Brent crude oil jumped the most in history in the previous session after attacks on Saudi's oil industry disrupted the kingdom's production.Marketsread more
Damage to the top OPEC producer's oil facilities ignited fears of supply disruption around the world and has sent crude prices soaring.Energyread more
Pelosi also said it's "irrelevant" whether approving the USMCA trade deal would give President Donald Trump a victory ahead of the 2020 election.Politicsread more
The second-largest investor in Kraft Heinz Company discloses that it has again trimmed its stake in the food company.Marketsread more
Bob Bakish, the head of a newly combined CBS and Viacom, said he was "disappointed" by both stocks' reaction to the recent deal.The Faber Reportread more
Consumers could pay an average 15 to 20 cents more per gallon for unleaded gas by the end of the month following the attack on Saudi oil installations.Market Insiderread more
Elliott Management may not see John Stankey as a future leader at AT&T, but bailing on him before he executes his integration plan has the potential for disaster.Technologyread more
The White House directed Lewandowski not to discuss any of his post-election interactions with Trump beyond those already detailed in former special counsel Robert Mueller's...Politicsread more
Tension between the real estate start-up WeWork and SoftBank was not a central issue in the decision to delay an initial public offering, sources tell CNBC's David FaberThe Faber Reportread more
The service will debut in April with pricing to be announced closer to the launch data, NBCUniversal says.Technologyread more
"Jeopardy!" host Alex Trebek says he's had a setback in his battle with pancreatic cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy again.Entertainmentread more
in TV ads@ (Recasts, adds details on ruling)
July 8 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday dealt a blow to the Trump administration by striking down a new rule that would have forced pharmaceutical companies to include the wholesale prices of their drugs in television advertising.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington sided with drugmakers Merck & Co Inc, Eli Lilly and Co and Amgen Inc by halting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule from taking effect on Tuesday as planned.
Mehta in his ruling set aside the entire rule as invalid, saying the HHS lacked authority from the U.S. Congress to compel drug manufacturers to disclose list prices.
HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
HHS Secretary Alex Azar announced the rule on May 8, saying that forcing drugmakers to disclose their prices in direct-to-consumer TV advertising could help drive down skyrocketing prescription drug costs if the companies were embarrassed by them or afraid they would scare away customers.
The rule was originally suggested in May 2018 as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's "blueprint" to lower prescription drug costs for U.S. consumers.
The judge said such disclosures could well be an effective tool in halting the rising cost of prescription drugs. "But no matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, HHS cannot do more than what Congress has authorized," Mehta concluded.
Under the rule, the wholesale, or list, price would be included if it was $35 or more for a month's supply or the usual course of therapy. HHS said the 10 most commonly advertised drugs had list prices of $488 to $16,938 per month or for a usual course of therapy.
Many drugmakers have opposed the rule. The largest industry lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said that the list prices could be confusing for patients and discourage them from seeking medical care.
Merck, Eli Lilly and Amgen filed their lawsuit alongside the Association Of National Advertisers trade group on June 14, arguing the rule would confuse consumers by forcing them to disclose a price irrelevant to patients with insurance.
Drugmakers have long argued that list prices do not reflect the actual cost of drugs as they do not take into account discounts and rebates negotiated with health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to ensure patient access to the medicines.
The lawsuit alleged that HHS lacked authority to issue the rule and that it violated their free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Justice Department defended the rule in court, saying it met a standard the U.S. Supreme Court set in 1985, when it held the government could force advertisers to disclose factual, non-controversial information. (Reporting by Tina Bellon in New York and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Peter Cooney)