the label the same. [564 U.S. 619] The federal duty to ask the FDA for help in strengthening the corresponding brand-name label, assuming such a duty exists, does not change this analysis. Although requesting FDA assistance would have satisfied the Manufacturers’ federal duty, it would not have satisfied their state tort-law duty to provide adequate labeling. State law demanded a safer label; it did not instruct the Manufacturers to communicate with the FDA about the possibility of a safer label. Indeed, Mensing and Demahy deny that their state tort claims are based on the Manufacturers’ alleged failure to ask the FDA for assistance in changing the labels. Brief for Respondents 53-54; cf. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 121 S. Ct. 1012, 148 L. Ed. 2d 854 (2001) (<HOLDING>). B 1 Mensing and Demahy contend that, while
holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted holding that state law fraud on the fda claims were impliedly preempted by the food drug and cosmetic act holding that federal drug and medical device laws preempted a state tortlaw claim based on failure to properly communicate with the fda holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed