What concerns me, is that at least in the Oklahoma case as far as I know, they're resting on some compelling philosophy for their defense . . .

But the legal strategy is complicated. Unlike the tobacco industry, from which states won a landmark settlement, the makers of prescription opioids manufacture a product that serves a legitimate medical purpose, and is prescribed by highly trained physicians — a point that Johnson & Johnson's lawyers made numerous times during the trial.

Oklahoma's legal team based its entire case on a claim of public nuisance, which refers to actions that harm members of the public, including injury to public health. Burch says each state has its own public nuisance statute, and Oklahoma's is very broad.

"Johnson & Johnson, in some ways, is right to raise the question: If we're going to apply public nuisance to us, under these circumstances, what are the limits?" Burch says. "If the judge or an appellate court sides with the state, they are going to have to write a very specific ruling on why public nuisance applies to this case."

Burch says the challenge for Oklahoma has been to tie one opioid manufacturer to all of the harms caused by the ongoing public health crisis, which includes people struggling with addiction to prescription drugs, but also those harmed by illegal street opioids, such as heroin.

University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness agrees that it's difficult to pin all the problems on just one company.

"Companies do unethical or immoral things all the time, but that doesn't make it illegal," Ausness says.

Not gonna lie, I don't know what's gonna happen.