In ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc., No. 12-2414 (2d Cir. June 26, 2013), defendant pharmaceutical company commissioned a group of physicians to conduct a study comparing defendant’s drug to plaintiff’s rival drug. Based upon their study, the physicians concluded that defendant’s drug was superior, and published their findings in a medical journal. Defendant issued a press release touting the study’s findings and directing readers to the journal article. Plaintiff claimed that the article contained incorrect statements of fact, and sued both its competitor and the physicians who conducted the study for false advertising and tortuous interference. The district court dismissed the claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the article and press release were non-actionable statements. The court reasoned that although the statements at issue were technically verifiable scientific “facts,” they should be treated as being more closely akin to matters of opinion for purposes of the First Amendment and laws relating to fair competition and defamation. The court stated that the very premise of scientific journals was to publish conclusions of empirical research and subject them to peer review, which may result in rigorous debate and disagreement among qualified experts. “Needless to say, courts are ill-equipped to undertake to referee such controversies.” Thus, the court concluded that, so long as there are no allegations that the underlying data was falsified, statements concerning scientific studies are not actionable.