TORT LAW
United States District Court for the District of Alaska (2025)
Ben Helzner
In Alaska v. Express Scripts, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Alaska 2025), the United States District Court for the District of Alaska held that organizations can still engage in a RICO enterprise with a common purpose even if they compete with one another in other respects. (Id. at 1174). Express Scripts was a Pharmacy Benefits Manager. (Id. at 1157). Pharmacy Benefits Managers are administrators that set drug coverage and reimbursement conditions in health plans called “formularies.” (Id.). The State sued Express Scripts for its involvement in the opioid crisis, alleging that Express Scripts colluded with opioid manufacturers to favor opioids on its formularies. (Id.). The State claimed that Express Scripts’ relationship with manufacturers constituted an “association-in-fact” enterprise under RICO. (Id. at 1173). Express Scripts argued that there not have been an association-in-fact with the manufacturers because the manufacturers were all competing with one another over the opioid market and therefore could not have a “common purpose.” (Id. at 1174). However, the court reasoned that although manufacturers may have competed over their shares in the market, they also cooperated with Express Scripts to expand the market as a whole, collectively benefiting from the increased total sales. (Id.). Denying in part Express Scripts’ motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska held that organizations can still engage in a RICO enterprise with a common purpose even if they compete with one another in other respects. (Id.).
