Merck & Co. is the fourth largest pharmaceutical company in the world. It developed and tested an effective painkiller called Vioxx that was particularly helpful to those suffering from arthritis. The drug was approved by the regulatory authorities and put on the market in 1999. Over the next five years it was taken by 20 million patients, generating $2.5 billion in sales and 11 percent of Merck’s revenue each year. In 2004, a report was released indicating an elevated risk of heart attack and stroke among those who took Vioxx for 18 months or longer. Merck decided to withdraw Vioxx from the market. Subsequently Merck was named as defendant in over 27 000 lawsuits involving Vioxx. Twenty of the cases went to trial, most of which were won by Merck, but Merck’s legal costs exceeded $1 billion. In 2007, Merck negotiated a settlement of all lawsuits totalling $4.85 billion. The total represented less than Merck’s annual profit and provided claimants an average of $100 000. Meanwhile, Merck’s competitors continue to sell similar drugs with severe warnings on the packages regarding possible health risks. Should Merck have put Vioxx on the market? Should it have been withdrawn from the market in 2004? Why did Merck fight every case for three years and then decide to settle? What broader marketing law and consumer protection issues does this situation raise?