Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements

March 31, 2025: Proof of Product Use

Providing evidence of the use of Depo Provera will be central to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers have proposed a uniform, court-authorized process for collecting proof-of-use evidence in the MDL.

Plaintiffs are now required to complete a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire“ within 120 days of March 14, 2025 (or within 120 days of filing for newly added cases). To meet that requirement, this order compels third parties—including pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, insurance companies, and military medical providers—to provide records confirming whether a plaintiff was injected with Depo-Provera or its generic equivalent (DMPA), even when traditional medical records may no longer be available.

Many of the women in this litigation were injected with Depo-Provera years—sometimes decades—ago. In many cases, individual medical records have been lost, destroyed, or never reflected the specific manufacturer of the DMPA injection. But institutions often retain distribution-level data (e.g., purchase orders, shipping logs, insurance payment records) that we need to get to establish that a particular facility used Pfizer’s Depo Provera or a generic alternative during a given time window.

The order authorizes plaintiffs to use a court-approved HIPAA and HITECH-compliant release form, along with a medical provider identification form to request those records. If providers refuse to cooperate voluntarily, counsel may serve them with a subpoena incorporating the same authorization without having to jump through any additional hoops. The judge under this order would require third-party entities to comply with these subpoenas or releases, and they cannot impose facility-specific red tape, such as requiring their own forms, original signatures, or unreasonable processing fees that slow down the process.

March 25, 2025: MDL Moving Quickly

We told you Judge Rodgers would move quickly. If you are not used to mass torts, this timeline might not seem particularly fast, but trust us—it is. The Depo Provera MDL was just consolidated on February 7, and in just over a month, we already have a second case management conference, multiple pretrial orders in place, and a clear roadmap for discovery.

Judge Rodgers has wasted no time getting this litigation moving. The Court has appointed BrownGreer as the Data Administrator, Judge Herndon as Special Master, and a Common Benefit Special Master to oversee fees and expenses. The parties have made substantial progress in a short period, reaching agreements on direct filing, service, confidentiality, early proof of use and injury, and discovery protocols—all of which the Court has now formalized with minor modifications. One sticking point remains: how to handle deficiencies in plaintiffs’ initial submissions. The judge has directed the parties to work with BrownGreer and propose a uniform process by April 14.

Discovery has officially opened, and the scheduling order for the pilot cases is aggressive. Defendants must complete their document production on preemption and general causation by May 11, and preemption discovery wraps up by late July. By August, we will see summary judgment motions on preemption, and by early 2026, expert discovery on general causation will be completed. In short, Judge Rodgers has made it clear that this case will not drag on.

And that is exactly how you get to a settlement. The key to getting meaningful resolutions in mass tort litigation is simple: trial dates and forward momentum. Pfizer, like any major pharmaceutical company, will not put real money on the table for a global settlement unless it feels the heat of impending verdicts. That pressure only comes when cases are moving efficiently through discovery, preemption defenses are being resolved, and bellwether trials are firmly on the horizon.

Right now, Judge Rodgers is doing what is best for everyone: pushing this ball forward. This MDL is not bogged down in procedural delays or endless negotiations—discovery is moving fast, preemption motions are on a tight schedule, and the judge is making it clear that this litigation will not stall. Pfizer and the other defendants know that the closer they get to actual jury trials, the greater the risk they face. They have seen what happens when juries hold corporations accountable for failing to warn about dangerous drugs.

Pfizer has no reason to consider a global resolution without the credible threat of verdicts. But with the pace Judge Rodgers has set, that pressure will mount quickly. If history is any guide, the turning point will come when bellwether trials are scheduled, and Pfizer is forced to weigh the uncertainty of jury awards against the certainty of a structured settlement. That is why speed matters and why this early progress is so critical for plaintiffs.

March 20, 2025: Filing a Lawsuit Is Now Easier

A new court order has now cleared the way for women to file Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits directly in the MDL, eliminating the usual need for cases to be transferred from other federal courts.

Lawyers have been waiting for this ruling to confirm this standard MDL procedure. Direct filing streamlines the process and helps avoid unnecessary delays. Judge Rodgers also ruled that there is no need for a master complaint or short-form complaints, meaning that plaintiffs can move forward without the added procedural steps sometimes required of attorneys in mass tort litigation.

This decision is significant for both plaintiffs and attorneys. It accelerates the litigation process and allows new cases to be filed directly in the Northern District of Florida, regardless of where plaintiffs were diagnosed. Now it will be easier for women affected by Depo-Provera-related meningiomas to take action without unnecessary procedural obstacles. You can expect lawyers to proceed with filing claims now at a much faster pace.

March 19, 2025: Depo-Provera Litigation in State Courts

You will see many Depo-Provera lawsuits play out not just in federal court but also in state courts, especially in Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois. Judge Rodgers recently appointed liaison counsel for those states, anticipating just this. This is important because while federal courts handle the consolidated MDL, state courts operate separately and have their own legal systems. In many instances, plaintiffs have strategic reasons to pursue their cases in state court rather than joining the MDL.

State courts have procedural rules that make it easier to prove certain claims, and juries in certain jurisdictions are historically more sympathetic in pharmaceutical cases, which can lead to higher verdicts and settlements. We have seen this in Pennsylvania quite a bit lately where cases filed in Philadelphia get higher values than claims in the MDL. In some situations, state courts also move faster than the MDL, allowing plaintiffs to reach trial more quickly. Judge Rodgers as the MDL judge alleviates this issue a bit because she likes to move fast. But an MDL can only go so fast.

Ultimately, while the MDL will serve as the central hub for Depo-Provera litigation, Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois state courts will likely remain active and could get to trial faster than the MDL.

March 14, 2025: Direct Filing in the Depo Provera MDL

Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order No. 10, allowing Depo Provera MDL 3140 plaintiffs to file their cases directly in the MDL rather than jumping through the hoop of first filing in another federal district and waiting for transfer. This direct filing procedure is intended solely for pretrial coordination and consolidated discovery. Plaintiffs must identify their “Designated Forum”—the district where they would have filed initially their case—ensuring that jurisdictional considerations remain intact. Additionally, Depo Provera attorneys admitted pro hac vice in other MDL cases may file directly without needing local counsel, reducing procedural hurdles.

This order significantly improves efficiency in the litigation by eliminating delays associated with case transfers, ensuring that all pretrial matters are handled uniformly in a single court. It also clarifies that direct filing does not waive Lexecon rights, meaning cases will still be remanded to their original districts for trial unless parties agree otherwise. Furthermore, defendants waive personal jurisdiction objections for pretrial proceedings, but they retain the right to challenge jurisdiction later, preserving their legal defenses. Importantly, direct filing does not alter choice of law principles, meaning statutes of limitations and other legal considerations will still be determined based on the plaintiff’s original forum.

This streamlined approach is a standard practice in MDL class action lawsuits. Everyone wins, it is more efficient for plaintiffs, defendants, and the courts.

March 11, 2025: Litigation Gets Moving: 10 Key Developments

Judge Rodgers will demand that this litigation get rolling. Lawyers in the Depo Provera MDL are complying. Attorneys have already submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report outlining a proposed discovery plan and case management schedule. The report reflects significant progress in organizing the litigation, focusing on expediting discovery and ensuring a fair process for Plaintiffs alleging injuries from Depo-Provera, focusing, of course, on intracranial meningioma.

These are the top 10 areas of agreement:

1. Rule 26(f) Conference: The parties held a productive meeting on March 3, 2025, discussing critical issues such as discovery sequencing, document production, custodians, and ESI protocols. Plaintiffs provided early Rule 34 document requests to facilitate meaningful discovery discussions.
2. Direct Filing and Service: The parties agreed to allow direct filing of cases into the MDL. On the service of complaints, the parties decided to use BrownGreer’s MDL Centrality platform, an electronic system that simplifies document management and tracking.
3. Pilot Case Schedule: The Pilot Cases will act as a testing ground for the litigation, setting a roadmap for how things will unfold in the broader MDL. The parties agreed on deadlines for amended complaints, discovery, expert disclosures, and dispositive motions.
4. Protective Orders and Confidentiality: The parties agreed on a confidentiality order to protect sensitive information, including provisions for phased privilege review and clawback protections under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).
5. Threshold Proof of Use and Injury: Plaintiffs will complete a questionnaire to provide initial proof of Depo Provera use and meningioma injury. Defendants can challenge insufficient proof, but Plaintiffs may cure deficiencies before dismissal.
6. Document Production and ESI Protocol: Defendants outlined their IT infrastructure and custodial sources. Plaintiffs pushed for comprehensive production, including non-custodial sources, and proposed an ESI protocol.
7. Deposition Protocol: The parties agreed on a deposition schedule, with Plaintiffs securing 35 deposition days for Pfizer witnesses. Plaintiffs may videotape and conduct remote depositions as needed.
8. Dismissal of Authorized Generic Distributors: Parties discussed the dismissal of Greenstone and Prasco where Plaintiffs did not use their products during the relevant periods.
9. Science Day and Medical Monitoring: The parties agreed Science Day is unnecessary at this time. Medical monitoring class actions remain stayed pending common defense resolution.
10. Special Master and CPA Appointment: The parties agreed to appoint Special Master David Herndon and CPA Randall Sansom to assist with case management and common benefit fund oversight.

Will things start happening quickly from here? No, if you are not used to the pace of mass torts. But compared to most MDLs, this litigation will likely proceed at a furious pace.

March 1, 2025: Judge Rodgers’ Comment About Women Attorneys in Depo Shot Leadership Under Attack

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is facing a judicial misconduct complaint from the conservative group Article III Project after she issued an order emphasizing the need for female attorneys to be represented in leadership roles in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation. What is this about? Judge Rodgers stated in a February 23, 2025, order that “females should be adequately represented within leadership.”

The plaintiffs in this litigation are all women. This makes sense, right? But according to Article III Project, this constitutes “impermissible bias and judicial misconduct,” because it allegedly suggests that gender—not merit—should influence who leads the litigation. The group’s complaint, submitted to the Eleventh Circuit’s judicial conduct and disability review board, argues that Rodgers’ remarks violate judicial impartiality and amount to improper favoritism.

This is nothing short of ridiculous. Rodgers’ statement did not mandate female leadership, nor did it suggest that gender should be prioritized over qualifications—it simply called for a balanced and diverse leadership team reflective of the plaintiffs involved in the litigation. Encouraging diversity in legal leadership is hardly controversial, and judges nationwide have been making similar efforts in multidistrict litigation. This complaint attempts to manufacture a scandal where none exists, attacking a judge for promoting inclusivity while ignoring the reality that men have long dominated legal leadership.

March 1, 2025: First Depo Provera Case Management Order

Judge Rodgers has issued Case Management Order No. 1, outlining the initial steps for organizing the proceedings. During a February 21, 2025, case management conference, the Court selected five pilot cases to guide the litigation’s progress. The order mandates that all parties meet in person for a Rule 26 conference on March 3, 2025. The outcome of that meeting must be detailed in a Joint Rule 26 Report, which is due by March 7, 2025. A follow-up case management conference is scheduled for March 10, 2025, where the judge will discuss the Joint Rule 26 Report and next steps in the litigation. Additionally, the Court has invited submissions for a proposed Plaintiffs’ lawyers leadership slate, which must be filed by February 28, 2025. The judge will review the proposals before making a determination on leadership appointments.

February 19, 2025: New Study Confirms Meningioma Risk

A new study suggests that medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, significantly increases the risk of meningioma, a type of brain tumor. Researchers analyzed medical records from 2006 to 2020, comparing women who used MPA with those who used a common oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel, EE-LNG). The results showed that women who used MPA for more than one year had a 3.55 times higher risk of developing meningiomas compared to EE-LNG users.

This increased risk remained even for women who had used MPA for multiple years. The study controlled for factors like obesity, radiation exposure, and prior contraceptive use, reinforcing the association between MPA and meningiomas. The findings add to growing concerns about the safety of long-term MPA use, especially since meningiomas account for 40% of all brain tumors.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended adding a warning about meningioma to the drug’s label, but the FDA has yet to do so. This difference in regulatory action, as we talk more about below, raises questions about whether American patients are being adequately warned. Given these risks, women using Depo-Provera may want to consider alternative contraceptives and discuss their options with a healthcare provider.

February 18, 2025: Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

Judge Cannon will be the magistrate judge in this litigation. This magistrate worked with Judge Rodgers in the 3M earplug litigation that recently settled. Judge Cannon was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Florida in 2019.

February 17, 2025: Pretrial Order

Judge Rodgers has issued Pretrial Order No. 4 to set up rules for handling all lawsuits related to Depo-Provera. This order ensures that all cases follow the same process and are managed efficiently. The court has created a master docket, which is like a central filing system where most legal documents will be submitted. If a filing applies to all cases, it will be labeled accordingly. If it only applies to some instances, it must be filed in both the master docket and the specific individual case docket assigned to that lawsuit. The order also adjusts the rules for out-of-state attorneys who want to represent plaintiffs in these cases.

This is national litigation and most of the lawyers will not be barred in Florida. Typically, attorneys must provide a Certificate of Good Standing from their home state’s bar association. Judge Rodgers has waived this requirement, which is commonplace in MDLs. Also, and this is a nice gesture, if an attorney has already paid a pro hac vice fee (which is the fee for a lawyer to appear in court without being licensed in that state) in another district for a Depo-Provera case, they do not have to pay it again in Florida.

Attorneys who want to officially represent someone in the case must file a Notice of Appearance in each lawsuit they’re handling. Those already licensed in Florida’s Northern District don’t need special approval, but they must still notify the court.

Lastly, for serving legal documents (officially notifying defendants about the lawsuit), the court says the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be followed unless both sides agree on a different method. This order helps organize what is expected to be thousands of lawsuits about Depo-Provera. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are very amped up about this litigation, and we are excited to see it moving forward.

February 10, 2025: How Many Depo Provera Plaintiffs?

There was an estimate that came out today projecting the number of potential Depo-Provera meningioma cases, setting the projected range between 16,651 and 18,156 for progesterone receptor-positive cases, with a broader estimate spanning from 27,752 to 30,261 total cases within the 18-55 age demographic.

This interesting projection operates on the premise that women who used Depo-Provera within this timeframe and were subsequently diagnosed with meningioma would have a more straightforward burden of proof compared to those who used the drug earlier in life and developed meningioma decades later. The estimate aims to be conservative by focusing on cases where the causal link may be more immediately evident based on existing scientific data. Of course, litigation success depends on more than just biological plausibility—it requires clear and specific causation, which will be contested in court.

Many cases will face challenges related to individual risk factors, gaps in medical documentation and proof of use, and alternative explanations for tumor development. Yet this estimate may also be too low. If the number of calls our law firm is getting from victims is any indication, it is indeed too low.

We have been signing up new clients daily, even though we do not market other than provide information to victims online. So I wonder if this estimate fully accounts for delayed diagnoses or long-term users outside of the core demographic.

February 8, 2025: Big Surprise – The MDL Will Be in Florida

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated more than 70 lawsuits alleging that Pfizer failed to warn patients and doctors about the risk of brain tumors associated with Depo-Provera, assigning the litigation to the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The decision comes after a jurisdictional debate, with Pfizer and generics maker Prasco advocating for New York, while most plaintiffs preferred California, where most of the lawsuits had been filed. A smaller group pushed for Florida, arguing that it was geographically neutral and not in the home jurisdiction of any defendants.

We all expected the litigation to land in either New York or California. But the MDL Panel has a mind of its own. In its ruling, the JPML cited Judge Rodgers’ extensive experience with large-scale MDLs, including the recent 3M earplug litigation, which led to a $6 billion settlement.

The Panel is right about this. Judge Rodgers is widely recognized for her skill in handling complex litigation and her measured approach to plaintiffs and defendants. Her writing skills, organizational efficiency, and ability to manage large-scale cases have been praised in previous MDLs. The fact that she is nearing the conclusion of the massive 3M litigation likely made her an attractive choice, because she now presumably can oversee another major class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs and defendants are expected to get a fair shake with Judge Rodgers.

February 4, 2025: The European Double Standard

Almost all women taking Depo-Provera in the U.S. had no idea what was happening in Europe, where similar progestogens have already been restricted or outright pulled from the market due to their link to brain tumors. In France, regulators removed three high-dose progestogens from shelves before the now-famous Roland study even dropped—because, apparently, some countries do not need a neon sign flashing “brain tumors” to take action. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and UK regulators updated Depo-Provera’s label to warn about meningioma risks.

January 29, 2025: Filing the Best Depo Provera Lawsuits First

Attorneys are strategically filing the most compelling Depo-Provera lawsuits first, focusing on cases involving prolonged use, severe injuries, and well-documented medical histories. These lawsuits often center on women who received numerous injections over many years and subsequently developed multiple or large intracranial meningiomas, requiring invasive surgeries and long-term treatment. By prioritizing these high-impact birth control shot lawsuits, lawyers aim to highlight the serious risks associated with the birth control shot and the failure of Pfizer and other manufacturers to provide adequate warnings. These early lawsuits will likely shape the trajectory of the litigation, helping to establish liability and set the stage for future claims.

January 28, 2025: Is It All About the Money?

We discuss anticipated Depo-Provera settlement amounts in detail below. Some ask whether these cases are solely about the money victims may receive. The answer is both yes and no. These lawsuits serve a larger purpose: they help protect women by holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions. But you must remember that in civil cases like these, financial compensation is the only form of justice available to victims. The time for sympathy or apologies from Pfizer and the other defendants has long passed. From our perspective, our mission is clear: to maximize the settlement compensation our clients deserve for their suffering. So, yes, in some ways, it is about the money—but it is also about ensuring justice.

January 21, 2025: New Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit

A new Depo-Provera class action lawsuit for medical monitoring has been filed to address potential long-term health risks associated with this birth control shot. This lawsuit differs from more traditional personal injury or wrongful death claims that our lawyers are involved with in that it seeks to establish a medical monitoring program rather than pursue compensation for injuries or deaths that have already occurred.

This Depo-Provera meningioma class action focuses on creating a court-supervised medical monitoring program for individuals who used Depo-Provera for over a year and face an elevated risk of developing intracranial meningiomas, even though they have not yet been diagnosed with these brain tumors. It seeks proactive remedies, such as diagnostic screenings, early detection programs, and associated medical costs, rather than seeking damages for injuries already sustained.

In contrast, personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits our lawyers are handling revolve around women who have already suffered specific harm, such as physical injuries, neurological complications, or fatalities linked to Depo-Provera usage. These cases aim to recover compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages directly related to the injuries or deaths caused by Depo-Provera.

January 20, 2025: Pfizer’s Claim in the MDL

Pfizer claims that it sought to update Depo-Provera’s label to warn of the risk of meningiomas, but the FDA blocked the proposed update due to insufficient evidence. Pfizer is setting up its preemption defense—a legal argument asserting that federal regulatory decisions shield the company from liability under state law. Essentially, Pfizer argues that because the FDA allegedly overruled its attempt to warn, it cannot be held responsible for failing to include the warning.

However, preemption defenses in pharmaceutical product liability cases are rarely successful. Courts often scrutinize such claims closely, requiring clear and compelling evidence that the FDA explicitly prohibited a manufacturer from issuing a stronger warning. Pfizer has not produced all the information to support its claim. So our guess is that when Pfizer starts producing documents, it will not come out as clean as it now suggests. This would be a double-edged sword for Pfizer. Pfizer’s reliance on this defense may suggest an acknowledgment that Depo-Provera was linked to significant harm, such as brain tumors in women who used the product. Plaintiffs have more claims in this litigation than just failure to warn.

January 16, 2025: How Does Depo Provera Cause Meningioma?

Scientists believe that the link between Depo Provera and meningioma arises from its high levels of synthetic progestin, which mimics progesterone. Meningiomas are known to express hormone receptors for both progesterone and estrogen. When exposed to elevated hormone levels, these receptors can stimulate tumor growth. Research indicates that prolonged exposure to high doses of progesterone can over-activate these receptors, creating a biological environment conducive to tumor development. In essence, each injection of Depo Provera acts like adding fuel to a fire, compounding the risk with every dose.

The study that triggered this litigation shows a dose-response relationship: the more injections a woman receives, the higher her risk of developing a meningioma. This explains why cases involving just one injection are exceedingly rare. Many women got just one shot. But our lawyers are getting virtually no calls linking that level of exposure to a brain tumor. It is the cumulative effect of synthetic progestin exposure that makes long-term use particularly dangerous and underpins the growing wave of Depo birth control lawsuits. Many women who have used Depo Provera for over 15 years have reported symptoms consistent with meningioma diagnoses.

While anecdotal, these accounts align closely with scientific research, which mirrors patterns observed in other hormone-sensitive conditions, such as breast and uterine cancers. Prolonged hormone exposure is a well-established risk factor for these diseases, and the parallels to Depo Provera’s link to meningioma are difficult to ignore.

From a legal perspective, plaintiffs’ attorneys do not need to establish the exact biological mechanism behind the association. We just need to prove the strong connection between Depo Provera and meningiomas. But jurors want to know: How does this happen? This litigation is just getting started, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are already poised to answer that question for jurors.

January 10, 2025: How a Birth Control Shot Class Action Lawsuit Would Work

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) hearing to consider centralizing the growing number of lawsuits under MDL No. 314 will be in Miami, Florida, on January 30, 2025, in the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse. You can expect the Panel to approve the MDL. Even Pfizer agrees there needs to be an MDL to manage so many Depo Provera lawsuits. The remaining drama is whether the Depo shot meningioma lawsuits will be housed in New York or California, as we discuss more below.

How will a Depo Provera class action lawsuit work? Again, it is not definitionally a class action lawsuit. The Depo Provera litigation is set to proceed as an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, which is the preferred approach for handling large-scale pharmaceutical cases involving numerous plaintiffs and complex claims. Unlike a class action lawsuit, where one representative litigates on behalf of the entire group, an MDL consolidates cases for pre-trial proceedings under one federal judge while allowing each plaintiff to retain their individual claim. This approach is particularly well-suited for Pfizer Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits, where injuries like meningiomas linked to high-dose progestin vary significantly in severity and damages.

December 30, 2024: Pfizer Foreshadows Preemption Defense in JPML Response

Pfizer recently filed a response to the MDL petition, which pushed for New York as the better venue for the Depo Provera brain tumor MDL. In that response, however, Pfizer’s defense lawyers made a very deliberate point of laying out the outline of what will likely be an affirmative defense based on the federal preemption doctrine. The preemption defense is common in drug litigation. It basically involves the drug manufacturer arguing that they cannot be sued for failure to warn under state law, because changes to a drug warning label are governed by federal law and the FDA.

Based on the long preamble to the JPML filing, Pfizer is going to argue that the failure to warn claims should be dismissed because they asked the FDA for authorization to put a warning about meningioma on the Depo Provera warning label, but the FDA “rejected” that request. Preemption defenses are rarely successful in pharmaceutical injury litigation.

December 7, 2024: New Lawsuit in Pennsylvania State Court

As we have been saying, we expect a substantial Depo Provera docket in Philadelphia. On Thursday, a new Depo shot lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. A Philadelphia resident alleges that prolonged use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera caused her to develop a debilitating meningioma. The plaintiff, who began these injections as a teenager, claims that the manufacturers, including Pfizer and several associated companies, failed to adequately warn of the risks linked to the synthetic hormone medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.

The plaintiff, who underwent multiple brain surgeries and suffers from ongoing physical and cognitive impairments, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries. The lawsuit also includes claims against healthcare providers affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System for their alleged failure to disclose safer contraceptive alternatives.

December 2, 2024: California Woman Files New Depo Provera Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. Central District of California, a Santa Clarita, California woman has brought claims against Pfizer, Viatris, Greenstone, Prasco, Pharmacia & Upjohn, and Pharmacia for serious injuries allegedly caused by the Depo shot. The plaintiff alleges that her long-term use of the drug, which contains a high dose of synthetic progestin, led to the development of two intracranial meningiomas—tumors requiring invasive brain surgery.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants knew for decades about the risks of meningiomas associated with Depo Provera but failed to provide adequate warnings to physicians or patients in the United States, despite labels in the EU and Canada identifying these risks. The plaintiff claims she was administered approximately 76 injections over 19 years, which she believes substantially contributed to her injuries. Again, the Depo lawsuits you are seeing filed are the cases with long-term usage and this case is obviously no exception. She underwent complex surgical treatment to remove the tumors and continues to experience vision loss and other complications.

The complaint highlights several studies dating back to the 1980s that documented the relationship between progestin-based drugs and meningiomas, alleging that the defendants failed to investigate these risks or alert the medical community. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability, among other claims, and argues that the defendants could have mitigated risks by promoting safer alternatives like the lower-dose Depo-SubQ Provera 104 formulation.

November 30, 2024: Depo Provera Class Action MDL Sought in Northern California

We have been talking about where the Pfizer Depo Provera class action lawsuit might be. The focus has been on northern or central California. A motion has been filed requesting the coordination of over 20 lawsuits related to the contraceptive Depo-Provera in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The motion, submitted to the MDL Panel, seeks to consolidate the cases under one judge in California, citing the high number of cases already filed in the state and the unique innovator liability laws that allow plaintiffs to sue the brand-name manufacturer, Pfizer, even if they used the generic version of the drug.

The motion references 22 lawsuits, with 18 filed in California and six specifically in the Northern District. Other cases are pending, as we talk about below, in Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Nevada. The argument for consolidation also points to California as a key jurisdiction for the anticipated influx of thousands of cases, given the large number of women who have used Depo Provera and the recent study linking the drug to a 550% increased risk of intracranial meningiomas.

November 25, 2024: ACOG Disappoints

Last week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) addressed the study indicating that Depo-Provera users may face a 5.5-fold increased risk of developing meningioma compared to non-users.

Regrettably, ACOG’s communication downplays this significant finding by presenting the risk as “five out of 10,000 women using medroxyprogesterone acetate may develop meningioma compared to one out of 10,000 women not using the medication.” This framing minimizes the relative risk increase, potentially leading patients to underestimate the seriousness of the association. The study says you may be 5.5 times more likely to get a brain tumor. Why not just say that?

Additionally, ACOG’s characterization of meningiomas as “benign” neglects the severe physical, emotional, and financial burdens that these tumors can impose. There is nothing benign about the hardships endured by women calling our law firm daily living with the consequences of these growths.

Given the statistical significance of the study’s findings, ACOG should provide clear and comprehensive information that honestly reflects the concern. ACOG does good work, but things like this leave them open to attacks that their primary purpose is preventing malpractice lawsuits and protecting their pharmaceutical friends.

November 18, 2024: Why 150 Milligrams?

Depo-Provera is administered at a 150 mg dose via intramuscular injection, delivering a potent and prolonged release of progestin into the bloodstream. But why exactly was this dosage chosen? The 150 mg figure seems arbitrary, especially considering that lower-dose alternatives, like Depo-SubQ Provera 104, have been shown to be effective. If contraception can be achieved at a lower dose, why did Pfizer stick with such a high amount?

This raises critical questions that need to be addressed in pretrial discovery. Was this dose ever rigorously tested against lower doses in clinical trials to assess whether it was truly necessary? Or was the 150 mg dose simply a relic of early formulations that Pfizer never felt compelled to re-evaluate? Given the increasing number of lawsuits linking Depo-Provera to serious health risks, including brain tumors, it is crucial to determine whether this high dosage played a role in amplifying those risks. If there were safer alternatives, and Pfizer ignored them, that would be a significant piece of the liability puzzle in this litigation.

November 14, 2024: Projected Number of Depo-Provera Lawsuits

Depo Provera lawyers are attempting to determine the potential number of lawsuits that could arise. As we discuss in more detail below, this litigation was triggered by a study reporting that medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) increases the risk of meningioma by a statistically stunning 5.5 times.

So, let’s walk through this. Approximately 2-3 million prescriptions for Depo-Provera are filled annually in the United States. The overall incidence of meningioma in the US is estimated to be around 9.5 per 100,000 people per year.

If we assume that the increased risk applies uniformly to all Depo-Provera users, then for every 100,000 Depo-Provera users, approximately 52.25 cases of meningioma could occur each year. This figure is derived by applying the 5.5-fold increase in risk to the baseline incidence rate (9.5 per 100,000).

Is this calculation underestimating the real impact? Based on the number of victims already calling our attorneys to discuss filing a Depo-Provera compensation claim, this estimate might be low. Our lawyers have just begun speaking with affected individuals for over a month, and we have nearly 100 signed claims. That is an unscientific way to look at it. Still, this much volume suggests that either the calculated number of cases underrepresents the reality, or a lot of women are now making the connection between their symptoms and Depo-Provera use.

November 13, 2024: Pfizer’s Post-Market Surveillance

One of the central questions in this litigation will be whether Pfizer’s internal safety monitoring systems were sufficient to detect and respond to early reports linking Depo Provera to meningiomas. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will closely scrutinize Pfizer’s pharmacovigilance practices—its post-market surveillance efforts—to determine whether the company adequately identified and assessed brain tumor risks or whether it ignored red flags that warranted further investigation.

As discovery progresses, Depo Provera lawyers will really be drilling down to analyze Pfizer’s internal documents, communications, and adverse event reports. Did Pfizer entirely overlook the problem or, more likely, become aware of a potential link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas but fail to take appropriate action? It will be interesting to see whether Pfizer’s monitoring mechanisms were designed to detect long-term risks associated with synthetic progestins like medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo Provera. I think we know what the answer will be.

Bear in mind plaintiffs do not need to prove that Depo Provera should never have been brought to market or that the drug should be recalled. Liability will hinge on whether Pfizer either knew or should have known about a significant risk of meningiomas and failed to adequately warn physicians and patients. If evidence shows that Pfizer had sufficient data suggesting an increased brain tumor risk and still chose not to update its warning label or conduct further safety studies, it will be held accountable for failing to uphold its duty to ensure patient safety.

November 12, 2024: Depo Sub-Q Provera 104

There will be a lot of focus in this litigation on Depo Sub-Q Provera 104. This is a lower-dose version of the popular Depo-Provera contraceptive injection, designed to be administered subcutaneously rather than intramuscularly. It contains 104 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate, compared to the 150 mg dose in the traditional Depo-Provera, and is injected into the fatty layer just below the skin.

Depo Sub-Q Provera 104 is seemingly much safer. It likely carries a significantly lower brain tumor risk. Meningioma is associated with high cumulative doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate over time. Depo Sub-Q Provera 104 delivers a reduced dose (104 mg rather than 150 mg), which not only provides effective contraception but also exposes users to lower levels of synthetic progestin per injection.

Why wouldn’t Pfizer push for the better product? The most logical explanation is profit-driven motives. The original Depo-Provera has been well-established in the contraceptive market for years, with a strong user base and widespread recognition. Introducing a new formulation might not have been seen as necessary to maintain market share.

There were also risks. The product’s lower dosage and more convenient subcutaneous administration offer patients advantages. But these same features may extend the time between necessary doses, reducing repeat purchases, which risks shrinking revenue per patient over time.

Another fear may have been that the subcutaneous administration of Depo Sub-Q could require additional training for healthcare providers and patients. Ensuring proper usage and addressing potential concerns about self-administration may have posed logistical challenges that could impact sales.

You can bet this was a focus on in-house discussions within Pfizer. Depo Provera lawyers will have many questions about this when Pfizer corporate representatives are deposed, and there will be many internal documents that will flush this out.

November 7, 2024: Questions You Have About Filing a Depo Provera Lawsuit

A bit less formally, our lawyers answer the 12 most common questions women have about filing a Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuit

October 31, 2024 – European Warning

As we have talked about, Pfizer has implemented label changes for Depo-Provera in the European Union and the United Kingdom, along with potential updates in other regions.

The added cautionary language under “Special warnings and precautions for use” in the EU label states:

“Meningioma: Meningiomas have been reported following long-term administration of progestogens, including medroxyprogesterone acetate. Depo-Provera should be discontinued if a meningioma is diagnosed. Caution is advised when recommending Depo-Provera to patients with a history of meningioma.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys will, with good reason, continue to pound Pfizer over the head with this. The optics of warning there and not warning here are just awful. But the reality is this wording is vague and falls short of addressing the severity of the risk. The label merely suggests “caution” in prescribing Depo-Provera to patients with a history of meningioma without any strong warnings about the drug’s potential to cause these tumors, even in those without such a history. It advises discontinuation only after diagnosis, disregarding the likelihood of irreversible harm by that stage.

Pfizer needs a stronger, more explicit warning on this product everywhere that provides a real warning of the risk of meningioma. If it chooses to give this watered-down warning in the U.S.—and there will be a warning, eventually—plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers will correctly view it as no warning at all.

October 30, 2024: Depo Provera Design Defect Claim

The core of every Depo Provera lawsuit is Pfizer’s failure to warn. But there is also a strong strict liability design defect claim in this litigation.

A strict liability design defect claim asserts that a product was inherently dangerous due to its design, making it unreasonably unsafe for consumers even if the manufacturer exercised care during production. In the Depo Provera litigation, the claim is that the drug’s design—particularly the high dose of progestin—was unreasonably dangerous, posing a risk of serious health issues like intracranial meningioma.

Could the product be made safer? Yes, Pfizer has already made it safer. Depo-SubQ Provera 104 uses a lower dose and can be injected subcutaneously. Pfizer allegedly promoted the high-dose version, neglecting to warn the medical community and consumers about potential risks.

So a key claim in every Depo Provera suit will be that Pfizer should have either promoted the subcutaneous option or redesigned the original formula to mitigate the risks. Moreover, Depo Provera lawyers will claim that Pfizer avoided marketing the safer alternative to maintain its market share and did not fully disclose these safety concerns. Thus, under strict liability for a design defect, the plaintiffs argue that Pfizer is responsible for the injuries caused by Depo Provera due to the inherent risks associated with its design.

These strict liability design defect claims for Depo-Provera are especially compelling because the safer alternative is not a competitor’s product. It came from Pfizer itself. Usually, proving that a safer design exists in a design defect case is tough. It often means comparing apples and oranges across different manufacturers.

But here, Pfizer had already developed and received approval for Depo-SubQ Provera 104, a version with a lower dose that significantly reduces risks of severe side effects, like intracranial meningioma. This internal comparison within Pfizer’s own lineup underscores the questions: why wasn’t the safer alternative the standard choice made for the generic and how can Pfizer feign protection as a generic manufacturer?

October 29, 2024: When to File for a Depo Provera Class Action?

Why haven’t lawyers filed for a Depo Provera class action lawsuit? The main reason lawyers have not filed for a Depo Provera class action—more technically, as we discuss below, a multidistrict litigation (MDL)—is mainly due to the current lack of “numerosity” in active claims.

Right now, there are only three Depo Provera lawsuits in federal court. For an MDL to be established, there must be a certain critical mass, or numerosity, of similar lawsuits filed nationwide. While more plaintiffs are sure to emerge, perhaps thousands, this is not necessarily enough to persuade the MDL Panel that decides these things.

As we talk about below, our lawyers expect there will be a good number of Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits filed in state court in Pennsylvania.

October 27, 2024: Depo Provera Attorney Advertisement Underscores the High Hopes for Depo Provera Settlements

If you are a woman between 18 and 55 and on Facebook, it is hard to imagine you have not seen an advertisement for Depo Provera lawsuits. (Our law firm does not advertise. Our clients are lawyer referrals, word-of-mouth, and this website.)

As we discuss below, the average verdict or settlement payout in a meningioma lawsuit is $3 million. The possible number of lawsuits, the ability of Pfizer to pay settlement and jury awards, and the compensation successful cases may bring are attracting many attorneys to this litigation.

October 21, 2024: When Will a Meningioma Warning Be Added?

The absence of a meningioma warning on the U.S. label of Depo-Provera, despite its inclusion on European labels, raises real concerns regarding patient safety and transparency. In Europe, Pfizer has proactively updated Depo-Provera’s label to reflect the potential risk of meningiomas, likely in response to emerging research and regulatory pressure. In the United States, the FDA has yet to mandate a similar warning—and Pfizer has not sought one—even though studies linking hormonal contraceptives to meningioma risk have been circulating for years, even before this new study.

The optics are terrible for Pfizer. The FDA should require a warning on Depo Provera today.

October 11, 2024: Two Shots or Four?

Depo-Provera lawyers are debating the criteria for determining eligibility in meningioma lawsuits, specifically the number of injections required to establish a causal relationship. While evidence points to a dose-response relationship between Depo-Provera use and a heightened risk of meningioma, the exact threshold for this risk remains unsettled.

Our law firm has set the criteria at two shots for two main reasons. First, the science does not definitively establish the minimum number of injections that could trigger meningioma development. With such uncertainty, it is safer to err on the side of allowing more women the opportunity to seek justice.

More importantly, the pivotal study indicates a risk ratio of 5.5, translating to a 450% increase in risk—an alarming figure that far exceeds typical risk increases in similar studies. Considering this elevated risk, if a woman developed meningioma after just two shots of Depo-Provera and lacks other significant risk factors—such as radiation exposure or rare genetic conditions associated with meningioma—it would be like handing a jury a jigsaw puzzle with only one piece missing. The conclusion they will almost certainly draw is that Depo-Provera is the missing piece causing the tumor.

October 8, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuit Statute of Limitations

Many women contacting us are worried about the deadline for filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Lawyers are always concerned about the statute of limitations. But there should not be many statute of limitations issues in this case for women acting now. There are two primary reasons why the statute of limitations should not be a significant concern.

The first reason is the discovery rule, which every state has, in varying forms. The discovery rule is a legal principle that delays the start of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, about both the injury and its connection to the defendant’s conduct.

In the context of Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits, women who developed brain tumors could not have reasonably suspected the link between their condition and Depo-Provera until recent scientific studies were published. Before these studies, neither the public nor the medical community widely recognized that Depo-Provera could be associated with brain tumors, making it unreasonable for plaintiffs to connect their diagnosis to the drug years earlier.

The second reason is the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. We can convincingly argue that the defendants—manufacturers, and marketers of the Depo shot—willfully, intentionally, and deliberately concealed the known risks associated with the long-term use of Depo-Provera.

By asserting that the defendants actively hid safety-related warnings, manipulated product labeling, and intentionally withheld crucial information regarding the dangers of intracranial meningiomas, fraudulent concealment allows the statute of limitations to be “tolled” or paused because the defendants’ deceptive actions prevented the plaintiffs from knowing about their potential claims.

October 6, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuits in Philadelphia

You are likely to see a large number of lawsuits from all over the country filed in state court in Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Why would a Texas, New York, or California case be filed in Pennsylvania state court?

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is known for its experienced judiciary’s handling of complex mass tort and product liability cases, making it an attractive venue for plaintiffs’ attorneys. The court’s Complex Litigation Center (CLC) is widely regarded for its efficient management of large caseloads and has historically rendered significant verdicts and settlements in favor of plaintiffs.

Why are plaintiffs from other jurisdictions allowed to file in Pennsylvania? One of the defendants in the litigation, Viatris Inc., has its headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, which allows plaintiffs to sue all defendants in state court in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has procedural laws that provide some flexibility in consolidating cases, which can streamline litigation and make it more cost-effective for plaintiffs. Additionally, the state’s rules on expert testimony are often considered more favorable to plaintiffs, making it easier to present scientific evidence that might be challenged under stricter standards in federal court (although that does not appear to be a concern in this litigation).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Philadelphia juries are often regarded as being particularly empathetic and fair to individuals who have suffered harm due to corporate negligence. Known for their willingness to hold large companies accountable, these juries tend to take a hard look at the impact on victims, making the city an attractive venue for plaintiffs seeking justice against powerful corporate defendants.

Our lawyers have seen time and time again how this reputation can significantly influence the dynamics of litigation and settlement discussions. Pfizer and the other defendants may see the risk of facing a jury trial in Philadelphia as a compelling reason to make fair Depo Provera settlement offers.

So, ultimately, what our attorneys think you will see is a Depo Provera federal class action-type lawsuit (an MDL) and mini-class actions in various state courts around the country.

October 1, 2024: Lawyers Seek Compensation For Generic Depo-Provera Users

Can you sue for failure to warn if you were taking generic Depo Provera? Usually, the answer to this question is no. But plaintiffs’ lawyers have an argument around this problem to seek compensation for victims who used a generic.

The allegation is that Pfizer used its subsidiaries, Greenstone and Prasco, to market an “authorized generic” version of the drug. This generic is chemically identical to the brand-name product but sold under a generic label.

By doing so, Pfizer maintained market dominance and revenue while limiting liability for labeling and safety warnings, thus exposing consumers to the same risks without adequate disclosure. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will contend that even if an “authorized generic” is marketed by a subsidiary, Pfizer still has a duty to ensure that all versions of the drug, branded or not, contain appropriate warnings about known risks, such as the increased risk of meningiomas.

So these lawsuits will contend that Pfizer failed to include critical warnings about the risk of meningiomas on Depo Provera’s label, and this omission extended to the authorized generics distributed by Greenstone and Prasco. It certainly follows that Pfizer should be liable for these failures because the authorized generic was essentially the same product under Pfizer’s control.

September 25, 2024: Will There Be a Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit?

Most likely, this litigation will be consolidated in an MDL. Why not a class action lawsuit?

A Depo-Provera class action lawsuit would combine all plaintiffs into a single, unified case, with one trial or settlement covering everyone. Any compensation would be divided equally among participants, regardless of individual circumstances. That does not work because the injuries women have suffered are so different.

An MDL works differently, allowing each plaintiff to retain their individual case, meaning their injuries and damages are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In an MDL, pretrial proceedings are consolidated to make the process more efficient, but the cases remain separate. Individual cases still proceed to trial if a global settlement is not reached. This structure just makes more sense in a case like this.

In addition to federal MDLs, state MDLs can also be created when enough cases are filed within a single state court system. State MDLs follow a similar process by grouping related cases under one judge for pretrial proceedings, but they remain within the jurisdiction of state courts rather than federal ones. This can happen in the Depo Provera litigation in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, where some Depo Provera corporate defendants reside so they can be sued there. In large pharmaceutical litigations like Depo-Provera, it’s common to see parallel MDLs at both the state and federal levels, each working toward a global resolution or individual trial outcomes.

September 22, 2024: Why Pfizer Should Be Responsible for the Generics It Owns

Many authorized generic manufacturers involved in the Depo-Provera litigation—Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco—are directly or indirectly connected to Pfizer, giving the pharmaceutical giant significant control over how these generics are manufactured, marketed, and labeled.

Greenstone was founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer and operated under Pfizer’s infrastructure, with its personnel reporting directly to Pfizer. Even after Greenstone was merged into Viatris through a spinoff in 2020, Pfizer retained a reported 57% ownership stake in Viatris, making it the majority stakeholder. Prasco, another authorized generic distributor, also relied heavily on Pfizer’s manufacturing and product pipeline to market “generic” versions of Depo-Provera.

Because Pfizer maintained control over these entities and their operations, it is reasonable to hold Pfizer responsible for any failures to warn associated with these products. Pfizer’s influence extends beyond manufacturing. These generics did not simply replicate the original drug. They operated under Pfizer’s direct oversight, using identical formulations and infrastructure.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers can effectively argue that because these companies acted as extensions of Pfizer’s business, any failure to update the original Depo-Provera label with appropriate warnings about meningiomas also applies to the generics. Pfizer should not pretend it could not change the warning for the generics when it could change the warning for Depo Provera. It would be the height of insanity to let Pfizer shift liability to its subsidiaries or partners when it actively benefited from and de facto controlled their operations, creating a coordinated distribution network that profited handsomely from misleading labels across all product versions.

April 25, 2024: Pfizer Releases Public Statement Addressing Links To Meningioma Brain Tumors

The maker of Depo-Provera, Pfizer, released a public statement addressing the new BMJ study linking the birth control shot to meningioma brain tumors. Among other things, the statement from Pfizer indicated: “We are aware of this potential risk associated with long-term use of progestogens and, in collaboration with regulatory agencies, are in the process of updating product labels and patient information leaflets with appropriate wording.”

March 29, 2024: British Medical Journal Finds Link Between Prolonged Use Of Depo-Provera And Increased Risk Of Brain Tumors

A study published in the British Medical Journal found that prolonged use of Depo-Provera causes a significant increase in the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors. The study found that women who used Depo-Provera were more than 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with meningiomas compared to women who never used the birth control shot.

This study’s findings will jumpstart the Depo-Provera litigation. This is unusually strong scientific evidence linking the drug to meningioma. The risk ratio of 5.5—indicating that Depo-Provera users are more than five times as likely to develop meningiomas