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, we will make the process of signing up for this litigation easy for you. Contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Table of Contents
➤ Evidence Linking Depo Provera to Brain Tumors
➤ Projected Depo Provera Settlement Amounts
Depo Provera Lawsuit News and Updates for 2026
Our lawyers have been in the Depo Provera litigation from the beginning, and we are committed to providing victims with clear and timely updates. We expect this Depo Provera lawsuit to move relatively quickly through the MDL compared to other pharmaceutical injury cases. There is strong science, active federal coordination, and growing interest from plaintiffs’ attorneys nationwide.
This litigation will have both an MDL class action and a parallel track of state court actions. If you are following the Depo shot lawsuit or wondering how it might affect you personally, we will help you stay informed. Early bellwether trials, rulings on motions, such as Pfizer’s preemption defense, and proof-of-use/injury deadlines all shape how these cases evolve and ultimately affect Depo-Provera settlement values.
Why 150 Milligrams?
February 27, 2025
This litigation continues to heat up. There were 23 birth control shot lawsuits filed yesterday alone.
Why 150 Milligrams?
February 25, 2025
Depo-Provera is delivered in a 150 mg intramuscular injection, a dose that floods the bloodstream with synthetic progestin for months at a time. But was that much hormone ever actually necessary? Lower-dose versions like Depo-SubQ Provera 104 achieve the same contraceptive effect with far less drug. So why has Pfizer clung to the higher 150 mg formula for decades?
That question goes to the heart of the emerging litigation. Plaintiffs allege that this unnecessarily high dosage may have elevated the risk of brain tumors, particularly intracranial meningiomas. Pretrial discovery will need to dig into whether Pfizer ever re-examined this dose in light of newer science or whether 150 mg persisted out of convenience, inertia, or profit. If there were safer alternatives available and Pfizer opted to ignore them, jurors will be asked to consider whether that choice put women at unnecessary risk. The number 150 may end up carrying far more weight than just a label on a vial.
What makes the 150 mg dose even more troubling is that Depo-Provera is not like a daily birth control pill that comes and goes. It is more like setting a hormonal thermostat to high and then sealing the control panel shut for three months. Once injected, medroxyprogesterone acetate floods the system and maintains sustained levels that taper only slowly over time.
And if lower doses can prevent pregnancy just as effectively, why keep using the equivalent of a sledgehammer when a smaller tool does the job? That question becomes even more pressing in light of what we know about meningiomas. These tumors are hormone sensitive. They express progesterone receptors. They can grow in response to progestin exposure. The litigation will focus on whether Pfizer knowingly kept the dial turned up to 150 mg long after science suggested that less might have been enough.
Delaware Depo Provera Docket Growing
February 21, 2026
We are still seeing more lawsuits being filed outside of the MDL. In one new meningioma lawsuit filed in Delaware state court, a woman from Brownsville, Tennessee, alleges that she developed an intracranial meningioma after using the injectable contraceptive Depo Provera.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was prescribed and administered the Depo shot from approximately 2019 to 2021. On July 1, 2022, she was diagnosed with a meningioma.
She claims that as a result of the tumor and subsequent treatment, she has suffered significant bodily injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of earnings and earning capacity, and substantial past and future medical expenses.
Keeping Documents Under Seal
February 20, 2026
The plaintiffs and Pfizer have jointly submitted a consent motion asking the court for permission to file certain materials under seal.
The motion relates to plaintiffs’ supplemental brief opposing Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption. Plaintiffs seek to file an unredacted version of that brief, along with an internal October 15, 2025 email concerning Depo-Provera labeling, under seal because the documents contain confidential business information. Pfizer consents to the request.
This means there is no dispute between the parties over sealing. They agree, although the victim might not, that the materials should not be publicly accessible. The court must still decide whether “good cause” exists to seal them.
Updated Case Count
February 17, 2026
There are now more than 2,100 Depo Provera suits in the MDL.
Conference Postponed
February 9, 2026
Because of a scheduling conflict, Judge Rodgers today cancelled the February 20, 2026, Case Management Conference. The Eleventh CMC will now take place on March 6, 2026. As a result of this change, the March 13, 2026 CMC has also been cancelled.
The parties must submit aJoint Agenda Letter no later than 12:00 p.m. CT on Monday, March 2, 2026, to the MDL court, as well as to the courts in New York, Delaware, and California. All of those states have significant Depo Provera dockets.
Preemption Ruling Delayed with New Depo Provera Warning
January 30, 2026
On January 27, 2026, Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered Pretrial Order No. 30 in the Depo-Provera MDL. This is a procedural issue, but the implications extend beyond it. The court made clear that its upcoming rulings on federal preemption and expert causation will apply across the entire MDL, not just the five pilot cases. In other words, whatever happens next will not be a dress rehearsal. This is no good for plaintiffs, but with preemption being the issue, it really does not matter.
This is the court putting structure around the two defenses Pfizer cares about most: preemption and “you do not have viable causation experts.” The order confirms that if Pfizer wins on preemption, the MDL essentially ends. But if Pfizer loses, the case moves directly into Rule 702 hearings on general causation, already scheduled for late May 2026. There is no wandering detour here, which is what you get from Judge Rodgers. The track is laid, the switches are locked, and the train is moving.
What makes this order especially notable is the timing. After oral argument on preemption, the FDA approved Pfizer’s request to add a meningioma warning to Depo-Provera’s U.S. label in December 2025. That development blew a hole straight through Pfizer’s clean preemption narrative, and Judge Rodgers immediately ordered supplemental briefing to address it. Plaintiffs get until February 20 to respond, and individual plaintiffs are expressly allowed to file their own briefs if they have materially different arguments. That is not window dressing. That is a judge signaling she wants the best arguments on the table before she rules.
Attorneys Meet with Judge Later This Month
January 18, 2026
The next multidistrict litigation Case Management Conference is scheduled for Friday, January 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. Parties must submit their Joint Agenda Letter in advance of the conference.
Cases Total 1,775
January 6, 2026
The Depo-Provera brain cancer MDL has 1,752 pending cases, with 1,775 total cases, as of January 2026.
We do not know how many state court cases there are. New York and Delaware have the most. But the core of this litigation is the MDL.
GET MORE Depo Provera Lawsuit Updates and News 👈
FDA Approves New Warning Label
December 18, 2025
The FDA has now formally approved the addition of new language to the warning label for Depo-Provera regarding the risk of meningioma brain tumors. The new label will now contain the following language: “Cases of meningiomas have been reported following repeated administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, primarily with long-term use. Monitor patients on Depo-Provera CI for signs and symptoms of meningioma. Discontinue Depo-Provera CI if a meningioma is diagnosed.” This new language was added and approved at the request of Pfizer, partly in an effort to cap future liability.
Significant Jump in New Cases Added to MDL in November
December 9, 2025
The Depo-Provera brain cancer MDL is starting to gain significant momentum. 245 new cases were added to the MDL during the month of November. There are now 1,470 pending cases.
Only 3 New Cases Added to MDL
November 4, 2025
Just 3 new cases were added to the Depo Provera brain tumor MDL during the month of October. That brings the total pending case count in the MDL up to 1,225.
MDL Case Count
October 2, 2025
There are now over 1,222 lawsuits in the MDL.
Preemption Hearing
September 30, 2025
Yesterday was the pivotal hearing in the Depo-Provera litigation. Judge Rodgers heard argument on Pfizer’s bid for summary judgment. The company pressed its case that federal preemption bars failure-to-warn claims, while plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Pfizer withheld critical evidence from the FDA, undermining any shield.
Judge Rodgers gave little indication of how she will ultimately rule. She asked pointed questions of both sides but offered no clear signals from the bench. Still, the hearing went well, and plaintiffs’ lawyers left the courtroom encouraged, believing that Pfizer’s preemption argument is unlikely to end the federal litigation.
There was also a 90-minute case management conference yesterday with no major developments.
The Big Hearing Is Monday
September 26, 2025
On Monday, Judge Rodgers will devote the afternoon to the most consequential question in the Depo-Provera litigation: whether the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims can proceed or whether they are blocked by federal preemption. The hearing comes before Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, which argues that the FDA’s rejection of proposed label changes shields the company from liability.
Each side will have 75 minutes to present its arguments. Pfizer will contend that federal law tied its hands on adding brain tumor warnings without FDA approval, while plaintiffs will argue that the company misrepresented or withheld critical evidence in its label submission, rendering the preemption defense hollow. Judge Rodgers has set aside 2.5 hours after the morning case management conference for these arguments, underscoring the pivotal nature of this ruling.
Monday’s hearing will set the course for the thousands of women awaiting their day in court. Although Judge Rodgers is unlikely to rule from the bench, the hearing may provide valuable tea leaves as to where she is leaning. Her questions and tone during the arguments could give both sides their first real indication of how she views Pfizer’s preemption defense.
Ultimately, if the motion is denied, as we both hope and expect, the litigation will proceed with five pilot bellwether cases; if it is granted, the plaintiffs’ stronger argument would never reach a jury in federal court (assuming an appeal is unsuccessful).
New Cleveland Clinic Study
September 3, 2025
The new Cleveland Clinic study in JAMA Neurology has changed the calculus in the Depo-Provera litigation. Looking at more than ten million women across sixty-eight health care systems, researchers found that long-term users of the birth control shot, especially those who started after age thirty-one or stayed on it more than four years, face a sharply higher risk of intracranial meningioma. The relative risk was 2.43 compared to women who never used the drug, while every other form of contraception studied showed no measurable danger. Not as strong as what we saw in the Roland study (but plenty strong enough for Daubert).
The numbers translate into real-world consequences. One additional tumor is expected for about every 1,100 women exposed. When a product has been injected into tens of millions of women over decades, that “small” risk becomes thousands of preventable tumors, often requiring surgery and lifelong monitoring. No one wants a brain tumor.
For litigation, the study strips away the defense fallback that there was no U.S. population data. That shield is gone. Plaintiffs now have peer-reviewed, large-scale evidence showing that the injectable form of medroxyprogesterone carries risks that no other contraceptive does, and the question becomes why Pfizer and others failed to warn when safer alternatives were readily available. This is the kind of study that shifts how judges and juries view the science, and it gives plaintiffs a firmer footing to press forward beyond the Roland study.
Preemption Motion
September 2, 2025
Pfizer is pushing hard for a preemption win in the Depo-Provera MDL. A new motion claims the FDA blocked it from adding a meningioma warning after a formal request in 2024. The company says it submitted a detailed application with data from recent epidemiological studies, adverse event reports, and proposed warning language. Nine months later, the FDA issued a complete response letter denying the request, saying the evidence did not support a label change. Now Pfizer argues that this federal rejection shuts the door on state-law failure-to-warn claims.
The move is aimed at ending the litigation before plaintiffs reach discovery. But it glosses over the deeper issue. Pfizer sat on data linking synthetic progestins to meningiomas for decades. Plaintiffs argue that the company could have acted much earlier than its belated 2024 submission. Pfizer’s tactic reframes the case as one of regulatory handcuffing, rather than long-term corporate inertia.
Moreover, we will respond that Pfizer still had tools available. The CBE process could have been used to strengthen the warning unilaterally, especially given that studies like Roland showed a fivefold increased risk. More importantly, the FDA never prohibited a risk-based warning with real clinical utility. Pfizer wants to frame its rejected request as the final word, but it was never more than a minimal effort made.
If the court accepts Pfizer’s theory, it could knock out both the warning and design defect claims in one stroke. But that would ignore the broader pattern of delay and downplaying that has defined the company’s handling of Depo-Provera’s risks. This case is not about one rejected label change. It is about years of missed chances to protect patients.
Waiting on the Sidelines in the MDL
August 22, 2025
Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued an order directing lead plaintiffs’ firms to disclose the number of unfiled cases they are sitting on. She made clear that if law firms later flood the docket with cases after a ruling on preemption, their leadership positions may be at risk.
Why does the MDL judge care? Rodgers’ worry is straightforward: warehousing cases makes it harder for the court to determine the true scope of the litigation, manage scheduling, and prepare for settlement or trial. This is exactly what happened in the AFFF litigation, where defendants panicked about the number of unfiled claims and the judge sided with them.
This tension is not new. In other mass torts, plaintiffs’ lawyers have learned the hard way that filing too many cases too early can backfire. Judges and defendants scrutinize inventories, demand science up front, and use procedural weapons like preemption to decimate claims. In Zantac, Plaintiffs’ firms dutifully loaded the MDL registry with thousands of claims, confident that the science and the courts would eventually vindicate them. Then the judge issued her sweeping Daubert and preemption rulings. In one fell swoop, the registry became a sinkhole for thousands of claims that had never been seen in a courtroom. Lawyers who thought they were acting responsibly by filing early watched as their cases, and their clients’ hopes, vanished.
So, yes, Judge Rodgers’ suspicion is correct, but the strategy makes sense. Plaintiffs’ Depo Provera attorneys are not “warehousing” claims for fun. Our job is to protect our clients.
The clean solution is a claims registry. Cases are logged so the court has full visibility, and if the judge were to grant preemption (an outcome highly unlikely on these facts) those claims would simply be dismissed without prejudice. That approach gives the court clarity, protects plaintiffs from unnecessary risk, and ensures no one is punished for filing responsibly.
Attorneys’ Fees Dispute
August 16, 2025
A firm has filed a motion objecting to the scope of the court’s Amended Common Benefit Order No. 1. The order defines any lawyer with a single case in the MDL as “Participating Counsel” and claims the power to withhold fees not only from cases in the MDL but also from unrelated cases in state court or not yet filed. The motion argues that this goes beyond the court’s authority because the plaintiffs in those other cases have not benefited from any MDL settlement and have not agreed to contribute.
At the center of the dispute is the concept of a common benefit fund. These funds are used to fairly compensate lawyers who perform work that helps all plaintiffs in mass tort litigation. When a settlement is reached, courts may allow a percentage of each recovery to be set aside for the lawyers who led the charge. But that kind of holdback is only allowed when a settlement creates a common fund or when the attorneys agree in advance to contribute. Without one of those two triggers, the court has no power to take a portion of fees from clients who have not participated.
Fights like this are common in large MDLs. We just saw one in the hair relaxer litigation. They reflect the constant tension between centralized efficiency and the individual autonomy of plaintiffs and their lawyers. Courts want to prevent free riding on leadership counsel’s work, but it gets tricky when they impose financial obligations on cases that are outside their jurisdiction or that have not consented.
More Depo Shot Lawsuits in Delaware
August 12, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, one hundred plaintiffs joined the growing number of Depo-Provera cases being filed outside the federal MDL class action lawsuit that serves as the epicenter for coordinated nationwide proceedings.
While the MDL consolidates federal claims for efficiency, plaintiffs are increasingly turning to Delaware state court (where Pfizer and its subsidiaries are incorporated) and other states to pursue parallel actions that can move on a separate track and offer strategic advantages.
Lawsuits Continue to Grow
July 18, 2025
State court filings are rising but remain relatively small compared to the MDL’s 550-case footprint. California has 11 (with coordination pending), while New York leads with 61 (awaiting judge assignment). A handful are scattered across Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Still, the geographic spread signals a growing parallel front that could amplify pressure on Pfizer as the MDL advances.
Philadelphia Depo-Provera Mass Tort Stalls Out
June 16, 2025
It looked like the stage was being set for a coordinated Depo-Provera mass tort in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. We predicted this months ago. But after a judge severed nearly all of the 100 plaintiffs from a consolidated case and allowed them to refile individually, no new filings were made. Pfizer withdrew its petition for coordination. Only one case remains. For now, Philadelphia is off the map as a hotbed for this litigation.
While the Philadelphia docket has gone quiet, more than 400 cases remain active in the federal MDL in the Northern District of Florida, with additional lawsuits filed in state courts nationwide. That is where the litigation momentum is, at least for now.
Consolidated Litigation in Pennsylvania
June 8, 2025
We have long anticipated that this litigation would involve active state court dockets in addition to the federal MDL. That is exactly what is taking shape. Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits are now proceeding in multiple state courts across the country, creating a parallel track of litigation that will likely remain active for the foreseeable future.
In California, six cases are pending, and defendants have already filed a petition seeking coordination. The Judicial Council has asked the Presiding Judge in Alameda County to assign a coordinating judge and recommend a venue for the coordinated proceedings.
New York is quickly emerging as the most significant state-level forum, with 60 cases currently pending. A coordinated proceeding appears likely. The Litigation Coordinating Panel has stayed 58 of the cases and set a June 18 deadline for any opposition to the joint petition for coordination. Since the plaintiffs in those cases have agreed to the request, opposition is not expected. Both sides have agreed to use BrownGreer Centrality for case management and service, signaling a serious and organized effort to streamline the docket.
Other state court activity includes three cases in Pennsylvania (including one massive complaint with 100 plaintiffs), as well as individual cases pending in Illinois, New Mexico, and Delaware. Notably, the Illinois case count does not include the Daniels case, which has already been removed to federal court.
Defendants and plaintiffs are working cooperatively, particularly in California and New York, to avoid duplicative discovery and motion practice. These state court proceedings will likely continue to play a major role in shaping the overall trajectory of this litigation.
Projected Number of Depo-Provera Lawsuits
May 13, 2025
Each year, approximately 2 to 3 million Depo-Provera prescriptions are filled in the United States. The baseline incidence of meningioma in the general population is approximately 9.5 cases per 100,000 people annually, which translates to 190 to 285 cases of meningioma annually among Depo-Provera users, based solely on population averages.
But when applying a 5.5x increase in risk, the estimated number of annual meningioma cases among Depo-Provera users jumps to 1,045-1,568 per year.
Of course, not every patient who develops meningioma will pursue litigation. Factors such as statute of limitations, awareness, causation evidence, and the severity of the injury all affect whether a claim is filed. Historically, in mass torts, 5% to 20% of potentially injured claimants file lawsuits.
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.
Meningioma 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 European regulators.
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.
March 31, 2025: Proof of Product Use
Providing evidence of Depo Provera use 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 received Depo-Provera injections years ago, and in many cases, individual medical records have been lost, destroyed, or never identified the specific manufacturer of the DMPA injection. But institutions often retain distribution records like purchase orders, shipping logs, or insurance payment data that can show whether a facility used Pfizer’s Depo-Provera or a generic version during a specific time period.
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.
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.
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.
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 that 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 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.
October 6, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuits in Philadelphia
You are likely to see a large number of Depo 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 a 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 repeatedly seen how this reputation can significantly impact 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.
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 Depo Provera class action lawsuit? Because that would not be the best path to get women compensated.
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 multidistrict litigation, state MDLs can also be created when sufficient 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 is common to see parallel MDLs at both the state and federal levels, each working toward a global resolution or individual trial outcomes.
Depo Provera Lawsuit FAQs
Is Depo-Provera the Next Mass Tort That Will Explode in 2026?
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. Other studies are now emerging to reinforce the concerns raised in that study.
This is a significant development because a 5.6 times increased risk is not just a minor concern. 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 2026 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 on how it will shake out if the litigation is as successful as we expect.
Our attorneys estimate that individual settlements could range from $275,000 to over $1.5 million. It is a large range, but that is the best we can do at this point. 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, but no one bothered to look more closely.
Still, 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 severe 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. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say they have at least 10,000 more cases that may be filed.
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.
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.. 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 anticipate that this litigation will grow rapidly and substantially as more women come forward, medical providers become increasingly 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 works as a contraceptive by using high-dose progestin to suppress ovulation. Upjohn first sought FDA approval in 1967, but the agency rejected the application over cancer concerns, which was an early warning tied to today’s brain tumor lawsuits. The FDA also denied follow-up applications in 1978 and 1983 for similar safety reasons.
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.
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 litigation. 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 examined medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), also known as 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 with a study as strong as this one.
Previous Studies Put Pfizer on Notice of a Problem
This was not the first study to suggest 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 than 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, which 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 effectively reduced 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 that 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 accidentally found, 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
As we have said, Pfizer’s potential liability in Depo-Provera lawsuits stems from its failure 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. By not updating the label, it may be easy to portray 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 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 average 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. (All this assumes we get past the preemption hurdle.)
What would this look like when you factor in severity? Our attorneys predict it will look something like this:
Predicted Depo Provera Settlement Tiers by Injury Severity
| Injury Severity | Description | Estimated Settlement Range |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 High Severity |
Grade III meningioma, malignant or aggressive growth. Brain surgery, radiation, or long-term cognitive or neurological deficits. High risk of recurrence. Permanent disability or life-threatening prognosis. | $650,000 – $1,500,000+ |
| Tier 2 Moderate Severity |
Grade II meningioma or symptomatic Grade I tumor requiring surgical removal. Some complications or residual effects. Ongoing monitoring, but no confirmed malignancy. | $300,000 – $650,000 |
| Tier 3 Lower Severity |
Small, non-surgical Grade I meningioma. Diagnosed during imaging, the condition was monitored but not removed. Minimal or no treatment required. No long-term disability or cognitive impact. | $150,000 – $300,000 |
| Tier 4 Minimal Injury |
Incidental finding of an asymptomatic tumor with no clear medical impact. Watch-and-wait approach, no treatment or progression. Strongest cases likely to be prioritized. | Under $150,000 |
Note: These projected settlement amounts are based on our lawyers’ prediction at a very early stage of the litigation. If you want to argue that these predictions are too aggressive, you might be right. This also assumes plaintiffs win on preemption and the host of other legal challenges Pfizer will bring. As more data becomes available and bellwether trials are scheduled, these numbers are likely to change.
The significant gap between Tier 1 and Tier 4 is due to the substantial differences in symptoms, prognosis, and treatment options between a Grade I (non-cancerous) meningioma and a malignant Grade III meningioma. A Grade III meningioma is potentially life-threatening and very serious, while Grade I meningiomas are much less damaging and usually not life-threatening.
Grade III meningiomas often grow aggressively, require invasive treatment like surgery and radiation, and carry a much higher risk of recurrence and poor outcomes. From a litigation standpoint, patients who developed a high-grade brain tumor, like a Grade III meningioma, after long-term Depo-Provera use may be entitled to significantly higher settlement compensation due to the devastating impact and long-term disability caused by these aggressive tumors.
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 with a market value exceeding $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 our jobs and establish 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?
There is a centralized “class action” type lawsuit for Depo Provera meningioma lawsuits in the Middle District of Florida. The litigation is officially moving forward under one coordinated structure. This MDL enables plaintiffs from across the country to consolidate their cases against Pfizer, focusing on common issues such as whether the company failed to adequately warn about the risk of brain tumors associated with long-term Depo Provera use. You may also see some active state court dockets, too, in places like Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois.
While it is still early, bellwether trials have not been scheduled, plaintiffs understandably want to know what kind of Depo Provera lawsuit settlement amounts might eventually be on the table. If this litigation follows the pattern of other mass torts involving pharmaceutical injuries, here is what you can likely expect:
-
Tiered Compensation: Settlement payouts in the Depo Provera MDL will almost certainly be structured in tiers. Women diagnosed with meningiomas that require brain surgery will fall into the highest payout category. Those with smaller or asymptomatic tumors may qualify for lower settlement amounts.
-
Estimated Ranges: Similar mass torts suggest potential settlement values could range between $150,000 and $800,000, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term impact on quality of life.
-
What You Will Need to Do: Few, if any, claimants in this MDL will go to court. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will handle much of the work, including collecting and submitting medical records and proof of diagnosis. But clients must still cooperate and respond to basic document requests.
-
Bellwether Trials and Leverage: Once the first few bellwether trials are held—likely in that latter part of 2026—the results will shape Pfizer’s willingness to settle. If the jury awards are high or if damaging evidence emerges in discovery, Pfizer will have a strong incentive to settle before facing more verdicts.
This is still developing litigation, but the centralized MDL in Florida is a major step forward. Women injured by long-term Depo Provera use now have a coordinated path toward compensation, and as more cases get filed, the pressure on Pfizer will only increase.
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 that Pfizer is the target defendant. It has deep, deep pockets – especially now, as we talk about above, with all 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 Pfizer acquired. 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.
The use of Depo-Provera can be verified through medical records, such as those 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 about 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, such as 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 begins the statute of limitations time period 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 enables victims’ lawyers to argue that Pfizer’s conduct renders any attempt to dismiss their claims based on statutory deadlines invalid.
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.