Jury to Decide Philips’ Liability in Retaliatory Contract Termination Suit, Boston Judge Rules
In a victory for underdogs in the medical device world, a federal judge in Boston has cleared the way for a jury to weigh whether Philips North America retaliated against a small reseller by terminating a lucrative contract, potentially tarnishing the company’s reputation in the process. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s ruling on November 13, 2025, denied Philips’ bid for summary judgment, rejecting arguments that the small firm—Janz Corporation—had contractually waived claims for lost profits and reputational damage, and paving the road for trial on key retaliation allegations under Massachusetts law.
The dispute traces back to a 2023 reseller agreement between Philips North America LLC, a subsidiary of the Dutch healthcare giant, and Janz Corporation, a Massachusetts-based firm specializing in distributing medical imaging equipment like ultrasound machines and monitors. Janz claims Philips abruptly ended the deal in 2022 after Janz repeatedly flagged compliance issues with the MP2 patient monitor, a portable device used in ambulances and field settings. According to the complaint, Janz pressed for FDA certification to ensure the product met safety standards, but Philips allegedly responded by slashing Janz’s product lines, shrinking its sales territory, and pulling the plug on the contract months early—actions Janz says were pure payback.
Janz, founded in 1973 and employing about 50 people, alleges the termination not only cost it millions in projected revenue but also inflicted lasting reputational scars in a niche industry where trust and partnerships are everything. The suit seeks damages under breach of contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Massachusetts’ Chapter 93A consumer protection statute, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices and can triple damages if willful misconduct is proven. “Philips’ actions weren’t just a business decision—they were retaliatory, designed to punish Janz for doing the right thing,” Janz’s attorney, Jessica Feldman of Feldman & Feldman, said in a statement to Law.com, emphasizing the ruling’s green light for a jury to scrutinize the motives.
Philips, which countered with its own claims of Janz breaching the agreement through unauthorized sales tactics, pushed hard for dismissal. In its summary judgment motion, the company argued that the reseller contract explicitly barred “consequential damages”—a common clause meant to cap liability—including lost profits and reputational harm. Lawyers for Philips, from Ropes & Gray, contended the termination was routine and unrelated to Janz’s complaints, pointing to performance metrics and market shifts in the post-pandemic medical supply chain. But Judge Saylor wasn’t buying it wholesale. In a 25-page memorandum, he ruled that while the waiver might shield direct damages, it doesn’t automatically nix claims tied to bad-faith retaliation. “Under the circumstances, Janz would be able to recover for any of its consequential damages, including lost profits and reputational harm,” Saylor wrote, noting the timing of Philips’ moves—right after Janz’s compliance push—creates a triable issue of fact for jurors.
This isn’t Janz’s first rodeo with Philips; the two have sparred before over similar reseller disputes, but this Chapter 93A angle amps up the stakes. If a jury sides with Janz, treble damages could balloon a base award—potentially in the seven figures—into nine-figure territory, serving as a cautionary tale for Big Tech-like maneuvers in B2B healthcare deals. Legal experts see broader ripples: “This ruling reinforces that damage waivers aren’t ironclad shields against bad faith—especially when public safety’s on the line,” said commercial litigator Michael Boudett of Foley Hoag, who isn’t involved but tracks Mass. 93A cases.
For Philips, already navigating a thicket of product liability suits over its recalled CPAP machines (which have cost over $1 billion in settlements), this adds another front in its U.S. battles. A Philips spokesperson declined comment, citing ongoing litigation, but the company has vowed to appeal aspects of the decision if needed.
Trial is slated for early 2026, giving both sides time to marshal witnesses—from Janz execs on lost deals to Philips insiders on the termination rationale. As small suppliers like Janz fight for leverage against giants, Saylor’s call underscores a key truth: In contract wars, intent often trumps fine print, and juries get the final say.