previously read his book Talking back to Ritalin before filing his lawsuit. The firm believed that the improper conduct of Novartis rivaled the improper conduct of the tobacco and asbestos industries and that the drug company could be liable for billions of dollars. The firm claimed that Novartis specifically took the following steps to dramatically increase the sale of Ritalin. Actively promoting and supporting the concept that a significant percentage of children have a "disease" which required narcotic treatment/therapy; Actively promoting Ritalin as the "drug of choice" to treat children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD: Actively supporting groups such as defendant CHADD, both financially and with other means, so that such organizations would promote and support (as a supposed neutral party) the ever-increasing implementation of ADD/ADHD diagnoses as well as directly increasing Ritalin sales; Distributing misleading sales and promotional literature to parents, schools and other interested persons in a successful effort to further increase the number of diagnoses and the number of persons prescribed Ritalin. Novartis and APA respond A spokesperson for Novartis responded to the Texas suit, "Ritalin has been used safely and effectively in the treatment of millions of ADHD patients for over 40 years, and is the most studied drug prescribed for the disorder." The American Psychiatric Association stated, "the allegation that it had conspired with Novartis to create the ADHD diagnosis was "ludicrous and totally false," and said there existed "a mountain of scientific evidence to refute these meritless allegations." Outcome The first suit to be dismissed occurred in California in 2001. U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster dismissed the suit under California's anti-SLAPP statute. A SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is a form of litigation filed to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. The Anti-SLAPP statute is designed to eliminate potential lawsuits that are in reality political actions by stopping them early in court procedures. Judge Brewster dismissed the suit stating that the defendants' speech is "protected under both the United States and California Constitutions" and that plaintiffs "failed to state a cause of action." In addition to dismissing the suit, the court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the legal fees for Novartis, APA and CHADD. In the conclusion to one of the other lawsuits, Judge Tagla stated "that the allegations were fully without merit. Plaintiffs