On January 21, 2009, the California Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision that extends liability in a products liability tort suit to a manufacturer that played no role in making the product that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The order declining review was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging that review be granted. WLF argued that a drug manufacturer should not be held liable for injuries sustained by the user of a drug for which it initially developed the formula but which was produced by a different manufacturer. WLF argued that the defendant cannot be held liable under a “failure to warn” theory, because a manufacturer owes no duty to provide warnings to those that do no use its products. An appeals court ruled last fall, however, that the plaintiff can recover if she can show that her doctor relied on warnings given years ago by the defendant in connection with its sale of a brand-name version of the drug.