Articles Posted in Featured Lawsuits

This page is about social media addiction lawsuits and who is eligible to bring a claim. Our lawyers also provide the latest news on social media class action lawsuits (including the ongoing trial in California).

The problem that led to social media lawsuits is that millions of people, too many of whom are children, are addicted to social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others. For these vulnerable users, social media addiction can be very harmful and lead to things like eating disorders, depression, and, in some cases, suicide.

Now, these companies are facing a wave of new social media lawsuits alleging that they knowingly designed the algorithms of their platforms to lure young people into harmful addictions.

Dupixent lawsuits are now moving forward in federal court for patients who allege the drug caused, accelerated, or unmasked cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and related T-cell lymphomas. On June 4, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the federal Dupixent cases in MDL No. 3180, In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, in the District of New Jersey before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi.

Dupixent, also known as dupilumab, is a biologic medication used to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, COPD, and a host of other inflammatory conditions. For many patients, Dupixent has provided real relief where other treatments failed. But for some patients, the story has been very different and not one they could have expected.

Now, lawsuits allege that Regeneron and Sanofi failed to warn doctors and patients that cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, often called CTCL, can mimic eczema and that Dupixent may mask, accelerate, or delay diagnosis of an underlying lymphoma. Plaintiffs argue that patients with adult-onset, atypical, or treatment-resistant dermatitis should have been warned to rule out lymphoma before starting Dupixent and to stop and investigate if symptoms changed during treatment.

This page is for women considering filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Our lawyers provide the latest updates, explain the litigation and settlement process, and offer our assessment of potential Depo-Provera settlement amounts.

Scientific research has found a strong association between prolonged use of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active drug in Depo-Provera, and intracranial meningioma. Women who received Depo-Provera injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma are filing lawsuits alleging that Pfizer and related companies failed to provide an adequate warning.

A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device used to manage chronic pain, most often involving the back or spine. These systems are marketed as a way to reduce pain by interrupting nerve signals before they reach the brain. But for a growing number of patients, the device fails to help. It introduces new and sometimes permanent problems, including electrical shocks, burning pain, infections, lead migration, hardware failure, and repeat surgeries to reposition or remove equipment that was supposed to improve quality of life.

This page explains spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and why they are being filed nationwide. It focuses on what patients are alleging, how these devices have failed in real-world use, and why many of these cases go beyond ordinary medical malpractice claims. The most serious lawsuits do not center on a single surgical mistake. They examine how modern spinal cord stimulators were designed, tested, and approved, and whether patients were ever adequately warned about the risks that now recur repeatedly in medical records and FDA reports.

Many people arrive here with a practical question in mind: what do spinal cord stimulator settlement amounts look like, and how does compensation get calculated when a device causes lasting harm? That question cannot be answered in isolation. Settlement amounts and payouts are driven by the full medical timeline, including the costs of repeat surgeries, explantation, and permanent loss of function, as well as the downstream consequences when a pain-management device leaves someone worse off than before it was implanted.