FDCA violations do not inevitably preempt state claims and can still be used as evidence of alleged misrepresentation, even though FDCA violations are not per se violations of consumer protection laws. Loreto, 515 F. App’x at 580. Consumer protection claims against promotional speech continue to require misrepresentation or falsity, as statutory language requires. See id.; Md. Code Ann., Commercial Law §§ 13-301 to -303. The misrepresentation or falsity requirement also prevents preemption based on impossibility, since the FDCA would not require that a manufacturer make false or misleading statements. See United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 696 (1948) (“[T]he Act as a whole was designed primarily to protect consumers from dangerous products.”).
I know what that paragraph means, but I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Well, that's not true. I know what I'm trying to say, just not how to say it. Writing can become so mechanical that it is paralyzing. Every single word must have a reason to exist exactly where it is.
Sometimes it is easy just to stay quiet. Actually, it is always easier to stay quiet.
Don't want to read about sad law students? Read something else.