That article was written by someone not that familiar with the pharma market.

It would be illegal for Purdue to promote on any other than 12 hours. It's called off-label promotion and companies pay multi-billion dollar fines for it.

While it is factually true that it would be illegal for Purdue to promote off-label, they also need to be held accountable for playing fast and loose with the research studies (even altering the definitions used in the trials) in order to be able to claim 12h coverage when nearly half the patients weren't getting 12h coverage. This, combined with the recommendation to push higher doses to achieve 12h coverage, combined with the gap in coverage, drove a lot of people into a cycle of unhealthy and deadly dependency.

At the very least it's a case of consumer product safety liability and negligence fueled by profit motive.

Shouldn't the FDA be held accountable? They approved the trial design and overall application.

I wish regulators could be perfect, and if they were, we'd reduce harm a lot. But since we know they're not, we can, as participants in society, be as Caesar's wife--above suspicion--and avoid these situations entirely.

A lot of capitalism's woes would be overcome should that standard be applied.