Controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile7 entries
2026
False-advertising lawsuit against Eli Lilly
Novo Nordisk sued Eli Lilly in New Jersey, alleging that Lilly’s advertising for diabetes and obesity medicines was materially misleading because it allegedly misrepresented comparative clinical evidence. The dispute is unresolved and represents a major escalation in competition between the two GLP-1 manufacturers.
2026
Pennsylvania sues insulin makers and PBMs over alleged insulin price collusion
Lawsuit filed
Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, and several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they colluded to raise insulin prices. The suit seeks structural changes, restitution, and financial penalties. The action names Novo Nordisk Inc. among the insulin manufacturers accused in the alleged price collusion.
Pennsylvania sued Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, and several PBMs, alleging that they colluded to raise insulin prices. The lawsuit seeks structural changes, restitution, and financial penalties.
Stated objective. Recover more than $27 million the county says it has paid to the companies.
Source excerpt
The pharmaceutical companies included in the Pennsylvania case are Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis US LLC. Several PBMs are included as defendants, including Express Scripts, Caremark, and Optum RX.
The state’s lawsuit seeks to institute “structural changes to ensure the companies lower costs to fair market prices and enable options for patients,” restitution for Pennsylvanians harmed by the scheme, and payments including financial penalties paid by the companies and the costs of the state’s investigation and lawsuit.
Last week, Pennsylvania sued a group of pharmaceutical companies and PBMs for allegedly colluding to raise insulin prices unnecessarily.
2024
Pricing, access, and supply controversy surrounding GLP-1 medicines
The rapid demand for Ozempic and Wegovy intensified public and political criticism of US pricing, insurance coverage, shortages, unequal access, and the role of pharmaceutical distribution and pharmacy-benefit systems. Novo Nordisk responded with production expansion and access initiatives, while critics continued to challenge affordability.
2021
Novo Nordisk recalls certain product samples
Recall announced
Novo Nordisk voluntarily recalled 1,468 samples of Levemir, Tresiba, Fiasp, NovoLog and Xultophy to the consumer level because they had been stored below the required temperature. The recall affected product samples, not products broadly distributed to pharmacies or mail-order services; the company said it had received no reports of serious adverse events or injuries related to the recall.
Company response
Remediation — Novo Nordisk
Novo Nordisk has notified all physician offices that received affected samples and requested all impacted samples be returned.
Source excerpt
Novo Nordisk is voluntarily recalling 1,468 product samples listed in the table below of Levemir®, Tresiba®, Fiasp®, Novolog® and Xultophy®, to the consumer level.
Novo Nordisk has not received any reports of serious adverse events or injuries related to this recall.
These products are being recalled because they were stored at temperatures below storage requirements.
2013
Danish transfer-pricing tax dispute
Novo Nordisk was required to repay approximately DKK 3.6 billion to Danish tax authorities in a transfer-pricing dispute. The case concerned the allocation of profits within the multinational group.
2013
Pancreatitis and pancreatic-cancer concerns involving incretin medicines
Scientists, regulators, and litigants debated whether incretin-class diabetes medicines, including Victoza, were associated with pancreatic side effects. Available evidence at the time did not establish the alleged causal relationship, but the issue generated product-liability litigation and regulatory attention.
2010
ABPI code breach involving Victoza
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry found that Novo Nordisk breached its code of conduct by failing to provide adequate side-effect information for Victoza and promoting the product before market authorization.