Monday, May 16, 2022

Grubhub: Why does Getting Food Delivered from Grub Hub Cost More! (March 2022).

 Grubhub: Why does Getting Food Delivered from Grub Hub Cost More! (March 2022)

Case Controversy:

March of 2022, Attorney General Karl Racine filed a lawsuit against Grubhub in the superior court of the District of Columbia. The allegations for the lawsuit stem from the belief that Grubhub has been using “deceiving and misleading” (Dive), business practices. These business strategies that are spoken about consist of strategies to optimize Grub hubs’ overall profit margins while convincing shareholders that their common goal as a business was to help them prosper. Attorney Racine states “Grubhub lists more than 1,000 “partner restaurants” available for delivery in D.C. that have no contracts with Grubhub”. (NPR).  What Racine and his team are attempting to uncover is the idea that Grubhub has added all these restaurants to their directory without consent. This immediately shows the ambiguous nature of their business model, although the focal issues that proceed from this deceit is the real reason for the lawsuit.

            There are repercussions for adding restaurants that have not signed consent. These Non-Partner Restaurants were more likely to have out-of-date or completely incorrect prices, menu offerings, and hours. Of course, this then means that likelihood of orders being incorrect as well as the orders taking longer to get to the customer. In the complaint filed by the District of Columbia (See page 3) we can see that the Grilled Chicken Teriyaki on Grub hub is $18.95, but on Young Chows website it is listed as $15.95. This does not make Grub hub look good, especially after Grub hub denied the claims and stated that all prices are the same. The $3 difference seems small at first but consider if a full family ordered 4 Grilled Chicken Teriyaki’s off Grub hub, the difference in price is now $12 which is almost enough for a whole meal. To make matters worse D.C. officials begin to attack their revenue scheme. Not only are the prices often listed incorrectly on the website which entails that a customer is paying more than the market value for their food, there are extra fees and charges. Grubhub adds a delivery fee, service fee, and small order fee for purchases under ten dollars. There is nothing wrong with applying extra fees, although the accusation in the lawsuit states suspicious facts indicating towards deceit and false advertisement. Grubhub allegedly tell customers that they only have to pay the delivery fee disguising other fees at checkout on the same sign as “taxes”. The D.C. lawsuit states this behavior as “constituting digital ‘dark pattern’ - a design feature that deceives, coerces, or manipulates consumers into making choices that are either not what they intended, or not in their best interest.” (NPR).

Image #2: Grub hub’s Website displaying Grilled Chicken Teriyaki Price

Image #3: Young Chow’s Website displaying Grilled Chicken Teriyaki Price

Image 4: Grubhub charging customers additional fees. 

Grub hub’s extreme inflation of success stems from the Covid-19 pandemic. With all restaurants having to close their dining rooms businesses all over the world risked bankruptcy. With a lockdown the businesses were not the only ones to be immediately affected, the consumer had to change their way of living. Fear of leaving your home as well as fear of financial crisis was prominent around the world. Until no-contact delivery became accessible to everyone. Grubhub and other delivery services thrived and were labeled with a hero status. This was until April and May of 2020, they ran a “Supper for Support” promotion. This offered discounts to support the consumer and up sales for restaurants. Unfortunately, the lawsuit alleges that these discounts that were offered were not covered by Grubhub. They altered restaurant prices to “support” society in a time of need yet just lowered profits for an already struggling industry.

            This was not the first time that Grubhub have found themselves under scrutiny. July 29th, 2021, Boston Attorney General Maura Healey sued Grubhub for allegedly illegally charging fees to Massachusetts restaurants that exceeded the statutory fee cap in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit is looking for an outcome of “refunds for restaurants that were harmed by Grub hub’s alleged unlawful practices”. (MASS). In more legislative wording, Grubhub have violated Massachusetts economic development legislation. Once again, Grubhub is found hurting the food industry while disguising themselves as heroes. They were found charging fees more than fifteen percent of an order’s listed price. This fee cap was brought into action in 2014 specifically to protect restaurants. This idea is justified when Healey explains what the lawsuit is going to do “We are suing to get money back to these establishments and to hold Grubhub accountable for its unlawful conduct.” (MASS). These accusations against Grubhub are incredibility severe when it comes to the repercussions. The lawsuit requests full refunds to all establishments affected as well as civil penalties of $5000 per violation. This severe request shows the seriousness of the injustice of Grub hub’s business dynamic. In this lawsuit they have said to be partners in the industry while in reality they are thieves. Although this is not the exact same lawsuit as the D.C. lawsuit there are similarities. Of course, both lawsuits are looking for justice for the shareholders and the corruption comes through the deceit of fees to different parties under the regulation of state laws. There is a clear pattern of fraudulent behavior from Grubhub around the nation.

            Although Grubhub is the company that the D.C. lawsuit is directed towards there is evidence that Grubhub and its’ competitors share a common fraudulent business model. In November of 2021 Grub hubs’ top competitor Door Dash is set to pay $5.325 million for not paying San Francisco Workers Benefits. These allegations date back to 2016. The investigation was launched by the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (SLOE). The investigation stemmed from reports that Door Dash was misclassifying workers, used customer tips as a factor of pay, and failed to provide 4500 workers both sick leave and health care coverage. Many of the issues found are unique to certain geographical areas. In this case San Francisco has a law that a company with more than 20 employees are responsible for spending a minimum amount on health benefits for each employee as well as offer sick leave. A quote from Supervisor Aaron Peskin says, “While the wage theft complaint was filed three years ago, it covers conduct that Door Dash continued during the pandemic, a particularly devastating time for workers and small businesses.” (GLOBE). This quote shows the similarities between the D.C. lawsuit against Grubhub and this SF lawsuit against Door Dash. Both organizations claimed to be beneficial for all parties whether it was consumer, restaurants, or workers. Yet through further investigation they both were there for self-profit while wrongdoing the shareholders. The situation’s intensity increases because of the severity of the pandemic but both companies were practices devious business models for years before. Grubhub was seen as a hero for providing more business for restaurants and more convenience for their customers while they robbed money from their “partner” restaurants and hid fees from the consumer base. Door Dash on the other hand provided easy work before the pandemic and more importantly during the lockdown. Come to find out they used this as a ploy to disguise their lack of worker compensation. One last similarity between both parties was the adamant rejection of doing anything illegal.

            Looking at another lawsuit in a different city there is a different story. In September of 2021, Grubhub as well as its top two competitors Door Dash and Uber Eats all filed lawsuits against New York over fee limits that the platforms can charge restaurants. This debate has been in talks for years as restaurants were having to pay fees up to 30 percent. Once again, no real actions against Grubhub and other competitors until the pandemic. Of course, this is when people could truly see how much they were exploiting their partners. Mark Gjonaj, the chairman of the Councils of small business committee and a sponsor of the legislation said, “the law sought to ‘bring fairness to a system that all too often lacks it’”. (TIMES).  These platforms arguments are based on the extreme volume of business they bring to NY restaurants and how their prices are justifiable. They speak on the amount of money that they have spent to create this platform and how they gave so much. Although the further people investigate Grubhub and others like it, it becomes more and more clear that they take more than they can give. It is mentioned in the NPR article numerous times how no matter how much evidence D.C., Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and other major cities they have stand behind their business model. They have a system that brings them mass amounts of popularity and profits and they have no intention of giving that up. Grubhub Spokesperson Katie Norris says, “we’ve sought to engage in constructive dialogue with D.C. attorney general’s office to help them understand out business and to see if there were any areas for improvement,” (NPR). Although once asked to fix their deceiving ways of posting fees and such they are quick to fight back. Grubhub knows they are in the wrong and have been caught in multiple cities and scenarios, yet they stand strong and show little remorse to the very culture they work in.


            The stakeholders in this specific case would include Karl Racine, and Katie Norris. Additional stakeholders include the “partner restaurants”, District of Columbia Grubhub customers, future shareholders, future consumers, delivery service competitors. Karl Racine is the Attorney for the District of Columbia. Karl is fighting Grub hub in court to hopefully eliminate misrepresentations on the Grub Hub app and website. If Karl wins the lawsuit, then the prices and advertising on Grub hub should match the restaurants prices, and fees will not be condensed under the “taxes’ line so customers know what they are paying for. The 2nd stakeholder is Katie Norris, who is the spokesperson for Grub hub. In court Katie Norris will be defending Grub hub by denying that Grub hub participated in any wrongdoing. Katie and Grub hub is looking for a victory to avoid paying any fees or facing civil penalties for every violation. Grub hub’s future success and reputation relies on the actions that they decide to take with the case in D.C. There actions also affect the potential retribution that their “partner restaurants” will receive from the deceiving business model. The D.C. consumers that used Grubhub before the lawsuit was filed will be affected through the actions taken by Grubhub. Considering the lawsuit is asking for fees per violation this will affect how much retribution is served to consumers who fell victim to Grub hub’s hidden fees. Future Shareholders are affected by the decisions of Grubhub because this will affect the future of the company and their overall successes and reputation sense they have been caught in deceitful actions. Future consumers will be affected because the lawsuit will change the way Grubhub works whether that is no more hidden fees or wrongly priced menus and that can change the consumers’ willingness to use the service for better or worse. Grub hub’s competitors will be affected by the actions taken through this case. This is because it will lead to changes in their own business considering many people will be more suspicious of delivery services now on. The stakeholders will be discussed in further detail based on the ethical theory utilitarianism.


One view on Individualism originated from Milton Freidman who was an economist and Noble Prize winner. Freidman’s Individualism States that “The only goal of a Business is to profit, so the only obligation that the businessperson has is to maximize profit for the owner or the stockholders within the law of the land” (Salazar Slide 10). Basically, Individualists believe that at the end of the day profit is the only thing that matters, do everything in your power to maximize it legally. How an Individualist views this case depends on what the result of the lawsuit is. If Grub hub wins the lawsuit and avoids all fees and penalties, then an Individualist would see nothing wrong with this case because everything Grub hub is doing is within the law of the land. An Individualist would see this scenario as permissible because Grub hubs focus is to maximize profit and according to the law, they are doing it in a legal way. Earlier in the paper we saw this with the Grilled Chicken Teriyaki example. The restaurant charged $15.95 for the meal and Grub hub charged $18.95 for the exact same thing, making Grub hub a $3 profit. That’s not even including the delivery fee and other fees Grub hub charges on top of that. Now, if Grub hub lost the lawsuit, then the Individualist would view Grub hubs actions as Impermissible. While Grub hub was aiming to maximize profit, it did so in an illegal manner. From an individualist’s point of view, it is morally required for a businessperson to follow the law of the land. Which is why an Individualist would have an Issue with the 2nd scenario. 


A utilitarian would view Grub hub’s way of handling the situation as far from the most ethical path. Under the rules of utilitarianism, a business should take action to seek to maximize the happiness in themselves and others in the short-term as well as the long term (Salazar 17). Grubhub was shown hard evidence of their deceitful nature and chose to deny all these allegations. In a world where a business should be maximizing happiness for every party there is no room for fraudulent behavior. This insists that they have been caught lying for one reason or another. To make matters worse in the D.C. lawsuit they could not deny the allegations but is willing to go to court to avoid paying back the stakeholders who did not receive maximum happiness. The stakeholders’ situations are as follows:

Partner Restaurants: The so called “partner restaurants” will not benefit from this lawsuit as of this point in the case. D.C has strong allegations towards Grubhub and their fraudulent ways although since Grubhub has denied all these allegations to being true the current partner restaurants will not be compensated in anyway. As of right now the dispute has not been settled but with where Grubhub is standing now they fail to believe they have done anything that has broken the laws enforced in D.C. If Grubhub lose the case, then the partner restaurants will be compensated and will most definitely benefit from this case.

D.C Grubhub Customers: The past D.C. Grubhub customers will be in a very similar situation as the “partner restaurants”. Since Grubhub has denied all allegations being sent towards them in the lawsuit as of right now there will be no action taken in reimbursing any extra charges, they have been tricked into paying. If Grubhub loses the case D.C. plans to look at every single violation in which these past customers would be paid a certain amount for the deceitful ways of charging fees.

Future Shareholders: Considering the overall decision to deny and neglect the facts that have been posed against Grubhub this will not benefit the future shareholders. Grubhub is making themselves look very selfish especially for a company that relies on the positive relationships and trust between the business model of connection from “manufacturer” and “consumer”. Even if they are to win the case and not have to pay and fees and civil charges D.C. have uncovered many ugly truths about the deceitful nature of their delivery fees and the way their app is ran.

Future Consumers: In terms of future Grubhub customers it is a collection of positives and negatives. There are positives sense this case has spread awareness of the deceitful ways of Grubhub so they can be more aware of the dangers of using the service. On the other hand, since Grubhub is denying all claims there is still the prominent fear of overpaying or being given incorrect advertisement.

Delivery Competitors:  Stated in this case are very similar cases that have been placed in attempt to exploit organizations like Grubhub. This case will affect how people look at these competitors which can be a negative for these companies considering they all have very similar business models. When one company becomes most popular through deceitful practices it forces the hand of competitors. In other words, the competitors have a good chance to running into further legal trouble since more attention is being shine on them from this case.

            It was very clear that throughout this case Grub hub’s actions were not ethical in a utilitarian’s view and that they were acting in ways to strictly benefit themselves while leading people to believe they were a company for the people and community. This is not the first time Grubhub has been caught in this negative light and it will not be last. They contribute to deny all these allegations to avoid the repercussions to their horrible actions. There actions were opposite to a utilitarian view.


A Kantian would view Grub hub’s list of allegations and deceptive practices against them as not ethical at all. The basic principles of Kantianism are “act rationally - don’t act inconsistently in your own actions or consider yourself exempt from the rules. Respect people, their autonomy, and individual needs and differences.” (Salazar). In business ethics terms Kantianism implies an obligation for businesses to treat all persons with respect regardless of what one’s goals and missions are (MacDonald). This theory would judge what occurred in this case because everything mentioned was unethical.

In Grub hub’s case everything they did acted as if they were exempt from the rules or in this case laws. They affected their own company negatively towards companies, consumers, and even the government by having so many deceptive practices that were pinpointed and alleged. If they followed the rules and acted as any other company should, none of these allegations would have been made and their company would most likely be a lot more successful. The company also did not respect people and their individual needs and differences. They did not do so because they scammed their “partner restaurants” out of money which are companies that individuals own and need to make a living. They also scammed their consumers by having them pay unnecessary fees just so they could increase their profit. The company had multiple allegations and lawsuits against them from multiple sources and different districts. This goes to show they have no way of backing up their lawsuits and they have already lost one so clearly, they know what they are doing is unethical and are struggling to find ways to prove what they are doing is fair.  All these practices would be looked at as unethical and impermissible from a Kantian’s point of view.

Virtue Theory:

Virtue theory is based on Aristotlelian functionalism. This theory assesses people instead of actions and it thinks of what kinds of characteristics are necessary for people to flourish in a certain circumstance. Virtue theory also figures out what something’s purpose is and then determines if that thing is good at meeting its purpose (Business Ethics and Virtue, Salazar slide 3). A virtue theorist would view D.C. 's way of handling the Grubhub case as the most ethical beneficial. And would view Grubhub as not ethically beneficial. As stated in the virtue theory, a thing needs to have a certain purpose. Grub hub’s purpose is to provide consumers with an easy and cheaper alternative in receiving their food. But Grubhub fails the virtue theory since it does not fulfill its purpose by increasing their prices tremendously. And as a business it’s important to be trustworthy and to give your customers the best service. But Grubhub does not pass the virtue theory. By raising their prices with deceptive tactics to manipulate their customers into spending more money, they are not good at meeting their purpose. People, like myself, use food delivery services frequently. It’s advertised as being an easy alternative rather than going to a restaurant. The four cardinal virtues in the virtue theory are courage, temperance/ self-control, justice/fairness, and honesty. Grubhub does not meet the virtue of fairness as it is deceptive of their prices and manipulates customers into spending more money than they should. This perfectly ties into honestly and how Grubhub also fails this virtue. The function of Grubhub is to make ordering food painless, cheaper, and overall, an easy experience, but by lying to their customers, they do not pass the virtue theory. 

Action Plan:

Unethical business practices only benefit the business in the short term and harms the customers and the businesses reputation in the long term. For any business the goal is to grow and remain profitable over time. A business cannot grow without new and current loyal customers, so maintaining a good brand image is critical. As discussed above there is a substantial amount of evidence that can be used against Grubhub by the District of Columbia. One example includes the meal prices on Grubhub and the restaurant's website being inconsistent. The image 2 and image 3 on page 3 is clear evidence to back this up. Grilled Chicken Teriyaki on Grub hub is listed on the website costing $18.95, but on Young Chows website it is only listed as $15.95. Another example is Grubhub charging customers additional fees and hiding/including them in taxes, despite the company stating that customers only need to pay for a delivery fee. Image 4 on page 4 is clear evidence to back this up. The image shows Grubhub charging this customer a $2.00 small order fee and $1.28 service fee. Grubhub may need some guidance on how to resolve this problem that they find themselves in. A mission statement is helpful to show management and employees what the company is aiming for in the future. A new mission statement for Grubhub could be that the company is pushing to be more customer focused going forward. To help accomplish this mission statement the company should have core values set in place. One value could be creativity, if Grubhub needs to earn more money to be profitable then find another way to instead of hiding fees in the tax charge. Another value could be honesty, if the company cannot find another way to be more profitable then be honest with the customer and say that fees other than delivery will be included at checkout. Instead of saying that delivery is the only fee but still sneaking in additional fees without the customers knowledge. The last value could be consistency, Grubhub should only partner with companies that agree to be on their website so inconsistent prices are not an issue for customers. To make sure this controversy does not happen again management should have discussions with current employees and revise the training procedure to be more in line with this new mission statement. Employees should be hired that demonstrate the ability to follow Grub hub’s mission statement and employees should be fired that violate the mission statement. To get the trust of the customer back Grubhub needs to clean up their image by taking this mission statement and marketing it to the public. The company needs to admit they were in the wrong and offer new and existing customers one free meal for example to make up for the damages. While this may cost the company money in the short term, in the long term it could make them more profitable than if they were just to do nothing. This is because customers could switch over to Door Dash due to their bad experience and lack of trust with Grubhub. Offering a free meal to make up for the damages could keep customers around. The plan to be more customer focused could only benefit Grubhub and make the company more profitable in the end. This is because it’s still the same service that everyone knows and enjoys, except now the company is doing everything in their power to put the customer as the number one priority. The action plan adheres to the mission statement of being customer focused as Grubhub will admit they were in the wrong in exchange for customer trust. Grub hub’s purpose is to provide consumers with an easy and cheaper alternative in receiving their food. But Grubhub fails the virtue theory since it does not fulfill its purpose by increasing their prices tremendously. The core values also relate to the action plan because all of them are being applied to improve the customers experience with Grubhub. This plan will ensure good ethics because it benefits Grubhub and the customers equally. As mentioned before for any business the goal is to grow and remain profitable over time. A business cannot grow without new and current loyal customers. 


Eric Plantier

Evan Lee

Emma Karamian

Payton Barry 


“Ag Healey Sues Grubhub for Charging Restaurants Illegally High Fees during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.”,

Archie, Ayana. “D.C. Sues Grubhub for Allegedly Using Deceptive Trade Practices.” NPR, NPR, 22 Mar. 2022,

Canham-Clyne, Aneurin. “DC Attorney General Sues Grubhub over Hidden Fees.” Restaurant Dive, 22 Mar. 2022,

Carman, Tim. “D.C. Sues Grubhub, Alleging It Took Advantage of Suffering Restaurants.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Mar. 2022,

Evan SymonEvan V. Symon is the Senior Editor for the California Globe. Prior to the Globe. “Door Dash to Pay $5.325 Million Settlement for Not Paying San Francisco Workers Benefits.” California Globe, 22 Nov. 2021,   

In the Superior Court of the District of ... -  

Mays, Jeffery C. “Food Delivery Apps Sue New York over Fee Limits.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2021,

MacDonald, Chris. “Ethical Theory: Kantianism.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Business Ethics, 25 Apr. 2018,,ones%20goals%20and%20mission%20are

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual and PowerPoint Slides.

Monday, May 9, 2022

Clubhouse Says it Won’t be Attending SXSW 2022 Because of Texas’ Trans Rights (March 2022)

 Company Background

Clubhouse is a social media app iOS and Android where users can communicate in audio chat rooms that accommodate groups of thousands of people. It was released in March of 2020 so it is still relatively new. Clubhouse differs from other audio chat apps because you are not always directly chatting with others, you could be listening. It is described as listening to other people’s live conversation. This sounds a little weird, but these users are willingly being heard. The app made an appearance during COVID-19 where many people were using their phones more than normal. The company behind Clubhouse was Alpha Exploration Co. Clubhouse received a $12 Million from Andreessen Horowitz only 2 months after being released with only 1,500 users at the time. The began to grow and reached its peak in April of 2021 where it was worth about $4 billion (Griffith). There are no video chats and the only form of photography comes from each profile’s 1 profile picture. It is available for free in the app store and can be downloaded within seconds. There have been over 8 million downloads and is in the top 10 of social media apps downloaded through iOS (Fitzgerald). Clubhouse has been growing at a fast pace for the last two years and is expected to continue growing despite this case. 

March 18, 2020           April 14, 2020             April 5, 2021 March 2, 2022

Clubhouse was created         Received $12 Million Investment  Worth Approximately $4 Billion Decided against attending SXSW 2022

March 11, 2022 March 2022 - Present

Held “Power of Voice” Panel       Business Continues 

Case Controversy

The South by Southwest (SXSW) is a conference that takes place annually in Austin, Texas. It was created to celebrate the blending of many aspects of society including tech, film, music, education, and culture. In the, since past, March 2022 convention, Clubhouse, an app designed to let you listen in on other people's live, knowledgeable, conversations, declined its invitation to SXSW. This decision came about due to the state of Texas attempting to restrict the transgender youth from receiving the care and assistance necessary during their transition. Clubhouse came out with a statement via Twitter writing “We realized we wouldn't feel comfortable asking LGBTQ+ voices from the Clubhouse community to come to Texas...and if we feel that way, we shouldn't be there at all” (Franklin 2022). It is important to note that Clubhouse's issues were not with the SXSW conference itself. It was instead a boycott of the state of Texas. This was a powerful statement that drove SXSW to condemn the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, themselves. "The governor's latest directive puts trans children in harm's way once again, and we unequivocally condemn this action.” As an up and coming business in the music world, this was a very high risk/high reward decision from the company. Not only did Clubhouse choose to not attend the music festival, but they decided to create their own panel at the same time as the conference. This was seen as very bold but quite moving at the same time. They were focusing more on their core values above anything else. 

The controversy did not last long as Clubhouse took the negative attention and turned it into a positive. They launched their own panel on their own platform called “The Power of Voices” while also starting a number of conversations that were used to support transgender speakers and creators. This was a pivotal moment in the case and it really took everything to the next level. The more support that the opposition began to receive, the more people became involved and started to result in a possible change being made. The bottom line and main reasoning that started this debate was people having their freedom stripped away from them based upon the state that they were living in. We can already assume that transgenders that live in the state of Texas are uncomfortable and stressed enough living with themselves based off of all of the hardships they deal with on a day to day basis. Clubhouse made a statement in this situation that let all people know that they stood against laws that held trans people back. Regardless of how this decision would turn out for their business, they were standing by the LGBTQ+ community and that is what is most important to them. With big names such as Drake, Chris Rock, Mark Cuban, and Oprah Winfrey (Fitzgerald) still using the app after this dispute, it is safe to say the business side of things is still in good shape for them. They not only saw this law as something that was put in place to prohibit trans people from receiving the benefits they need to feel comfortable in their sexuality, but they also saw it as an unnecessary way to make the lives of trans people harder. Clubhouse believes that trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else and that in no way should they feel uncomfortable with who they are as people. They have morals as a company and that should be noticed by all of the people who use their app. It should be a priority in any state to make the people that live there feel welcome and comfortable no matter what their personal beliefs or interests are. They consider themselves on Twitter as “a more human place than the internet.” In simpler terms, they are trying to create an atmosphere in which their users feel comfortable. By doing what they did with regards to the SXSW situation, they are showing all people around the world that no matter who they are or what they believe in, Clubhouse stands with them.


As a relatively new company in a technology based system, the stakeholders in Clubhouse will have a crucial impact on their future. All current and future consumers will need to not only trust the product that the company puts out, but the company as a whole. This includes their beliefs, morals, and any controversial decisions that they make that could possibly impact any and all stakeholders. All the stakeholders in the situation surrounding Clubhouse’s decision to not attend the SXSW conference were affected. Some of their stakeholders consist of employees, customers, and all people who use the app. People like Paul Davison and Rohan Seth, the founders of Clubhouse (Shead), were impacted the most. Davison and Seth knew prior to not attending that it could possibly affect the organization in a negative way. With an app like Clubhouse that users join rooms to chat with others, (Shead) it is important that people feel safe. The customer relationship is what is most important and not taking part in the SXSW shows their consumers that they really practice what they preach as a company which is to make everyone feel comfortable. LGBTQ+ is a very touchy subject in the world today and everyone has different opinions about this subject. The goal is to maintain all stakeholders and with this sensitive topic, some stakeholders may be in jeopardy. As CEO of Clubhouse, Davison was sure that when he decided to pull the company from SXSW that he was putting the consumer first. 


An individualistic approach to this particular situation would not necessarily be the first ethical theory that Clubhouse used when making the decision to not attend the 2022 SXSW. Due to the lack of statistics that were turned in the last two months that are relevant to Clubhouses’ profits as a business, I do not believe that the choice not to go to the SXSW Convention was made with the intention to maximize their earnings. Their reasonings for not going seem to be much more based on principles and morals surrounding human rights. Clubhouse is not collecting any revenue at this point in the app's development and so on the surface it seems unlikely that they made this decision for business maximization. With that being said, the individualism theory does have a direct impact on Clubhouses’ decision, despite their intentions. 

Clubhouse may have known what they were doing when implementing individualism. Clubhouse is a generally new app that is growing as previously mentioned. Much like all other start-up social media, they have no revenue to show within their first year. Their intentions as a new company is to build a brand so they can eventually turn a profit. As they are building their brand they are looking for supporters who will generate this profit for them in the long run. By not attending the SXSW for reasons that show support and give the LGBTQ+ community a platform, they are showing an effort to reach out to this community. From an individualistic perspective, it can be interpreted that by Clubhouse showing these values to their audience, their audience will grow. In addition to how much profit they will eventually make with a larger audience, the larger their audience becomes the quicker the company will begin profiting. In this case, perhaps Clubhouse was using individualism for long term reasons rather than short term, as seen in the individualistic views of  libertarian Tibor Machan. 


In terms of utilitarianism, the long term is very focused on. However, contradictory to individualism, business actions are aimed to maximize the happiness of all stakeholders rather than maximize profits. Clubhouse may have followed this ethical principle more than any other. As discussed earlier, stakeholders include anyone who is affected by a business. For Clubhouse to not attend the SXSW Conference in support of LGBTQ+ rights they are attempting to maximize the happiness and support they receive from the LGBTQ+ community as well as LGBTQ+ allies. Utilitarians such as John Stewart Mill and Peter Singer were two people that initiated the social activism that goes hand in hand with utilitarianism. Although social activism is important in making the majority of the general public shareholders happy, Clubhouse also had to make other shareholders, such as investors, happy. Clubhouse must turn a profit or have a profit coming soon in order to make shareholders from the business side happy. By speaking up on these social issues, it is reasonable to believe that much of the public was attracted to the company. Similarly stated when discussing individualism, the rise of supporters for Clubhouse will cause a larger profit to come quicker. This profit is where the happiness of investors comes in.


This ethical theory pertains much more to moral reasoning and has little to do with the business side of ethics. A large part of this theory revolved around honoring individuals and their choices as well as not using manipulation or inflicting harm on others to get your way. It is very evident in the case of Clubhouse that this ethical theory is used. The issue of Texas’ laws trying to prohibit transgender youth from receiving the necessary medical assistance they need to fully transition is the exact opposite of this theory. Not only are they not honoring individuals rights to choice, but the State also used manipulation tactics to prove that these medical necessities are “child abuse” (Lampen, 2022). Clubhouse’s decision to not attend the convention was taking a stand and fighting these anti-kantianistic views. Clubhouse showed their belief in honesty, freedom and autonomy of individuals, all primary values of kantianism.

Virtue Theory

Virtue theory as we learned was a theory developed by Aristotle long ago that in simpler terms describes the attributes that encourage the well being of others. This is very important in business, inside and outside of the workplace. As explained by Aristotle, people must be rational to live virtuously (Salazar,23). In order to do so, the 4 main virtues must be followed: honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. 

In this particular situation pertaining to Clubhouse, they handled the 4 main virtues very well. As soon as the decision to not attend SXSW, they were honest and announced it with their reasoning. They let supporters, stakeholders, and anyone who had meaning towards the company know that they were doing this and why. This was a very courageous decision because it was unsure how people would react. Clubhouse was doing this to show their concerns for trans people, regardless of the backlash. They restrained themselves and their business from attending something in a place in which they did not agree with what was happening there. This choice was made to bring attention and hopefully justice to something that Clubhouse felt strongly about. Virtue theory as a whole is an effort to promote the wellness and flourishing of others in society. By standing up for the LGBTQ+ community, Clubhouse did exactly that.

Action Plan

The main concern that was endured by Clubhouse with not attending the 2022 SXSW was the sacrifice of publicity that would have come with it for the app’s growth. After the event took place, many possible consumers that were present at the event may be unaware of what Clubhouse has to offer. As a rebuttal, they held the panel “The Power of Voice '' to address their beliefs on LGBTQ+ rights and show the people their ethical beliefs and reasoning for the boycott. I believed this resolved the issue because it brought publicity to the company that they missed out on at the event. Clubhouses’ mission is to give consumers a unique outlet through socializing. One that lets them do it in a private aspect while making them feel completely safe when meeting new people. The internet can be a scary place at times but Clubhouse is committed to keeping all consumers sheltered while they enjoy social media. This differs from their current mission statement because it brings about the problems with cruel people on the internet while encouraging social contact through music and technology. A great core value that Clubhouse should focus on is customer safety. They need to make sure that Clubhouse is a safe app for all types of people to interact on. They can do this by monitoring cyber bullying and hate messages throughout the app. Swearing and other forms of poor language should not be allowed. Also, age restrictions should be in place. Young people who want to use the app should have parental supervision. Another value that is key for Clubhouse should be connecting with customers. In order to grow the app, they must continue to put out what the customers enjoy. They can learn this through surveys or other forms of feedback via email or the app itself. Lastly, they must keep the app creative. New ideas are always important to keep the customers interested. They need to set themselves apart from other similar apps. Examples of this can be new features, chat settings, and even game modes within the app.

In order to ensure that the company keeps their ethical standings, they must continue to stay true to their claims. After the dispute, Clubhouse supporters are aware of how the company feels about certain issues. There is a sense of trust that has been built and it is crucial that Clubhouse focuses on keeping this relationship. Any possible decisions that will lose this trust will hurt Clubhouse as an organization. Employees must be trained in the same way. They should have similar beliefs to ensure the ethics of the company stay intact. Policies should remain constant from the top to bottom. This means entry level workers all the way up to the CEO.

When Clubhouse is hiring employees after this situation, all possible candidates should be aware of the situation. They should be looking to hire people who agree with the decision to not attend SXSW and firing those who dispute their choice. This will confirm that all workers within the company are on the same page ethically. I think it would be a great idea to hire not only one, but multiple members of the LGBTQ+ community. These workers can help create a safer app for the members of this community that may not feel safe on social apps.  Marketing should stay the same in this case. Their target market should still be people who are looking to enjoy music on a social platform. Anything that differs from this could create mistrust with their current consumers. This new and improved plan has the potential to take the Clubhouse app to the next level for years to come. It has already come a long way and it will continue to grow with a better ethical standing. Connecting with customers and making sure that they are safe, happy, and having fun with the app will directly result in more profit and efficiency. If they stick to their 

mission and values, customers will be delighted to use the app on a daily basis.

Vincent S. Caccavale


Fitzgerald, Quinn “Clubhouse Statistics 2022: How Many People Use Clubhouse?” Quantum Marketer. Quantum Marketer, 22 April 2022

Franklin, Jonathan “Clubhouse says it won't be attending SXSW 2022 because of Texas' trans rights” 02 March 2022

Griffith, Eric “What Is Clubhouse? The Audio-Only Chat App Explained” PC Mag. PC Mag, 18 Nov 2021

Lampen, Chris “Texas Is Once Again Framing Trans Health Care As Child Abuse” The cut. The Cut, 02 March 2022

Lukes, Steven “Individualism: Politics and Society” Britannica. Britannica,

Nash, Elizabeth “2022 State Legislative Sessions: Abortion Bans and Restrictions on Medication Abortion Dominate” Guttmacher Instituite, Guttmacher Instiutue, 06 May 2022

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business. Print.

Shead, Sam “Clubhouse co-founder opens up on growing pains: ‘It’s been quite an 18 months’” CNBC. CNBC, 09 Nov 2021

Sunday, May 8, 2022

Pfizer: Blood Pressure Medication Recalled due to exceeding allowable level of Cancer-Causing Impurities (March 2022)

Case Controversy

Pfizer is an extremely recognizable company, founded in 1849 by Charles Pfizer and his cousin Charles Erhart. Pfizer was most recently in the news during the COVID-19 epidemic, as it was one of 3 major medical companies to formulate a vaccine against the virus. In March 2022, however, Pfizer issued a voluntary recall of several lots of different blood pressure medication including Accuretic (quinapril HCl/hydrochlorothiazide) tablets as well as two authorized generics distributed by Greenstone (quinapril and hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCl/hydrochlorothiazide). Greenstone, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, produces several other generics of other medications for Pfizer.

Accuretic, as well as its corresponding authorized genetics distributed by Greenstone, is a set of medications used to treat high blood pressure, or hypertension. Currently, it is unknown whether it is safe or effective in children under the age of 18, however, high blood pressure is typically a result of a long-term diet high in fats, salt, and/or cholesterol. Although high blood pressure can be genetic, it is unlikely to require medication at age 18 or earlier. Its empirical formula is C25H30N2Oand its structural formula is as seen in Figure 1.

The March 2022 recall was issued for a total of 6 Accuretic tablet lots consisting of 3 different configurations (10/12.5 mg, 20/12.5 mg, and 20/25 mg) as well as one lot of quinapril and hydrochlorothiazide tablets (20/25 mg) and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets consisting of 2 configurations (20/12.5 mg and 20/25 mg). These medications were distributed between November 2019 to March 2022 and were set to expire between April 2022 and August 2024. Pfizer provided the affected lot numbers as well as the NDC’s, expiration dates, and configurations for each of the affected medications on their website.

The company released a statement on their website stating that they are issuing a volunteer recall of these specific lots of medications at “the patient (consumer/user) level due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril, above the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) level”. Nitrosamines are an impurity caused by the chemical reactions of nitrites or nitrates with specific amines. Nitrosamines are not an impurity that is specific to medications. They are found within everyday consumer products including processed meats, alcoholic beverages, cosmetics, and cigarette smoke, meaning everyone is subjected to some level of nitrosamine intake. These impurities are known to lead to an increased risk in cancer if they are ingested above the acceptable daily intake level for long periods of time. Equivalently, the FDA also claims that someone ingesting medication daily at or below the acceptable daily intake level for 70 years is not expected to have any increase in cancer risk. Interestingly the FDA website states that medications found to have nitrosamine levels above the acceptable daily intake level are “recommend[ed] these drugs be recalled by the manufacturer as appropriate”, however, it is not mandatory.

When the recall was first issued, the FDA released a statement stating that “to date, Pfizer is not aware of reports of adverse events that have been assessed to be related to this recall.” This makes sense, as the effects of nitrosamines are not proven to have any imminent threat to life, as cancers typically develop over time due to extended over-intake. In addition, Pfizer also pointed out that their hypertension medication has a “safety profile that has been established over 20 years of marketing authorization and through a robust clinical program.” Interestingly, the FDA advises patients that are currently taking prescription medications with potential nitrosamine impurities to continue taking their medication and contact their health provider about potential concerns and other treatment options. As of the date of the initial statement release, the source of the impurities is unknown, however the agency is said to be working on determining the source and claims they will “keep the public informed”.


The stakeholders in this particular case would include the Manufacturers, Current Patients, Doctor’s prescribing these medications, Future Shareholders, Future Patients, and the General Public. The future success of the company is dictated by the actions they take based on the guidelines the Food and Drug Administration provides them. Pfizer’s actions also dictate what the manufacturers of these drugs will do. The current patients who need these blood pressure medications may or may not be affected depending on if they have been on if they have been taking the medication long-term or not. The doctors who are prescribing these medications to their patients are affected by this recall because now they have to consult with all of their patients and figure out what treatment to give them now. The future shareholders are affected because what the FDA’s testing and analysis on these medications and the classification that organization gives for the drugs can alter the future value of the company’s stock once the results of the recall are released. Future patients are affected because of the medications being off the market, patients will have to seek prescriptions from other brands. The general public is affected because Pfizer’s medications are distributed all across the nation. 


According to Dr. Salazar, a professor of philosophy at Western New England University, under Individualism, business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business but do so within the law.  Dr. Salazar also states that, “Both versions of this theory are grounded in the responsibility of a business to its owner or owners, whether they are individual people or the stockholders of a publicly-traded company”. So, an individualist would say that Pfizer recalling their blood pressure medication is not the most ethically beneficial. In Pfizer’s case, profit was not maximized for the owner which we can see when doing further analysis of the stakeholders as the following:

Manufactures: The manufactures will negatively impact the profit for the owners of the company. Because of the recall, the manufacturers of these blood pressure medications are forced to stop making these drugs. They cannot do anything until the company receives guidelines from the FDA. Therefore, none of the blood pressure medications will be able to be sold on the market and be able to make any profit off of these prescription drugs.

Current Patients: The current patients will negatively impact the profit for the owners of the company. Because of the recall, the current patients will stop taking these medications and seek a different treatment with their healthcare provider. Therefore, the company will have to lose all of their customers that purchase and consume these medications. Therefore, the owner of the company will lose money.

The Doctors: The doctors prescribing these medications to their patients will negatively impact the profit for the owners of the company. Now that these medications are being recalled and are off the market, doctors will now consult with their patients and prescribe a different treatment. Therefore, the owner of the company will lose money.

Future Shareholders: Future shareholders who want to invest in a company will also negatively affect future profits for the owner of the company. Because of the recall and the blood pressure medication being off the market, customers will lose money and there is no certainty that these blood pressure medications from Pfizer will go back in the market.  This will decrease the value of the company and its stock price which will not attract investors.

Future Patients: The future patients will negatively impact the future profit for the owners of the company. Because the company had to recall their blood pressure medication, future patients will be prescribed blood pressure medications from different companies by their healthcare provider.

The General Public:  The general public will negatively impact the profit for the owners of the company. The general public expects pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer to come out with prescription drugs that are safe to consume. The general public will have a hard time trusting the company which will not help the owner make money.

It is obvious that Pfizer’s recall of their blood pressure medications was not ethical in an individualist’s perspective and that profit was not maximized for the company. The company has done recalls in the past and had to take certain drugs off the market, and they followed the guidelines set by the FDA. Therefore, the next step that Pfizer takes when it comes to their blood pressure medication will depend on what the FDA’s testing and analysis on these medications and the classification that organization gives for the drugs.


The main ideas surrounding utilitarianism focus on maximizing happiness and well-being equally for all parties involved.  The theory of utilitarianism states that actions are right insofar as they produce happiness but wrong if they promote unhappiness.  The theory also includes the idea that happiness and pleasure are the only thing that truly has intrinsic value.  In terms of the case controversy under the scope of utilitarianism, Pfizer attempted to maximize happiness for all parties involved and well-being equally.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of information provided by Pfizer as to when they became aware of these potentially harmful findings, it cannot be said for sure whether or not they have partaken in unethical practices. However, Pfizer voluntarily recalled their own medication; despite the negative effects it could have on the corporation financially and its reputation.  They included information on why the blood pressure medication was being recalled so as to inform both the public and patients prescribed the drug.  They also provided contact information and instructions on how to return the recalled lots and receive reimbursement for their costs.  Despite being a major pharma corporation, they put the happiness and well-being of their patients at the forefront by voluntarily recalling their medication, providing the proper information, and assuring patients of reimbursements.  They also maximize their own happiness and well-being by getting ahead of the recall and maintaining their reputation and status.  Pfizer is not financially responsible for the repercussions of taking the medication as they informed their patients and voluntarily recalling their drug before there were any cases reported.  Since the adverse effects of taking the medication are not immediate but rather occur after having large doses over an extended period of time, reporting their findings before anything bad had happened maximizes the happiness of both the corporation and patient. The stakeholders involved are affected under the scope of utilitarianism ethics as follows: 

Pfizer Manufacturers/Employees:  Pfizer voluntarily recalled their high blood pressure medication, Accuretic, because the levels of nitrosamines present were above the acceptable daily intake (ADI).  Both the manufacturers and employees of Pfizer are maximizing their happiness this way as they allow themselves to have a clear conscience as there have been no reported cases of detrimental impacts from the medication to patients.  They also maintain their company’s reputation by voluntarily recalling the drug rather than leaving it on the market to maximize profits which creates good will with their patients.  The information provided by Pfizer in regards to disposal of the affected lots and reimbursement for the patients fosters a sense of trust between the pharmaceutical corporation and its patients, in turn maximizing the happiness of Pfizer as they do not lose customers. The employees and manufacturers will also be working towards fixing the problem and ensuring it does not happen in the future, which will create more profit in the long run, ultimately maximizing their happiness.

Pfizer shareholders:  With the voluntary recall of the blood pressure medication, Pfizer shareholders are reassured that Pfizer is not financially liable for any adverse effects, and therefore maintains a positive reputation and avoids potential lawsuits which could be greatly detrimental to the company’s stock price.  By voluntarily recalling the medication and providing information and outlets to current patients, the stock price should not waiver as the company has numerous different streams of revenue not directly related to the recall and conveys that they hold the shareholders’ and consumers’ happiness at the highest regard.  This maximizes the happiness of the shareholders as the company maintains a good reputation and their social consciousness will be appealing to potential future investors which will have a positive impact on the stock price.

Doctors/Pharmacists:   The voluntary recall of the blood pressure medication by Pfizer also maximizes the happiness of doctors and pharmacists as they clear the conscience of guilt that would be had by continuing to prescribe and sell potentially tainted lots.  Due to the recall, there will be more interaction between patients and their doctors/pharmacists which will promote more business.  Doctors will meet more with patients to discuss alternative routes for medication which creates more profit and pharmacists will be selling more blood pressure medications which promotes more business, conclusively maximizing their happiness.

Patients:  Current patients of the high blood pressure medication are perhaps the most affected by this situation as they must find out whether or not they hold any of the tainted lots of the medication.  According to a study conducted by the analytics company IQVIA, there were approximately 1,300 patients using Accuretic in 2020 and another 192,000 users of the generic forms. However, they are reassured by the fact that there have been no reported cases of adverse effects and the information that these effects only occur after an extended period of use in high doses.  By Pfizer voluntarily recalling its medication, the patient is made aware of the problem and takes comfort in knowing the corporation holds its patients health in the highest regard.  Pfizer also provides information for the patient to determine whether or not they have an affected lot of the medication and urges them to contact their medical provider with any questions.  By doing this, the patients’ happiness is maximized as they are given the knowledge voluntarily and are promised reimbursement for any tainted lot as well.

It is clear that Pfizer’s voluntary recall of their blood pressure medication was an ethical act under utilitarianism made to maximize the happiness of all parties involved.  By recalling the medication voluntarily, Pfizer ensures a sense of trust between them, their shareholders, doctors/pharmacists, and their patients by a way of honesty and transparency.  They also provide avenues and reassurances for all parties which aims to maximize the happiness of each.


Pfizer voluntarily recalled their blood pressure medication due to the potential cancer-causing impurities. This way of handling the situation from a Kantian point of view was most definitely the most ethically beneficial for almost everyone involved. The center of Kantian ethics is based on goodwill. Goodwill is defined as the “rationality which chooses to do what is right for the reason it is good” (Salazar 4). In addition, an important aspect of Kantian ethics is Kant’s formulation of humanity. The formulation of humanity can be described as requiring humans “never to treat others merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves.” This means that a business's customers are not used in achieving a particular “end” but rather treated as an end in themselves. The Kantian ethical view also entails acting with respect to all autonomous human beings. This means doing what’s morally right by the people you serve and doing it for the right intentions. In addition, Kantian ethics is reliant on the duty to do right while respecting a person’s moral rights. In this case, Pfizer acted with the duty to protect the well being of its customers while respecting their right to contact their doctor if they would like to change their medication or treatment plan. In Pfizer’s case, all of the stakeholder’s health and safety were prioritized and the well being of the customers were maximized. Ethically, each stakeholder was affected as follows:

High Blood Pressure Patients: The group of people most directly benefiting from the recall are the patients suffering from hypertension. The company issued the recall due to the well being of the patients. As the FDA’s website states, the company is recommended, but not obligated, to recall medications exceeding the acceptable daily intake levels. By Pfizer voluntarily recalling the medication shows they have acted with the goodwill of the consumer in mind, directly demonstrating what Kantian ethics is all about.

Pfizer Shareholders: Due to Pfizer’s immediate response with the thought of the customer in mind, Pfizer shareholders should benefit. Stocks should hold steady with the public knowing that the company always has the best interest of the consumer in mind. These holders indirectly benefit from Pfizer’s handling of the situation as any company who has the best interest of the consumer automatically becomes more attractive for current and future investors.

Doctors: Medical personnel can also indirectly benefit from the situation as they will have an influx of customers needing a new prescription of the contaminated drug. More business is always a good thing for anyone who is getting paid for it.

Manufacturers/Employees: These employees benefit most nearly in a similar way as the doctors. They get an influx in more work as they must continue to closely monitor the Pfizer distribution operation. They also have more work to try to find the source of the impurities themselves. This will help to ensure similar problems in the future do not occur. Due to the employees getting more work and paying even closer attention, it also improves the wellbeing of future hypertension patients as it is less likely that impure medications from Pfizer will make it out of distribution.

It is clear that Pfizer acted in the goodwill of the consumer, which, in turn, benefited all the stakeholders either directly or indirectly. Acting in the goodwill of the customer aligns concurrently with the Kantian ethical point of view. Pfizer acted swiftly and morally right which benefited everyone involved.

Virtue Theory

Looking at this case from the ethical beliefs within the Virtue Theory, Pfizer acted in an ethically correct way by recalling their contaminated products. The Virtue Theory was developed in the 4th century BC by Aristotle, a well known philosopher of the time and still to this day. This theory consisted of 4 important characteristics: courage, self-control/temperance, honesty, and fairness. Aristotle developed this theory to help his followers distinguish right from wrong. Virtue is attained by setting your eyes on a purpose and doing what is morally right to achieve that purpose. All 4 main characteristics of virtue theory are displayed with respect to each stakeholder. Each stakeholder is affected as follows:

High Blood Pressure Patients: The patients taking the medicine directly benefit from this recall. Pfizer was honest with the patients by informing them about the bad medicine they were taking. They were also courageous by issuing the recall as they did it regardless of the backlash they may receive from their patients. By giving the patients the option to change their medicine, they acted with fairness in mind. It is not fair to force someone to do something they may not want. Since they did not do that, they acted in the fairness of the consumer. Overall, all 4 characteristics of Virtue theory were displayed due to the fact that the company managed to issue the recall without causing much dysfunction. They issued the recall and managed self control by not releasing an excess amount of unneeded details.

Pfizer Shareholders: Pfizer shareholders more than likely will not be directly affected by the recall. Since the company was honest with its customers, they are improving their reputation. With an improved reputation, more people may begin to invest in the company. In turn, the price of the company may increase, directly benefiting the shareholders.

Doctors: The Doctors will directly benefit due to more customers looking to switch their medicine out or even to switch their medicine from the Pfizer company due to the impurities found inside. This will result in more business for the doctors, possibly causing a little stress but also causing an increase in sales from their end.


Action Plan

Nitrosamines found in these blood pressure medications are known carcinogens. Nitrosamines are also found in cured and grilled meats, dairy products, vegetables, and water. It is extremely difficult to completely avoid consuming nitrosamines when they are found everywhere. So, there is no immediate risk in taking these blood pressure medications. That means that using these medications for an extended period of time that high risk of cancer is a concern because of the long-term exposure to nitrosamine. This is not safe for patients who take blood pressure medications, like Accuretic. The company could change the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged, but there is still a possibility that as foods and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines can also be formed. The current issue here is that Pfizer should think about switching up their production method and not risk the health and safety of the patients who take these medication.

        Kyle Dias
        Safia Muftic
        Maxwell Tavitian


“Accuretic (Quinapril Hcl/Hydrochlorothiazide): Uses, Dosage, Side Effects, Interactions, Warning.” RxList, RxList, 1 Sept. 2021,

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Information about Nitrosamine Impurities in Medications.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA,

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Pfizer Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Lots of Accuretic (Quinapril Hcl/Hydrochlorothiazide), Quinapril and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets, and Quinapril Hcl/Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets Due to N-Nitroso-Quinapril Content.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 22 Mar. 2022,

“Drug Approval Package.” Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/Hydrochlorothiazide) NDA# 20-125, 31 May 2001,

Dunleavy, Kevin. “In a Busy Month, Pfizer Extends Recall of Blood Pressure Meds to the UK.” Fierce Pharma, 29 Mar. 2022,

“FDA Announces Recall of Hypertension Medications Due to Potential Cancer Risk.” Cardiovascular Business, 8 Apr. 2022,,an%20elevated%20risk%20of%20cancer

FDA's role in drug recalls. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2022, from

“History of Pfizer.” Pfizer,

  Holcombe, M. (2022, March 24). Blood pressure medication recalled over cancer risk concerns. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from

Jewett, Christina. “Pfizer Recalls Some Blood Pressure Drugs, Citing Cancer Risk.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2022,

Lee, Bruce Y. “Pfizer Recalling 3 Blood Pressure Medication Types Due to Cancer Concerns, FDA Says.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 Apr. 2022,

Lou, Nicole. “Another Class of Antihypertensive Recalled.” Medical News, MedpageToday, 25 Mar. 2022,

Newsy. “Pfizer Recalls 3 Blood Pressure Drugs Due to Cancer Risk.” WFTS, WFTS, 23 Mar. 2022,

“Nitrosamines.” Nitrosamines - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics,

“Pfizer Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Lots of ACCURETIC™ (Quinapril Hcl/Hydrochlorothiazide), Quinapril and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets, and Quinapril Hcl/Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets Due to N-Nitroso- Quinapril Content.” Pfizer,

Romo, Vanessa. “Pfizer Launches a Recall of Blood Pressure Drugs Due to a Potential Carcinogen.” NPR, NPR, 22 Mar. 2022,

Salazar, Heather. Kantian Business Ethics. N.d.

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d.