Molly Flynn

Molly E. Flynn is a partner with Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP in Philadelphia, PA. Molly defends pharmaceutical and medical device companies in complex litigation, including actions brought by state attorneys general, personal injury actions, and mass tort litigation.

View the full bio for Molly Flynn at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Molly Flynn:


FTC Continues Crack Down on Unfounded COVID Claims

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it “ordered more than 20 marketers nationwide to immediately stop making baseless claims that their products and supposed therapies can treat or prevent COVID-19.” Like prior rounds of cease-and-desist demands, the letters warned that the alleged violators could be subjected to monetary penalties under the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act, which Congress passed in 2020. Specifically, the letters warned that businesses engaging in a deceptive act or practice associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19 could be subjected to penalties of up to $43,792 per violation.

As the FTC points out, however, “there’s a key point that differentiates these Demands from the more than 400 letters that preceded them.” Namely, copies of the recent round of letters were also sent to the social media platforms used by the advertisers, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Etsy, LinkedIn, Shopify, and TikTok. The FTC found that nearly all of the marketers used social media to convey their claims, with many companies utilizing multiple platforms. A recent FTC analysis on the alleged role of social media platforms in the spread of disinformation related to COVID found that deceptive marketers are able to “extend[] the reach of their deceptive COVID claims by using major social media platforms.” The FTC observed that social media’s design helps scammers amplify their deceptive messages while also identifying users most likely to be receptive to those messages. It cautioned, “[b]ogus claims of miracle cures may be successful in attracting consumers’ eyeballs, but they can have devastating consequences for Americans who forgo needed treatment or part with hard-earned money in pursuit of false cures.”

Continue reading “FTC Continues Crack Down on Unfounded COVID Claims”

This Month in Snap Removal: The District of Nevada Muddies Its Snap Removal Waters and Throws Proponents a Life Preserver

Faegre Drinker’s snap removal team continuously monitors snap removal updates across the country (for a basic explanation of snap removal and previous updates, see Faegre Drinker’s prior posts here; for a breakdown on how each federal jurisdiction treats snap removal, see Faegre Drinker’s interactive snap removal map here).

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada is no stranger to consideration of the practice of snap removal—indeed, the District of Nevada has issued a number of decisions in 2020 and 2021, all holding that snap removal was improper unless and until at least one defendant has been served. But a recent opinion out of the District rejects the reasoning in those earlier decisions and holds that snap removal is proper even if no defendant has been served.

Continue reading “This Month in Snap Removal: The District of Nevada Muddies Its Snap Removal Waters and Throws Proponents a Life Preserver”

Two District Courts Focus on “Gamesmanship” in a Double Dose of Rejection for Snap Removal

Faegre Drinker’s snap removal team closely monitors snap removal updates across the United States (for a basic explanation of snap removal and previous updates, see Faegre Drinker’s prior posts here; for a breakdown on which jurisdictions allow snap removal, see Faegre Drinker’s interactive snap removal map here).

In two recent decisions out of the District of Maryland and the Western District of Washington, both courts emphasized “gamesmanship” as a reason for rejecting the practice of snap removal in each jurisdiction. Interestingly, though, one district focused on gamesmanship by plaintiffs while the other district focused on gamesmanship by defendants.

Continue reading “Two District Courts Focus on “Gamesmanship” in a Double Dose of Rejection for Snap Removal”

Defense “Victory” Against Employee’s Spouse in COVID-19 Exposure Case

On May 7, a California District Court Judge granted Victory Woodworks, Inc.’s (“Victory”) motion to dismiss all COVID-19 liability claims in plaintiffs Robert and Corby Kuciemba’s amended complaint. Kuciemba et al. v. Victory Woodworks Inc., No. 3:20-cv-09355 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Relying on a novel theory of liability, the Kuciembas alleged that Mr. Kuciemba contracted mild COVID-19 in the course and scope of his employment at Victory, and subsequently passed it on to his wife, who suffered a severe case of COVID-19 with lasting injury. The Kuciembas sought damages from Victory for Mrs. Kuciemba’s injuries related to COVID-19.

Continue reading “Defense “Victory” Against Employee’s Spouse in COVID-19 Exposure Case”

In D.D.C., Remand Arguments Are “No Match” For Plain Language Supporting Snap Removal

Pre-service removal—known colloquially as “snap removal”—continues to be adopted in more jurisdictions. For a basic explanation of snap removal, see Faegre Drinker’s prior posts here.

In Doe v. Daversa Partners, 2021 WL 736734, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2021), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia joins the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal affirming the practice of snap removal. Noting that the D.C. Circuit had not yet opined on the issue, the Daversa court provided a thorough analysis and rationale for refusing remand under the circumstances.

Continue reading “In D.D.C., Remand Arguments Are “No Match” For Plain Language Supporting Snap Removal”

PREP Act Does Not Require Federal Forum for State Law Negligence Claims Related to COVID-19

A New Jersey District Court Judge has ruled that the March 2020 federal liability immunity statute for pandemic-related countermeasures does not create a basis for federal jurisdiction, resulting in the remand of two COVID-19-related personal injury actions.

Continue reading “PREP Act Does Not Require Federal Forum for State Law Negligence Claims Related to COVID-19”