Zoloft No Better Than a Placebo, Says Lawsuit

Zoloft is no better than a dummy pill?

At least, that's what the current lawsuit against Pfizer Inc., Zoloft's maker, is saying.

After taking the pill for three years and seeing no significant changes in her life, Baum Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman and Pendley Baudin & Baudin & Coffin filed a lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff, Laura Plumlee, and consumers throughout the U.S. and California. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal, which alleges that the patients who took the antidepressant medication experienced no more benefit than they would have on a placebo or dummy pill.

Therefore, Pfizer is accused of deceptively marketing Zoloft as a "highly effective treatment for depression," while knowing that the medication was virtually indistinguishable from a sugar pill, according to the accusation.

For some, antidepressants can open a door to a world free of worry and struggle; for others, the answer to their problems may be more complicated than just a prescription, especially if not treated with the proper medication.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, asks a judge to approve two class-action cases; one for California residents who took Zoloft and one for all U.S. users.

It asks the judge to order Pfizer to correct "misleading" information in Zoloft's package insert and refund everything California patients paid for.

A lawsuit claiming that a drug doesn't work so that patients should get their money back could be a first. 

However, the lawsuit has so far been described as as frivolous by Pfizer and four psychiatry experts interviewed by The AP.