketing. Insufficient staff resources prevented the agency from efficiently reviewing the influx of promotional materials.[7] A study by Dr. Art Van Zee revealed how Purdue, under Sackler’s direction, aggressively marketed the drug even after the label was changed to account for the risks of addiction in 2001.[8] The company distributed thousands of deceptive promotional videos and materials to physicians before obtaining FDA approval.[9] These tactics were utilized to shape and influence medical opinion, while normalizing the use of OxyContin, regardless of the dangers and risks associated with the prolonged use of the drug. Some of these marketing materials falsely claimed the risk of addiction. For example, a video titled “I Got My Life Back”, released in 1998, featured patient testimonials, claiming the safety of OxyContin while downplaying the side effects and risks of dependency.[10] The promotional video was distributed to approximately 15,000 doctors across the US.[11] Another video titled “From One Patient to Another”, released in 1999, included more patient testimonials, praising the drug for improving their quality of life, and strictly emphasizing the benefits of OxyContin. Thousands of copies of this sort of material were distributed to healthcare providers and patients. According to allegations in the Iowa complaint filed in September 2019, Purdue utilized sophisticated marketing data to track which health care providers prescribed opioids most liberally, and in some cases, most recklessly, and targeted those practitioners with overzealous teams of sales representatives whose lucrative compensation was based on their ability to get health care providers to prescribe OxyContin as ruled inMiller v. Purdue Pharma L.P. in 2019.
The company also developed and disseminated misleading scientific and educational booklets, guides, articles, studies, websites, and other materials that misrepresented the risks, benefits, and superiority of opioids to safely treat a wide variety of pain conditions, including chronic pain.[12] The Iowa Attorney General inferred that Purdue either paid others to write these materials or wrote them themselves without disclosing the facts, and distributed them as unbiased expert endorsements of OxyContin.[13] In February 2001, another version of “I Got My Life Back” was released, which the FDA didn’t review until 2002. Upon review, it found that the video made unproven claims and minimized OxyContin’s dangers. By July 2001, Purdue Pharma had discontinued all promotional videos due to the required change in labeling of the drug. The company also received a warning in 2003 from the FDA for false advertisements in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which once again did not include the major risks and potential for abuse of the drug.[14] Purdue’s continuous release of misleading information revealed the worrisome confidence in their ability to deceive the public and the government authorities without being held accountable.
Congressional Hearings and Sackler Family Involvement
Internal company documents disclosed in court revealed that Purdue executives were well aware of the drug’s high potential for abuse, addiction, and death, but continued to promote it as less addictive and safer. In 2007, Purdue Pharma, along with its President, Michael Friedman, Chief Counsel, Howard Udell, and Medical Director (Dr. Paul Goldenheim), pleaded guilty to felony charges of misbranding a drug with intent to defraud and mislead, in violation of the FDCA (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).[15] The company’s actions violated the FDA regulations, leading to an opioid crisis across the country. Purdue Pharma was found responsible for paying more than $600 million in fines, with $470 million apportioned to resolve civil liabilities under the False Claims Act.[16] Regardless, the company continued with similar marketing strategies for years after, ultimately contributing to the subsequent public health crisis.
From 2008 to 2017, the Sackler family withdrew more than $10 billion from Purdue Pharma.[17] These withdrawals raised major concerns regarding asset protection and the family’s efforts to safeguard their wealth from potential legal consequences. By 2017, the Sacklers were facing a great deal of lawsuits from tribal governments, attorneys general, municipalities, and other individuals, claiming that the family and Purdue Pharma played a major role in the opioid crisis. David and Kathe Sackler served on Purdue’s board of directors until 2018 and were actively involved in the company’s financial planning, legal risk management, and protection. Court documents revealed that David and Kathe were planning potential bankruptcy filings amid litigation and working to protect their family assets through trusts, shell corporations, and offshore accounts. Richard Sackler, former President and Chairman of Purdue Pharma, as well as Jonathan and Mortimer Sackler, also board members of the company, were all heavily involved in influencing the sales of OxyContin and improving its marketing strategies throughout the years.
In an effort to resolve thousands of opioid-related lawsuits, Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2019.[18] The corporation’s use of bankruptcy protections made it difficult to hold Sackler family members responsible, as it paused active litigation and protected personal assets. This action allowed the Sackler family to protect billions in personal wealth while avoiding public trials and legal accountability, raising public controversy regarding bankruptcy law in mass tort litigation.
On December 17th, 2020, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform investigated important individuals involved in this opioid crisis, specifically regarding Kathe and David Sackler. Both of them expressed their grief but declined to accept blame for their unethical behavior in their congressional testimony. David Sackler believes that the corporation’s actions were morally and legally acceptable. Meanwhile, Kathe refuses to apologize for her involvement or take responsibility for her role, stating that there is nothing she would have done differently. Internal email correspondences from Kathe’s cousin, Dr. Richard Sackler, also revealed them calling opioid abusers and victims of the crisis “reckless criminals” and “scum of the earth”.[19] More emails exposed their views on addiction treatment, claiming that it was an “attractive market” that was “naturally linked” to the crisis they generated, and proceeded to profit from addiction treatment as another business opportunity.[20] According to the House Oversight Committee hearing, Purdue knowingly targeted vulnerable individuals, including medicare patients and seniors, while encouraging physicians to prescribe heavier doses of OxyContin despite the harmful risks and dangers associated with it. Congressmen and public health experts accused Purdue and the Sackler family of intentionally exacerbating and supporting the opioid crisis by bribing doctors with fraudulent data collection and through false advertising. Craig Landau, Purdue’s CEO, also testified, apologized, and admitted regret on the company’s behalf, stating that it had failed to weigh the risks and dangers against the benefits of the drug.[21] While the Sackler family took no direct responsibility, Purdue Pharma acknowledged corporate negligence.
Jurisdiction over these proceedings fell under bankruptcy courts, as well as other relevant federal district courts, particularly the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The hearings included appeals to the Supreme Court and actions by the U.S. Trustee.[22] The Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., rendered in June 2024, marked the end of the legal battle. The court examined whether the bankruptcy settlement was valid, which, in return for the Sackler family’s $6 billion monetary contribution to the settlement fund, protected the family from future civil liability.[23] To assess the validity of the bankruptcy plan, the court considered whether the non-consensual third-party releases, which are legal shields granted to individuals/entities not filing for bankruptcy (in this case, the Sackler family), were allowed under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
This is controversial because such releases are not explicitly authorized by the Code, and may compromise the victims’ ability to sue parties personally liable for the harm. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that bankruptcy courts have the power to approve such releases in complex cases such as this one. This decision granted the Sackler family immunity from personal lawsuits, without requiring them to either file for bankruptcy or admit any wrongdoing. The Sacklers claimed throughout the trial that they were unaware of the full scope of the drug’s impact and used their fundraising efforts as proof of their commitment to the community. They argued that the responsibility was placed too heavily on their family, and that the OxyContin was only a minor aspect of a much broader opioid crisis, attempting to shift the focus from them and the company. Meanwhile, Purdue Pharma agreed to pay $7.4 billion in a nationwide opioid settlement.[24] Part of the settlement also included the reorganization of Purdue Pharma’s assets under a public-benefit trust, intended to fund addiction treatment nationwide.
As of 2025, Purdue Pharma has been dissolved and replaced by a public benefit company. The Sackler family’s tarnished reputation has led to their names being removed from institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) and Yale University, while the family remains financially secure.
The Purdue Pharma scandal further shows how the wealthy elite can avoid consequences that would otherwise affect less powerful defendants. Although Purdue offered financial compensation, many victims of the opioid crisis argue that it fell short, especially considering the company’s level of responsibility and the extent of harm caused. In the future, this case could lead to much stricter regulation of pharmaceutical marketing and a reevaluation of how settlements can absolve and exonerate influential individuals of responsibility and guilt. For instance, the FDA could substantially improve and strengthen its regulatory capabilities, and Congress could consider closing legal gaps that allow corporate executives to avoid responsibility by filing for bankruptcy.
Endnote
This ruling raises important issues for American society, such as whether financial settlements alone can bring about justice. Corporate executives, whose decisions have enormous consequences and influence on public health and safety, should be held personally accountable. As future mass tort cases emerge, the lasting impact of the Purdue Pharma case exposes a systemic problem, serving as a reminder of what happens when corporations prioritize profit and sales over public health and societal well-being. The outcome of this case highlights the urgent need for legislative change and stronger regulations to ensure that those in power are held to a higher standard of accountability when their actions jeopardize public health, especially on the scale of a national crisis.
Sources
Jordana Rosenfeld. "Sackler Family," Encyclopaedia Britannica, last modified September 13, 2024.
Healthline, “Oxycodone vs. OxyContin: What is the Difference?”
Ibid.
Mayo Clinic Staff, "Oxycodone (Oral Route)," Mayo Clinic, last modified May 2025.
Art Van Zee, "The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy," American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 2 (February 2009): 221–227.
Ibid.
Andrew Kolodny, “How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis,” AMA Journal of Ethics 22, no. 8 (August 2020): E743–E750.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Katie Mettler, “How Misleading Marketing Got America Addicted,” The Washington Post, 2018.
Ibid.
State of Iowa ex rel. Thomas J. Miller v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., First Amended Petition, Iowa District Court for Polk County, September 4, 2019.
Ibid.
Wired. “FDA Warns Purdue Pharma Over Ads,” 2003.
U.S. Department of Justice. "Purdue Frederick Company Inc. Pleads Guilty to Misbranding OxyContin." 2007.
Ibid.
Ibid.
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York. In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 19-23649 (RDD).
Minnesota Attorney General. "Sackler Family Knew but Denied and Downplayed Risks of Opioids," August 5, 2019.
Ibid.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. (2024).
Ibid.
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Justice, Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the Named Sacklers, October 21, 2020.
