⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

We hear the Seventh Circuit in Edward Camargo versus AbbVie. Camargo says he had to stop taking Humira after losing insurance coverage because he could no longer afford it. He and other patients sued the drug's manufacturer. They allege that high list prices and undisclosed rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, companies negotiating drug coverage, left patients exposed to costs based on the higher price. The district judge dismissed their claims, and the patients appealed. The patients will argue that this scheme violates state consumer-protection laws even without fraud. AbbVie will respond that high prices and negotiated rebates are not, by themselves, unlawful, and that the complaint lacks legally sufficient consumer injury. You'll hear the cigarette rule, an unfairness test considering public policy, unethical or oppressive conduct, and substantial consumer harm. The federal anti-kickback statute also comes up. It generally prohibits knowingly and willfully paying or accepting something of value in exchange for directing federally funded health-care business, subject to exceptions. This appeal asks whether the allegations can proceed, not whether the patients have already proved wrongdoing.

Edward Camargo v. AbbVie, Inc. (No. 26-1543) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.