The Court of Appeal had accepted, at the summary judgment stage, that Gilead possessed comparative knowledge based on early trial data. Industry coverage of the court's reasoning on manufacturer duty of care noted that the outcome was closely watched well beyond pharmaceuticals, since companies in other sectors had also urged reversal. That a drug manufacturer does not owe users of a non-defective medicine a legal duty to develop and market a different, allegedly safer compound sooner. The California Supreme Court is the final authority on California state law questions. Whether the California Legislature responds to the dissent, and whether courts in other states cite this reasoning in similar claims.