In Guvenoz v. Target Corp., No. 1-13-3940 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2015), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed certified questions in an interlocutory appeal concerning whether preemption is a valid defense to negligence, strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment claims with respect to a drug taken off the market because it was deemed unsafe shortly after plaintiff sustained his injuries. In this case, the drug at issue had been taken off the markets in Great Britain and Europe, and the FDA (which had approved the drug many years before), had ordered new safety tests in light of multiple injuries resulting from use of the drug. Plaintiff had taken the drug pursuant to a prescription and suffered his injury in the time between the FDA-ordered testing and the time the test results led to the withdrawal of the drug from the market. Reviewing existing United States Supreme Court precedent on point, the Illinois Appellate Court concluded that although preemption applied to bar against State law claims brought where the plaintiff had suffered injury from using a drug that was proven safe and effective for the vast majority of users, preemption did not apply to bar suits relating to a drug that was not safe and effective for most users, and whose benefits were outweighed by its risk for all users. In short, the court held that there is no “safe harbor” under federal law for drugs so dangerous that the only safe course of action is to withdraw them from the market.