DOJ Forces Walgreens to Settle Opioid Claims for $350 Million

Walgreens Boots Alliance has agreed to pay up to $350 million to settle allegations from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that its pharmacies illegally filled millions of opioid and other controlled substance prescriptions over more than a decade. The settlement, announced this month, resolves claims that between August 2012 and March 2023, Walgreens knowingly filled millions of unlawful prescriptions, including those for excessive quantities of opioids, early refills, and dangerous combinations of drugs known as the “trinity” (opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants).

According to the DOJ’s complaint, Walgreens pharmacists were pressured by corporate management to fill prescriptions quickly, often ignoring clear red flags that indicated the prescriptions were likely invalid or lacked a legitimate medical purpose. Compliance officials at Walgreens allegedly disregarded substantial evidence of unlawful activity and withheld critical information about problematic prescribers from pharmacy staff. The government also accused Walgreens of seeking reimbursement for these invalid prescriptions through Medicare and other federal health programs, thereby violating the False Claims Act.

The $300 million payment is based on Walgreens’ current financial condition, with an additional $50 million due if the company is sold, merged, or transferred before 2032. The settlement also resolves four whistleblower lawsuits brought by former Walgreens employees, who will collectively receive 17.25% of the government’s recovery.

Walgreens, which has not admitted liability, stated that the settlement allows it to resolve all opioid-related litigation with federal, state, and local governments and focus on its business turnaround strategy. In addition to the financial penalty, Walgreens agreed to enhanced compliance measures, including improved training for pharmacists, stricter verification of controlled substance prescriptions, and systems to block illegitimate prescribers.

This settlement is part of a broader effort by the federal government to hold pharmacies accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, which has claimed over 700,000 lives in the US since 1999. Walgreens’ agreement follows similar actions against other major pharmacy chains and is among the largest settlements related to opioid dispensing practices.

NLRB Ruling Sets Stage for Amazon Unionisation Wave

Amazon is facing mounting pressure from US labour authorities to negotiate with the Teamsters union after a significant ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors. In April 2025, a regional NLRB director issued a formal complaint against Amazon, alleging the company violated federal law by refusing to bargain with warehouse workers at its DCK6 facility in San Francisco. These workers had demonstrated majority support for unionisation by signing authorisation cards in October 2024, triggering Amazon’s legal obligation to either recognise the union and begin negotiations or request a formal election through the NLRB. Amazon did neither, prompting the complaint.

The NLRB’s action is grounded in the 2023 Cemex decision, which requires employers to recognise and bargain with unions that have demonstrated majority support unless the employer quickly seeks a board-supervised election. The San Francisco case is the first official complaint under this framework involving Amazon, and it could set a precedent for similar disputes at other Amazon warehouses across the country, including locations in New York City, Atlanta, Southern California, and Illinois.

The Teamsters hailed the ruling as a breakthrough for Amazon workers, many of whom participated in a high-profile strike during the 2024 holiday season to draw attention to working conditions and the company’s refusal to negotiate. Union leaders argue that this decision paves the way for broader organising efforts and additional bargaining orders at other Amazon facilities where the company has resisted unionisation.

Amazon has pushed back strongly, arguing that the NLRB’s complaint is based on a “baseless legal theory” that disregards established labour law and Supreme Court precedent. The company has vowed to contest the case, which is set for a hearing in August 2025. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for Amazon’s labour relations and the broader movement to unionise the e-commerce giant’s vast workforce.

In the meantime, the Teamsters remain focused on expanding their reach, demanding better pay and safer working conditions for Amazon employees, and using this legal momentum to press for more widespread union recognition.

Tech Giants Slam Australia’s Social Media Ban as YouTube Wins Exemption

Australia’s landmark legislation to ban social media access for users under 16 has sparked a heated backlash from major tech companies, particularly after it recently emerged that YouTube received a personal pledge of exemption from the ban. The law, intended to address concerns about the impact of social media on youth mental health, will hold platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, and X liable for hefty fines if they fail to block underage users.

The controversy centres on a December 2024 letter from Communications Minister Michelle Rowland to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, in which she reaffirmed the government’s commitment to exclude YouTube from the ban. This assurance was made before any public or industry consultation on exemptions had begun, prompting accusations of favouritism and a lack of transparency from rival platforms. Meta, TikTok, and Snap have criticised the process as rushed and unfair, arguing that no other platform was given similar clarity or input before the consultation period. They contend that exempting YouTube, one of the most popular platforms among children, undermines the legislation’s stated goal of protecting young people from online harm.

Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, expressed concern that the law was pushed through without proper evidence or consideration of existing safety measures and the voices of young people. Snapchat echoed these concerns, highlighting unanswered questions about implementation and enforcement. TikTok warned that the ban could inadvertently push minors toward less regulated corners of the internet, increasing risks rather than reducing them.

Critics also argue that the private communication between the government and YouTube’s leadership raises broader questions about regulatory integrity and the influence of private lobbying on public policy. Advocacy groups and industry stakeholders are now calling for transparent standards for exemptions and a more inclusive consultation process moving forward.

The government has yet to formally respond to these criticisms or clarify the criteria for platform exemptions, leaving the future of the ban, and the principle of platform neutrality in digital regulation, under intense scrutiny.

Rite Aid Faces Breakup as Bankruptcy Looms Again

Rite Aid, one of the largest US pharmacy chains, is reportedly preparing to file for a second bankruptcy and sell itself off in pieces, less than a year after emerging from its previous Chapter 11 proceedings. The company is running critically low on cash and is seeking a debtor-in-possession loan to maintain operations during the bankruptcy process. Under the proposed plan, Rite Aid would sell certain store locations to interested buyers, while others would be permanently closed and liquidated.

This move follows a turbulent period for Rite Aid, which closed more than 800 stores during its first bankruptcy in 2023 and still operates over 1,200 locations across 15 states. Despite attempts to restructure, including shedding nearly $2 billion in debt, selling its pharmacy benefit division, and appointing a new CEO, Rite Aid has continued to struggle with declining revenue, fierce competition, and the financial burden of opioid-related lawsuits.

In recent weeks, reports of additional store closures have surfaced in states such as California, New Jersey, and Oregon, with some locations transferring prescriptions to rival chains like CVS. The company has also reportedly reduced staff and shortened operating hours at various stores as part of ongoing cost-cutting measures.

Rite Aid’s financial woes mirror broader challenges facing the US drugstore industry, as competitors Walgreens and CVS also contend with overbuilt store footprints, changing consumer habits, and the fallout from opioid litigation. However, Rite Aid’s position is especially precarious, with sources indicating that if a piecemeal sale does not materialise, the chain could face further shrinkage or even full liquidation.

As of now, Rite Aid has not publicly confirmed the second bankruptcy or provided guidance for customers, but the company’s future remains highly uncertain. The outcome of this process will determine how many Rite Aid stores, if any, survive as the chain seeks to navigate its latest financial crisis.

Johnson & Johnson’s Clean Image Shattered in New Investigation

Veteran investigative journalist Gardiner Harris’s new book, No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson, delivers an exposé of one of America’s most trusted healthcare giants, revealing a legacy far darker than its wholesome image suggests. Harris, drawing on decades of reporting, uncovers how Johnson & Johnson built its reputation on products like baby powder and Band-Aids, only to be repeatedly implicated in scandals involving dangerous products, corporate cover-ups, and aggressive tactics to silence critics.

Central to Harris’s investigation is J&J’s long-running talc baby powder controversy. He presents evidence that the company was aware for decades of a scientific link between talc use and ovarian cancer, yet continued to market the product as safe, resulting in thousands of lawsuits and billions in settlements. The book’s release coincides with a recent court decision rejecting J&J’s latest bankruptcy manoeuvre to limit its liability, signalling a shift in public and judicial attitudes toward the company’s accountability.

Harris also scrutinises J&J’s role in other major health crises. He details the company’s aggressive marketing of the antipsychotic Risperdal, which led to serious side effects, and its involvement in the opioid epidemic through products like the fentanyl patch Duragesic. These cases, Harris argues, exemplify a pattern of prioritising profit over patient safety, with devastating consequences for public health.

Beyond J&J, Harris broadens his critique to include federal regulators and the media. He exposes how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and journalists sometimes perpetuated myths of rigorous oversight, allowing unsafe products to reach millions. Harris describes J&J as an intimidating force, using lawsuits and payoffs to stifle dissent among doctors, journalists, and lawyers.

No More Tears ultimately challenges the mythology of J&J as a benevolent corporate citizen, instead painting a portrait of systemic greed, regulatory failure, and the real human cost of unchecked corporate power. Harris’s work stands as a stark warning about the dangers of misplaced trust in even the most iconic brands.