{"id":380135,"date":"2026-04-03T15:00:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T15:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/380135\/"},"modified":"2026-04-03T15:00:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T15:00:09","slug":"judge-tosses-lawsuit-over-controversial-paxil-study-329-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/380135\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil \u2018Study 329\u2019 \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens.<\/p>\n

The 2001 paper<\/a>, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As we reported last October<\/a>, the journal placed an expression of concern<\/a> on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal\u2019s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title.<\/p>\n

In his complaint<\/a>, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to \u201cpublish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts\u201d that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Attorneys for AACAP argue Murgatroyd does not have standing to bring the complaint. On Nov. 24, 2025, Elsevier filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating the standing argument and also asserting the publisher\u2019s First Amendment rights would be violated if the court granted the relief sought by Murgatroyd, according to court documents.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a March 24 decision<\/a>, Judge Robert Okun granted Elsevier\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Murgatroyd can\u2019t move forward with the suit because he failed to establish \u201cor even plausibly\u201d allege the journal article is a consumer good or service under the CPPA, according to Okun\u2019s ruling. The CPPA defines a consumer good<\/a> or service as anything someone would purchase or receive and normally use for personal, household or family purposes.<\/p>\n

JAACAP and AACAP did not return messages seeking comment.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Elsevier said the publisher \u201cnotes the Court\u2019s decision to dismiss the case.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAs this matter has been resolved by the Court, we do not have further comment,\u201d the spokesperson said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Murgatroyd, who previously represented families whose children died by suicide after taking Paxil, said he was disappointed with the ruling. However, he doesn\u2019t see the decision as \u201cthe end of the story,\u201d he told us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Okun dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Murgatroyd could refile the complaint under a revised legal argument. Murgatroyd told us he is currently researching the possibility.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe good news is we got the EoC,\u201d he told us in an email.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Murgatroyd is also awaiting the results of the journal\u2019s investigation into the paper, which JAACAP has stated will be managed according to Committee on Publication Ethics recommendations and guidance.<\/p>\n

The 2001 JAACCP paper described the results of a randomized, controlled trial, known as \u201cStudy 329,\u201d evaluating the efficacy of Paxil in treating adolescent depression. The study concluded the drug was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2012, Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion<\/a> to settle civil and criminal charges that included \u201cunlawful promotion\u201d of the drug for adolescents, for whom the product was never approved, and allegations the company \u201cparticipated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

A reanalysis in 2015<\/a> found the drug was \u201cineffective and unsafe\u201d for the age group studied. Despite the developments and ongoing calls for retraction, the 2025 expression of concern was the paper\u2019s first mark by the publisher. The notice states:<\/p>\n

JAACAP is publishing this expression of concern in order to alert readers to concerns that have been raised about the article. Further review is underway, and an expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until an outcome is reached.<\/p>\n

Murgatroyd\u2019s legal complaint against AACAP and Elsevier sought relief in the form of a retraction of the paper and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs.<\/p>\n

He has also filed formal complaints with Elsevier\u2019s Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board regarding the continued indexing of the Paxil article and JAACAP as an organization. He has filed similar complaints with the National Library of Medicine and Clarivate Web of Science, he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The NLM complaint<\/a> requests the library initiate a formal reevaluation of JAACAP\u2018scontinued participation in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, based on the journal\u2019s \u201cdocumented and systemic failure to follow COPE retraction guidelines\u201d and ensure the expression of concern on the JAACAP article is \u201cprominently and accurately reflected\u201d in PubMed\u2019s citation record.<\/p>\n

Murgatroyd has also asked JAACAP to send him the results of its investigation when it has concluded. If the review is appropriately conducted in adherence with COPE guidelines and doesn\u2019t result in a retraction, the outcome would be \u201cmore than disappointing,\u201d he told us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThat would be outrageous,\u201d he said. \u201cThe battle is not over yet, so we will see where it goes over the next several weeks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tProcessing\u2026\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tSuccess! You’re on the list.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tWhoops! There was an error and we couldn’t process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t