The drug company Amarin won a court case that essentially granted them a protected “free speech” right to promote their fish oil-derived product Vascepa for off-label purposes. And this week, Amarin’s free speech rights were further upheld in a settlement with the FDA and U.S. government over the same issue.

This means that Amarin can continue to promote Vascepa for off-label purposes. The drug is currently approved to treat people with severely elevated triglycerides, and the company sued to be able to “engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa.” Essentially the company could say that “supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease,” but in that ruling the company also had to disclose that the FDA has not approved Vascepa to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

Extensive coverage – including stories in the New York Times, Bloomberg, STAT and ABC News, US News and World Report — delivers a lot of details on the freedom of speech issues this court case raises. But the stories mostly fail to dig into the crucial consumer impact of what constitutes “on-label” or “off-label” use of a drug — and whether it’s a good idea to let drug companies promote off-label uses.

Lawyers for General Motors Co and two Louisiana residents suing the U.S. automaker over a 2014 car crash clashed in federal court in Manhattan on Monday about whether the accident was caused by icy roads or a faulty ignition switch that prompted the recall of millions of vehicles weeks later.

During opening arguments in the second lawsuit to go to trial over the switch, Randall Jackson, a lawyer representing plaintiffs Dionne Spain and Lawrence Barthelemy, told jurors that the crash could have been avoided if GM had taken action in response to numerous reports it had received since 2004 about problems with the switch. It has been linked to nearly 400 serious injuries and deaths.