Lawsuit Information Center
This page is for victims considering filing a Depo Provera lawsuit. Our lawyers provide the latest updates on these claims, explain the litigation process, and predict Depo Provera settlement amounts.
A new scientific study has provided stunning evidence that using Depo-Provera can cause brain tumors. Women who used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a meningioma brain tumor can file a Depo Provera lawsuit seeking financial compensation. This new evidence is leading to a wave of Depo Provera lawsuits nationwide.
Our lawyers are speaking to over 100 women a week who used Depo Provera and have been diagnosed with meningioma. Our law firm is committed to this litigation and handling Depo Provera lawsuits for women who had at least two injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor. If you meet these criteria, contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Table of Contents
Depo Provera Lawsuit News and Updates for 2025
Our firm is committed to providing the latest news and updates on this new litigation. Here is what is happening right now:
Evidence Required to Participate in Depo Shot MDL
May 12, 2025
Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order No. 22 on May 6, 2025, outlining how deficiencies in plaintiffs’ Proof of Use and Injury submissions will be identified and addressed. All plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera MDL must complete a Use/Injury Questionnaire and submit supporting documentation through the BrownGreer MDL Centrality system. The order restates that plaintiffs must provide clear evidence that they were administered a qualifying Depo-Provera product and received a diagnosis of a qualifying meningioma. Submissions are limited to five pages per product and per injury, and must be bookmarked to identify the relevant pages.
BrownGreer will review the submissions and flag any deficiencies. Plaintiffs will have ten business days to cure deficiencies. If cured, BrownGreer will update the designation and notify counsel. If not cured, BrownGreer will report the failure to the Court, which will issue a Show Cause Order.
Judge Rodgers set a strict briefing schedule for any disputes, with page limits and the possibility of a hearing. Plaintiffs who do not comply may face dismissal, but the judge clearly gets that we will have challenges obtaining long-ago records. Judge Rodgers said the issue would be addressed once the scope was better understood, signaling flexibility for those acting in good faith. For now, plaintiffs should continue gathering what they can and follow the submission and formatting rules closely.
Filing the Best Lawsuits First
May 7, 2025: If you look at the complaints being filed in the Depo-Provera MDL (and we are looking at all of them), there are a lot of really strong claims. Lawyers are prioritizing the strongest cases first. These early filings often involve plaintiffs with extensive medical documentation, long-term use of the drug, and serious health outcomes like multiple meningiomas requiring invasive surgeries.
This approach makes sense. By leading with the most compelling cases, attorneys can establish a clear narrative about the risks associated with Depo-Provera and the alleged failure of manufacturers like Pfizer to provide adequate warnings. Strong initial cases can set a precedent, influence the direction of the litigation, and potentially lead to more favorable outcomes for all victims.
In multidistrict litigation, the early cases often serve as bellwethers, providing insight into how juries might respond to the evidence and arguments presented. By selecting the most robust cases for these early trials, plaintiffs’ attorneys are looking to build momentum and encourage settlements in other cases.
Meningoma Study Backs Up Roland Study
May 6, 2025: Researchers at the University of British Columbia have released a new safety study that is giving plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera brain tumor litigation additional momentum.
In a nested case-control study, researchers led by Connor Frey and Mahyar Etminan analyzed data from over 319,000 contraceptive users to compare the risk of intracranial meningioma in women who used Depo-Provera versus women who used a popular combination oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel, or EE-LNG)
The results were alarming. After controlling for disease latency, obesity, prior radiation, and previous contraceptive use, the study found that women who used Depo-Provera for more than one year had a 3.55-fold increased risk of developing a meningioma. The risk, as we have been saying all along, remained elevated after longer use. These findings translate into an estimated number needed to harm (NNH) of just 1,111, meaning one in every 1,111 women using Depo-Provera for three years could develop a brain tumor. The authors emphasized the biological plausibility of this link, citing the role of progesterone receptors in tumor cell proliferation, and criticized the FDA for failing to include meningioma risk on the U.S. label, unlike regulators in Europe.
The Depo-Provera MDL was triggered by the Roland we discuss at length below. That study found a 5.6-fold increased risk of meningioma with MPA use. But that study had limitations. It was based on only eight exposed cases, lacked an active comparator, and did not adjust for the long latency period associated with tumor development, leaving it open to defense attacks claiming reverse causation.
The new Frey study corrects all of those flaws. It uses a much larger sample size (212 cases and 848 controls), compares Depo-Provera to another active hormonal contraceptive (EE-LNG), and introduces lag periods of up to four years to account for disease latency. That methodological upgrade makes Frey’s findings far more robust and harder for defendants to undermine at Daubert or in future bellwether trials. In short, this study confirms what Roland suggested—and makes the case for warning label failures even stronger.
MDL Adds 2 New Cases In April
May 2, 2025: The Depo-Provera litigation picked up just two more cases over the past month, increasing the pending total from 287 to 289. This is the calm before the storm. The number of lawsuits will more than triple this summer. We will see if the state court claims gain traction. At last count, only three claims were filed in California state court, two in Alameda and one in Santa Clara.
New Utah Meningioma Lawsuit
April 28, 2025: In a new lawsuit, a Utah woman has joined the Depo-Provera MDL, alleging severe personal injury following years of use. The plaintiff, from West Jordan, Utah, claims she received Depo-Provera injections from 1996 to 2006 for contraception and heavy menstrual cycles, later developing a WHO Grade II-III intracranial meningioma at the age of 31.
After experiencing worsening headaches and migraines, she was diagnosed with a tumor in 2007 and underwent a craniotomy in March 2008. The plaintiff alleges she only recently, in late 2024, became aware of the connection between her use of Depo-Provera and her diagnosis, following new scientific publications. Critically, she asserts that had she been properly warned of the risks, she would have avoided Depo-Provera altogether — a key allegation for establishing causation in her claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
New FL Case Added To MDL
April 23, 2025: A newly filed complaint in the MDL adds a Florida plaintiff who alleges she developed a symptomatic intracranial meningioma—specifically affecting her hearing—after receiving Depo-Provera injections in the early 2000s. According to the complaint, the plaintiff began experiencing bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus in 2019, which prompted an MRI that revealed a brain tumor. The tumor was later linked to her prior use of Depo-Provera.
Dealing with the Generic Defendants
April 22, 2025: Judge Rodgers’ order yesterday provides some clarity on the status of the authorized generics Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco.
There has been disagreement regarding whether these authorized generics had sufficient involvement with the subject drug to warrant their continued participation in the proceedings. In an earlier order, the judge directed plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers and the authorized generics attorneys to confer and determine whether affidavits would be submitted to address the issue or whether depositions would be necessary.
The authorized generics chose to submit affidavits. The court accepted those affidavits and, as a result, has determined that an early deposition period will not be ordered. This allows the litigation to move forward without delay while preserving the right to challenge the sufficiency of the authorized generics’ involvement as discovery progresses.
The judge confirmed that the plaintiffs’ lawyers may be close to finalizing a stipulation with Prasco and Pfizer, which would result in Prasco’s dismissal from the litigation. But that is unlikely to happen with Greenstone or Viatris. The judge wants the parties to continue discussing a stipulation. But absent an agreement, the litigation against Greenstone and Viatris will proceed. These two defendants are expected to fully participate in the discovery process.
This order represents a significant step forward for the plaintiffs. While Prasco’s anticipated dismissal may narrow the field of authorized generics, Greenstone and Viatris remain firmly within the scope of the MDL, and they will be required to engage with discovery obligations. The issue of their liability and role in the marketing and distribution of the subject drug remains active, and the plaintiffs’ team is now positioned to pursue evidence accordingly.
New Kentucky Lawsuit
April 21, 2025: In a new lawsuit filed last week, a family from Bardstown, Kentucky, alleges that prolonged use of Depo-Provera caused the wife to develop an intracranial meningioma that required brain surgery and left her with lasting neurological complications. The complaint states she received DMPA injections from approximately 2001 to 2006 and began experiencing symptoms—headaches, balance issues, facial numbness—between 2013 and 2017. She was diagnosed with a meningioma in October 2022 and underwent brain surgery in January 2023 in Lexington, Kentucky.
As with other cases in this litigation, the suit alleges failure to warn, defective design, and innovator liability, emphasizing that U.S. labeling remains silent on the meningioma risk, despite years of warnings issued in the EU, Canada, and South Africa. The case will be transferred into the Depo-Provera MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Judge Stays on Top of Defendants
April 11, 2025: At the March Case Management Conference, Judge Rodgers ordered authorized generic drug defendants Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco to submit affidavits affirming their non-involvement with the subject drug. Case Management Order No. 2 gave them 14 days to do so and to file a Notice of Compliance. Prasco complied, but Greenstone and Viatris failed to meet the deadline, prompting the court to issue an Order to Show Cause. If you are a party in a litigation like this, you really do not want a deal with a show cause order.
In a new order on Thursday, the judge confirmed that Greenstone and Viatris have now provided their affidavits of non-involvement to Plaintiffs, as required. The judge has made it clear that she expects strict compliance with her orders and deadlines and is not hesitating to hold defendants accountable when they fall short. While it is encouraging to see Judge Rodgers taking a firm stance and pressing the defense to produce critical documents, this also serves as a reminder: plaintiffs’ counsel must remain equally diligent. We cannot afford to give the judge any reason to question our responsiveness or coordination. In a high-stakes MDL like this, credibility with the judge is a strategic asset, and it cuts both ways.
Get More Depo Provera Lawsuit Updates and News 👈
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dismissal of Authorized Generic Distributors: Parties discussed the dismissal of Greenstone and Prasco where Plaintiffs did not use their products during the relevant periods.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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 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. .
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 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 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 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 compared to non-users—goes beyond what is typically seen in comparable studies.
Depo Provera Lawsuit FAQs
Is Depo-Provera the Next Mass Tort That Will Explode in 2025?
Yes. The science linking Depo-Provera to meningioma is some of the strongest in pharmaceutical litigation. A BMJ study found that women using the birth control shot for over a year were 5.6 times more likely to develop a meningioma.
This is a huge deal because a 5.6 times increased risk is not just a small red flag. It is a flashing siren. In mass tort cases, having such clear, statistically significant evidence linking a drug to a serious condition makes it much easier for plaintiffs’ lawyers to prove their claims. It puts massive pressure on the defendants.
Although things have slowed down a bit as 2025 progresses, our lawyers are still seeing an avalanche of new cases. With the Depo-Provera class action lawsuit (MDL actually) now set up with a judge who will put the pedal to the metal, this litigation will move fast. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are putting more energy into the Depo-Provera litigation right now than any other mass tort in the country.
How Much Money Could a Depo-Provera Lawsuit Be Worth?
It is still early, and there is a long way to go before we can confidently predict Depo-Provera settlement payouts. But based on what we know, we can give you our best assessment.
Our attorneys estimate that individual settlements could range from $275,000 to over $1 million. The most severe cases—those involving multiple surgeries, permanent disabilities, or life-altering complications—could be worth even more. These are not minor injuries. We are talking about brain surgery, long-term cognitive issues, and a lifetime of medical monitoring.
Pfizer has the resources to fight, but the scale and seriousness of these claims put this litigation in high-value mass tort territory. When all is said and done, we predict the key question will not be whether these cases will settle—it will be when and how much. But we have some work to do first.
We flesh out the nuances of how our lawyers view Depo shot lawsuit settlement payouts below.
How Do We Know Pfizer Knew About the Brain Tumor Risk?
This is not a new problem. Studies linking Depo-Provera to meningioma go back to 1983, when researchers discovered that synthetic hormones could stimulate progesterone receptors in these tumors. That was a significant red flag—if anyone had bothered to look.
European regulators saw the warning signs and required Pfizer to add a meningioma warning. Canada followed suit. And in the United States? Still nothing.
Pfizer knew the risks. The science was there. But instead of updating the warning label, it kept the information quiet and the sales rolling. Because, as history has shown, profits tend to win when profits and public safety go head-to-head.
What’s Happening in Court? Where Are These Cases Filed?
Who Qualifies for a Depo-Provera Lawsuit?
If you received at least two injections of Depo-Provera and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor, you may have a strong legal claim. Our attorneys are currently investigating cases where this long-acting birth control shot may be linked to the development of meningiomas — tumors that grow in the lining of the brain and can cause serious neurological issues.
The most compelling cases involve women who used Depo-Provera for five years or more, but even women with shorter-term use may be eligible, especially if the tumor required surgery or caused symptoms like vision problems, seizures, or memory loss.
Meningiomas can be slow-growing, but they are dangerous. Many women were never warned about the risk, and the connection between Depo-Provera and these brain tumors is only now coming to light.
How Many Depo-Provera Lawsuits Are Expected?
Current estimates suggest there could be between 16,000 and 18,000 cases involving women diagnosed with progesterone receptor-positive meningiomas. When you consider the number of women who remain undiagnosed, the possibility of misattributed symptoms, and the many patients who have yet to connect their diagnosis to Depo-Provera, the true number of affected women might end up being significantly higher.
And while not all of these women will pursue legal action, the scale of the harm is becoming increasingly evident. We are seeing it firsthand. The sheer volume of calls our law firm receives from women nationwide paints a picture of a widespread public health issue, not a niche litigation. Many of these women are just now learning about the potential connection between Depo-Provera and their tumors, after years of unexplained symptoms.
The combination of high exposure numbers, the seriousness of the injury, and the lack of adequate warnings from the manufacturer suggests this litigation will grow quickly. Our lawyers expect this litigation to grow rapidly and substantially as more women come forward, medical providers become more aware of the link, and courts begin to address the claims. This is shaping up to be a significant fight for accountability—and a chance for thousands of women to seek justice and compensation.
How Can I File a Depo-Provera Lawsuit?
Depo-Provera
Depo-Provera is the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate. Often called the birth control shot, it is an injectable form of contraception for women. It is administered by injection (in the arm or butt) every three months and provides a highly effective, long-lasting option without the need for daily attention, as long as it is taken on schedule.
Pfizer has made a fortune from Depo Provera. A recent National Health Statistics Report from December 2023 indicates that nearly 24.5% of all sexually experienced women in the United States used Depo-Provera at some point between 2015 and 2019.
Depo-Provera’s journey to approval as a contraceptive involved decades of regulatory challenges and controversy. Initially developed by Upjohn (now part of Pfizer) in the 1950s, Depo-Provera—depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA)—was intended as an injectable treatment for endometrial and renal cancers.
Depo-Provera’s effectiveness as a contraceptive stems from its use of a high-dose synthetic hormone (progestin) that suppresses ovulation for extended periods. In 1967, Upjohn applied to the FDA to market the drug as a contraceptive, but the FDA rejected the application, citing concerns about potential cancer risks—a decision that foreshadowed the current brain tumor litigation. Undeterred, Upjohn submitted two additional applications in 1978 and 1983, both of which were also rejected due to ongoing safety concerns.
Before receiving FDA approval in the United States, Upjohn successfully introduced Depo Provera as a contraceptive in international markets, gaining approval in France as early as 1969. In the U.S., the drug sparked intense debate as data on its long-term effects continued to surface. After years of additional studies and increasing global acceptance, the FDA approved Depo Provera as a contraceptive in 1992.
Controversy persisted, especially around potential links to bone density loss and increased risks of certain cancers and neurological conditions, such as meningiomas. Upjohn merged with Swedish company Pharmacia in 1995, and Pfizer ultimately acquired Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2002, inheriting the regulatory responsibilities and liabilities associated with Depo-Provera.
Although Depo-Provera has been available in generic form for many years, most generic versions of Depo-Provera are actually still manufactured by Pfizer and then sold as generics by various companies.
How Depo Provera Works
Depo-Provera contains a special type of synthetic hormone called progestin. This hormone prevents pregnancy by blocking the release of eggs during ovulation and thickening cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. It also thickens the mucus lining of the cervix, which helps keep out sperm.
When administered consistently, Depo-Provera is over 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. This is why it is so wildly popular. Although primarily designed and approved as a contraceptive, it is also commonly prescribed for managing other gynecological conditions. For instance, Depo-Provera is frequently used to alleviate symptoms associated with endometriosis, providing patients relief from pain and discomfort.
Study Links Depo-Provera to Brain Tumors
In March 2024, a significant new scientific study was released, which found a clear link between the use of Depo-Provera and the development of a specific type of brain tumor called a meningioma. The new study was published in the renowned British Medical Journal.
The study investigated the relationship between the use of certain hormone medications, known as progestogens, and the risk of developing a type of brain tumor called meningioma. The research focused on a variety of progestogens, analyzing data from the French National Health Data System, which included women who had undergone surgery for meningioma in France.
The study included 108,366 women, with 18,061 women who had undergone surgery for meningioma. So this is a big study.
The findings were significant in a few areas:
- Long-term use (defined as more than one year) of specific progestogens, including medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and promegestone, was linked to an increased risk of developing meningiomas.
- Conversely, the study found no increased risk associated with other hormonal treatments such as progesterone, dydrogesterone, and some types of hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs).
Our lawyers review many studies in drug litigations. One of the big numbers is the odds ratio. The odds ratio represents the likelihood of developing a condition among users compared to non-users. For example, an odds ratio of 2 would mean that users are approximately twice as likely to develop the condition.
In this case, the study looked at medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), which is Depo-Provera. For MPA, nine cases were exposed out of 18,061 total cases (0.05%) vs. 11 controls were exposed out of 90,305 total controls (0.01%). That is a stunning odds ratio of 5.55. You rarely see a tort claim where there is a study as strong as this one.
Previous Studies Put Pfizer on Notice of a Problem
This was not the first study that suggested a risk of meningioma. In 1983—that’s right, 1983—a study published in the European Journal of Cancer & Clinical Oncology identified the presence of a high concentration of progesterone receptors in human meningioma cells. This study focused on the relationship between progesterone and meningioma growth by examining the concentration of hormone receptors, specifically progesterone receptors, in meningioma cells. The research demonstrated that meningioma cells possess a greater density of progesterone receptors compared to estrogen receptors.
The key finding of this study was that meningioma cells contained a higher density of progesterone receptors compared to estrogen receptors. This suggested that meningiomas, which are typically slow-growing brain tumors, could be influenced by progesterone levels. So more than 40 years ago, we had a biological explanation for how hormone-based drugs like Depo-Provera (which contains synthetic progesterone) might accelerate the growth of these tumors.
This was not lost on the authors. The researchers concluded that the high presence of progesterone receptors suggests that progesterone, rather than estrogen, might be a key driver in the growth of these tumors. So the study helps demonstrate that prolonged use of progesterone-based drugs like Depo Provera may significantly increase the risk of meningiomas should have been a concern as far back as 1983.
In 1991, a study published in the Journal of Neurosurgery explored the effects of mifepristone, an anti-progesterone agent, on meningiomas. Mifepristone competes with progesterone for binding to progesterone receptors, thereby inhibiting the action of progesterone on tumor cells.
The research found that mifepristone was effective in reducing the growth of meningiomas, which are brain tumors known to express a high density of progesterone receptors. By blocking progesterone from binding to its receptors, mifepristone hindered the hormone’s ability to stimulate tumor growth. This discovery provided compelling evidence that progesterone plays a central role in promoting the growth of meningiomas, especially in tumors sensitive to hormonal changes.
The study’s findings had significant clinical implications that should have sounded an alarm if anyone cared enough to pay attention. The research demonstrated that hormone-blocking treatments could serve as a viable therapeutic option for managing meningiomas. It was not just a theory—it was a breakthrough that could have fundamentally altered how these tumors were treated. This research highlighted the potential of anti-progesterone therapies like mifepristone to regress tumor growth, particularly in cases where progesterone was a contributing factor.
So if blocking progesterone could significantly reduce tumor growth, why were pharmaceutical companies not prioritizing thinking about what would happen if you increased progesterone? It seems pretty obvious synthetic progesterone found in Depo-Provera might stimulate meningioma development. This finding supports the argument—as does this 1990 study—that Depo Provera could cause or exacerbate meningiomas, strengthening the causation claim in these lawsuits.
Meningioma Brain Tumors
A meningioma is a type of brain tumor that develops in the protective membranes that cover the brain. Meningiomas are the most common type of brain tumor, accounting for 40% of all reported tumors in the brain.
Most meningiomas are non-cancerous, but a certain percentage can be cancerous. Meningiomas are usually slow-growing tumors and may exist in the brain for many years without symptoms before being diagnosed.
Meningiomas are categorized into three different grades:
- Grade I: A totally non-cancerous meningioma that grows very slowly, accounting for 8 out of 10 cases.
- Grade II: Non-cancerous but more rapidly growing, making treatment more difficult. Grade II meningiomas are atypical tumors that include subtypes like atypical, clear cell, and chordoid meningiomas, each exhibiting cellular changes that increase recurrence risk and may require both surgery and radiation for treatment. These are only about 15% of meningiomas but over 25% of the calls our lawyers have received so far have been Grade II meningioma brain tumors.
- Grade III: Malignant (cancerous) tumors that grow fast and aggressively, comprising less than 2% of cases.
Usually, meningiomas are first spotted with an MRI scan and may be found by accident, especially in patients who do not show symptoms. For these patients, doctors sometimes choose to keep an eye on the tumor instead of operating right away. But if surgery is needed, doctors aim to remove the whole tumor and part of the surrounding area to prevent it from coming back. Surgery is the best treatment for spinal meningiomas and usually has good outcomes with a low risk of the tumor coming back. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques have, thankfully, made the process safer and more effective.
Treatment for a symptomatic intracranial meningioma usually involves a highly invasive brain surgery known as a craniotomy, where a portion of the skull is removed to access the brain and meninges. Due to the tumor’s sensitive location, complete removal may be risky and technically challenging, often necessitating additional treatments such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy. Key risk factors include the presence of superficial meningiomas, moderate to severe peritumoral edema, involvement of critical peritumoral veins, and WHO grade II-III meningiomas.
Numerous studies have highlighted the likelihood of patients experiencing postoperative anxiety and depression, often leading to an increased use of sedatives and antidepressants during recovery. Additionally, surgery for intracranial meningioma may trigger seizures, necessitating epilepsy medications (which often come with their own risks). Meningiomas that are associated with the use of progesterone-based contraceptives typically occur at the skull base, making their removal more complex and heightening the risk of complications.
Given the complexity and severity of the treatment, as well as the potential for long-term neurological complications, we expect high settlement payouts for claims like this if this litigation is as successful as we expect. But we think, as we discuss further below, all three grades are strong personal injury claims.
Depo-Provera Product Liability Lawsuits
Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have a legal duty to ensure their products are reasonably safe and to provide clear warnings about known or foreseeable risks. Under the doctrine of strict liability for failure to warn, a manufacturer can be held liable even if the drug is not defective in design, so long as it failed to adequately inform patients and prescribers about serious side effects.
This duty is foundational. Physicians and patients depend on accurate safety information to weigh a drug’s benefits against its risks. When warnings are incomplete or absent, informed medical decision-making becomes impossible. A drug’s label must disclose all risks known or should have been known through reasonable diligence.
In the case of Depo-Provera, U.S. labeling failed to disclose the risk of meningioma, despite decades of scientific literature and regulatory warnings abroad pointing to this association. Lawsuits now pending will argue that Pfizer was aware—or certainly should have been—of the elevated risk, and that its decision not to update the label constitutes a clear failure to warn.
Had the company disclosed the meningioma risk, the likely consequence would have been a decline in sales. Patients would have had the opportunity to choose from safer contraceptive options, and healthcare providers would have been more cautious in prescribing Depo-Provera, particularly for long-term use. Greater transparency could have fundamentally changed the risk-benefit calculus for countless women.
Who Is Eligible to File a Depo Provera Lawsuit?
Our law firm is looking to bring a Depo-Provera lawsuit for women who received at least two injections of the Depo-Provera birth control shot and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma (or other type of brain tumor). These are our firm’s minimum eligibility criteria. We talk about our thinking on this eligibility criterion in our October 11 update above.
Women who used the Depo-Provera birth control shot for more extended periods will likely have stronger claims than those who used it only a few times. There is a dose-response relationship. But it is believed that receiving the shot at least twice is sufficient to establish a viable claim.
So far, we have had a few cases with a limited number of Depo injections. Most women calling our law office because they have a brain tumor have used the drug for an extended period.
Why Pfizer May Face Significant Liability in Depo-Provera Lawsuits
Pfizer’s potential liability in Depo-Provera lawsuits stems, as we have been saying, from the fact that it failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.
By law, drug manufacturers are supposed to provide clear warnings about any risks tied to their products. But when it comes to Depo-Provera, Pfizer left out the risk of meningiomas on the warning label, despite growing evidence linking long-term use of the shot to this serious condition. Patients need to trust that they’re getting the whole picture when making decisions about their health.
The link between progesterone and meningiomas has been recognized or should have been recognized for decades—especially by pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, which is responsible for conducting FDA-mandated post-market surveillance to monitor their products for potential safety concerns.
This failure to warn could expose Pfizer to significant financial liability in product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs will argue in Depo Provera meningioma lawsuits that if they had been informed about the tumor risk, they could have made a more informed decision about using the contraceptive. It is a pretty easy argument to make. So by never acting to update the label, it may be very easy to paint Pfizer as prioritizing profit over safety. If this argument lands with a jury, it will influence both jury perceptions and potential settlement amounts in the Depo shot litigation.
You have to remember how serious the injuries – and the fear of the injuries – are in this litigation. Ultimately, there are so many birth control options. Why pick the one that could cause you a brain tumor? Our lawyers believe this litigation will be different from other birth control lawsuit settlements, precisely because the injury is terrifying.
Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit Settlement Amounts
Any projection of settlement amounts for Depo Provera lawsuits should begin with some caveats. It is very early in this litigation to provide an accurate estimate of the potential settlement compensation for Depo-Provera brain tumor cases. At this point, we still do not yet know if the scientific evidence will be admissible. But our lawyers can still make an educated guess based on various assumptions and settlement payouts in similar tort cases involving comparable facts and injuries.
Depo-Provera Settlement Predictions
If the evidence supporting causation holds up in court, our lawyers estimate that Depo-Provera brain tumor cases involving significant complications could result in settlement payouts ranging from $275,000 to $500,000. This range reflects the varying degrees of severity associated with meningiomas, which can significantly impact the level of compensation awarded to plaintiffs.
The difference in symptoms, prognosis, and treatment options between a Grade I (non-cancerous) meningioma and a malignant Grade III meningioma is very significant. A Grade III meningioma is potentially life-threatening and very serious, while Grade I meningiomas are much less damaging and usually not life-threatening.
How many cases will fall in each of these categories? At this point, we have no idea. But our attorneys firmly believe that Grade III depo shot cases will have meaningful compensation. The trial value of those brain cancer lawsuits—the average settlement—could be in the tens of millions. If there is a global settlement, you will not see average payouts go that high…but these will be significant cases and some of them could settle for well over $1 million if this litigation plays out like we think it might.
Keep something else in mind. The defendant is Pfizer, a company worth over $150 billion. It is flush with COVID profits and can pay global settlements in the billions without breaking much of a sweat. This is a big deal. Our attorneys are involved with several mass tort lawsuits now, in which the question of how much the defendant can really afford to pay creeps into the conversation. We do not have this problem with Depo-Provera lawsuits against Pfizer.
Other Meningioma Lawsuits Give Us More Information on Settlement Compensation
A study of meningioma lawsuits provides insight into how lawyers and juries assess the severity of these injuries. The average payout for plaintiffs in these cases was over $3 million, with neurosurgery-related claims resulting in the highest settlements.
So, not to belabor the point, if lawyers like us can do their jobs and establish what appears to be a strong link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas, the potential damages awarded could also be substantial.
How Would a Depo-Provera Settlement Potentially Take Shape?
Who Are the Possible Defendants in a Depo Shot Lawsuit?
These are the key defendants in a Depo Provera meningioma lawsuit:
- Pfizer Inc.: The primary defendant, holding the New Drug Application (NDA) for Depo-Provera and the entity responsible for the drug’s labeling and safety information. Pfizer has maintained control over Depo-Provera’s production and labeling since acquiring Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2002. There is no question Pfizer is the target defendant. It has deep, deep pockets – especially now, as we talk about above, with all of the Covid vaccine cash it is sitting on – and it is the most responsible defendant.
- Viatris Inc.: Formed after the merger of Upjohn, Greenstone, and Mylan N.V. in 2020. Viatris is accused of participating in the distribution and sale of Depo-Provera and its “authorized generic” versions.
- Greenstone, LLC: A Pfizer subsidiary acting as an “authorized generic” distributor, allegedly producing and distributing Depo-Provera without brand labeling but chemically identical to the branded version.
- Prasco Labs: Another “authorized generic” distributor allegedly marketed Depo-Provera as a generic product without altering its chemical composition or labeling. Prasco obtained the exclusive license to distribute the authorized generic version of Depo-Provera—manufactured by Pfizer, the brand-name producer—in November 2020. This transition followed an FTC-mandated divestiture of Pfizer’s Greenstone subsidiary, which had previously handled the distribution of the authorized generic. Prasco asserts that numerous lawsuits in which it is named as a defendant involve Depo-Provera use that concluded before its involvement in distribution began in November 2020.
- Pharmacia & Upjohn: The original NDA holder for Depo-Provera, which was acquired by Pfizer. This entity is accused of failing to address safety issues with Depo-Provera before Pfizer’s acquisition.
Proof Needed for a Depo Provera Lawsuit
Individuals who qualify for a Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit will eventually need to prove two key facts to support their claim: (1) that they used the Depo-Provera birth control shot, and (2) they were diagnosed with meningioma or another type of brain tumor.
Use of Depo-Provera can be proven with medical records such as records from the prescribing doctor. Insurance billing records can also be used to prove that the plaintiff used the birth control shot. Plaintiffs can also use medical records to prove that they have been diagnosed with a meningioma.
Your Depo Provera attorney will help you put all of this together. Our job is to gather and present this evidence effectively, ensuring the strongest possible case. This involves conducting a thorough investigation, consulting medical experts, and identifying any gaps in the proof.
Depo Provera Statute of Limitations
In this litigation, plaintiffs should generally have more time than you might think to file a Depo Provera lawsuit. In most states, claims over ten years old will still be able to get around any concerns the statute of limitations. Why? The discovery rule and equitable tolling will play a key role.
The statute of limitations is the legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be filed. In product liability cases like those involving Depo Provera, the deadline generally begins when the injury occurs. However, many plaintiffs only discover the link between their symptoms and the drug after the initial injury, often due to delayed effects or lack of information about risks. Which is exactly what we have in the Depo shot litigation.
Discovery Rule
The discovery rule starts the time period for the statute of limitations when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered both the injury and its possible cause. In Depo Provera cases, plaintiffs will argue that they could not reasonably connect their use of the drug to meningioma until Pfizer puts a warning on the product, which still has not happened.
Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations
In addition to the discovery rule, equitable tolling can extend the time to file a lawsuit if a defendant’s misconduct or concealment delayed the plaintiff’s awareness of the cause of their injury. The plaintiffs’ lawsuits against Pfizer for Depo Provera will rely on equitable tolling by arguing that the company intentionally withheld information about the risks associated with the drug. Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer:
- Willfully withheld warnings and safety instructions from the public and healthcare providers regarding the potential dangers of long-term Depo Provera use, specifically the risk of intracranial meningiomas.
- Actively misrepresented Depo Provera as safe for its intended use, distributing labeling and promotional materials that downplayed or omitted safety risks, particularly regarding long-term use.
So plaintiffs’ attorneys will invoke equitable tolling based on Pfizer’s alleged actions, arguing that any statute of limitations should be paused due to deliberate concealment of material safety information, including knowledge from studies on progestin’s effect on meningiomas. Regulations like 21 C.F.R. § 201.80(e) and 21 C.F.R. § 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(A) require drug manufacturers to disclose risks and update warnings. Our lawsuits claim Pfizer failed to do so, contributing to delayed awareness among both patients and doctors.
Estoppel
Finally, due to Pfizer’s alleged intentional concealment of risks, plaintiffs may argue that Pfizer is estopped from using the statute of limitations as a defense. Plaintiffs contend that Pfizer’s omissions and misrepresentations about Depo Provera’s risks misled them and the medical community, preventing timely discovery of the connection between Depo Provera and meningioma. In essence, this legal doctrine allows victims’ lawyers to argue that Pfizer’s conduct invalidates any attempt to dismiss their claims based on statutory deadlines.
Contact Us About a Depo Provera Lawsuit
If you used Depo-Provera and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma or other type of brain tumor, contact our national product liability lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.