Articles Posted in Mass Torts

Glucose monitor lawsuits are being filed by people who say continuous glucose monitoring systems failed when they needed them most. These lawsuits involve Dexcom G6, Dexcom G7, Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3, and Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors, apps, and receivers that allegedly provided inaccurate glucose readings, missed high- or low-glucose alerts, failed early, or failed to warn users that glucose data had stopped reporting.

This is no small complaint for someone with diabetes who relies on these monitors. A continuous glucose monitor can drive decisions about insulin, food, sleep, exercise, and emergency care. When a sensor falsely reports low glucose, a patient may eat carbohydrates or delay insulin. When a device misses a low alert, a patient may seize, lose consciousness, fall, or die. When a high glucose event is missed, the result can be prolonged hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, hospitalization, or worse.  Of course, a malfunctioning glucose monitor typically causes more minor injuries and inconveniences.

Our lawyers are looking for serious glucose monitor cases involving serious injury or death.

For sickle cell patients and families, Oxbryta was supposed to be a lifeline. Instead, it left many worse off–facing new health crises, hospitalizations, and in some cases, unthinkable loss. Now, Oxbryta lawsuits are uncovering what Pfizer knew and when it knew it.

Oxbryta is a prescription drug developed by Global Blood Therapeutics and later acquired by Pfizer. It was voluntarily recalled in September 2024 after new evidence revealed that it caused serious and potentially fatal complications, including vaso-occlusive crises and organ damage.

This page looks at Oxbryta lawsuits and their potential settlement value.

Oxbryta is a prescription drug made by Pfizer that was recalled in September 2024 after evidence revealed that it caused a number of very serious and potentially fatal health problems, including vaso-occlusive crisis and organ damage. Continue reading

Artificial intelligence has changed how people create, edit, and distribute images. But it has also opened a dangerous new frontier for exploitation and abuse. One of the most alarming developments is the rise of AI-generated sexual deepfakes: fake images or videos that can make it appear as though a real person was nude, sexualized, or involved in conduct that never happened.

The Grok deepfake lawsuit is one of the clearest early tests of whether AI companies can be held legally responsible when their tools generate or enable nonconsensual sexual images. These claims are not just about bad users. They are about product design, warnings, safeguards, profit, notice, and whether a company can release a powerful image-generation tool into the world and then blame victims when the predictable abuse occurs.

If your image, your child’s image, or someone you love was used in an AI-generated sexual deepfake, treat it like evidence in a serious civil case. Because it is. Screenshots help, but URLs, account names, timestamps, takedown requests, medical records, school records, employment records, and platform responses can all help. You do not need every piece of evidence to call, but the more we can preserve, the stronger the case may be.