But not when you know your product causes harm and spend BILLIONS to suppress and sow confusion around the science.

We have an excellent precedence in terms of big tobacco and the lies and disinformation they fed the public about the link between lung cancer and smoking.

Notions of legality are rarely that black and white. It often depends on timing, context and intent.

For instance, it is legal to sell a drug that is FDA-approved. But suppose:

- It transpires years later that the FDA approval was based in part on the pharma company suppressing unfavourable clinical trial results.

- The pharma company claims the FDA was aware (in some sense) of those suppressed studies, and still approved the drug.

- A patient dies from adverse reactions observed in one of the suppressed studies. The patient's family is advised to litigate.

Who is liable for what here?

You are right, it's always more complex than it seems on first glance.