Beyond the Settlement
As a settlement is finally agreed upon for Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, the pharma industry needs to increase transparency and accountability to ensure profits are not prioritized over public health again.
On Nov. 14, 2025, a federal bankruptcy judge revealed that he would accept a plan, first presented in January 2025, that will see Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family, pay out over $7.4 billion for their role in the U.S. opioid crisis (1). This decision, by Judge Sean Lane, marks one of the largest opioid settlements to have happened and is also unique from all others as a portion of the settlement funds will be siphoned off to pay some of the victims of the crisis (2).
It has been widely reported that the opioid crisis has profoundly impacted the U.S. in recent history and that the lifecycle of the crisis can be separated into three distinct waves, driven by different types of opioids (3). Annually, the number of deaths resulting from opioid overdose has risen sharply over the course of the past 25 years, peaking in 2022, when it reached a total of 81,806 in the U.S. alone (4).
Purdue’s involvement in catalyzing the crisis has also been well documented within published literature. As outlined by Bowra et al. in 2024 (5), Purdue was a principal contributor to the opioid crisis through its exertion of influence with a number of other actors involved in global health systems, such as advocacy groups, regulators, and prescribers. Additionally, the company’s influence through multiple pathways meant that it was able to expand the promotion of its opioid product on a global scale while also reducing any potential repercussions — legal, social, and financial — related to the opioid crisis (5).
However, litigation cases against Purdue started to build up, particularly after company executives pleaded guilty in 2007 to misbranding the drug as less addictive and less abusable than alternative treatments, and, in 2019, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (6). While an earlier settlement plan had been agreed upon by a judge, it was rejected by the Supreme Court as it would have provided unlawful protection to the Sackler family from lawsuits pertaining to their role in the opioid crisis (1). With this latest settlement, those that do not opt into the payments can still pursue legal action against the Sackler family (7).
While the latest deal should bring a long and arduous legal saga to an end, the case has also highlighted the issue of prioritization by transnational pharma companies of profits over public health, severely damaging the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, there is a need for improved transparency and stronger integrated accountability mechanisms to not only improve the reputation of the pharma industry but to also, and more importantly, better safeguard public health (8).
References
Kaye, D. Bankruptcy Judge Clears $7.4 Bn Purdue Pharma Opioid Settlement. BBC News, Nov. 14, 2025.
Mulvihill, G. Judge to Explain Why he’s Approving Purdue Pharma Settlement Plan, Which Calls for $7B from Sacklers. AP News, Nov. 18, 2025.
CDC. Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic. CDC.gov, accessed Nov. 18, 2025.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Overdose Deaths: Facts and Figures. NIDA.NIH.gov, accessed Nov 18, 2025.
Bowra, A.; Perez-Brumer, A.; Forman, L.; Kohler, J.C. Interconnected Influence: Unraveling Purdue Pharmaceutical’s Role in the Global Response to the Opioid Crisis. Int. J. Drug Policy, 2024, 133, 104604.
Supreme Court of the United States. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. Slip Opinion, No. 23–124: Argued Dec. 4, 2023–Decided June 27, 2024.
Associated Press. Federal Judge Approves Opioid Settlement for Purdue Pharma. The Guardian, Nov. 18, 2025.
Bowra, A.; Perez-Brumer, A.; Forman, L.; Kohler, J.C. Accountability in Global Health Systems: Insights from a Network Analysis of Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Global. Health, 2025, 21, 45.