Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements

Legal Analysis By:
Ronald V. Miller Jr., Partner at Miller & Zois.
This page is for Depo-Provera users diagnosed with meningioma who want to track the litigation or investigate a claim.

On This Page

• Latest lawsuit and settlement updates
• Projected settlement amounts
• Who may qualify
• Evidence linking Depo-Provera to meningioma
• Proof needed for a lawsuit
• Filing deadlines
• Frequently asked questions

July 21, 2026

New Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits Are Still Being Filed

New lawsuits continue to be filed despite the agreement in principle. A recently filed complaint alleges that a woman developed a meningioma after receiving Depo-Provera injections without being warned that prolonged use could increase the risk of a hormone-sensitive brain tumor.

She alleges that she would have selected another birth-control option if she or her healthcare providers had received an adequate warning. Her claimed damages include permanent physical deficits, medical expenses, lost income, reduced earning capacity, and the need for surgery, medication, or other treatment.

Continued filings show why women should not assume the proposed settlement automatically covers an unfiled claim. Final participation rules and deadlines have not been made public.

July 9, 2026

Kansas Plaintiff Alleges Vision and Hearing Loss

A Kansas plaintiff alleges that she received brand-name Depo-Provera injections from approximately 2021 through 2022 and developed symptoms in 2025 that included vertigo, dizziness, vision loss, and persistent headaches. MRI and CT imaging later revealed an intracranial meningioma.

The complaint alleges hearing loss, vision loss, persistent headaches, mental anguish, medical expenses, and other economic damages. It also alleges that the defendants promoted Depo-Provera without adequately warning patients or physicians about the meningioma risk.

July 1, 2026

MDL Reaches 5,830 Pending Cases

The federal case count reached 5,830 pending lawsuits. The rapid increase reflects both new filings and the effort to place potentially eligible claims on file while the parties negotiate final settlement documents.

June 30, 2026

State-Court Claims Require a Separate Resolution

The publicly described federal agreement concerns eligible claims pending in MDL No. 3140. The available court materials do not establish that claims pending in Delaware, New York, or other state courts are included. Those plaintiffs may require separate agreements or procedures.

June 15, 2026

Pfizer and Plaintiffs Reach a Global Agreement in Principle

Plaintiffs’ lead counsel and Pfizer advised U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers that they had reached a global agreement in principle to resolve eligible meningioma claims pending in MDL No. 3140. The court vacated deadlines associated with the first bellwether trial.

Judge Rodgers reset the general-causation and preemption hearing for July 27, 2026, while the parties worked toward final settlement documents. That hearing remains important because no finalized public settlement program, allocation formula, or claims process has been announced.

The agreement is a major step toward resolution, but it is not a public promise of payment to every claimant. Eligibility, proof requirements, deductions, releases, deadlines, and payment tiers will determine what the agreement means for an individual woman.

Looking for Older MDL Updates?

Read the archive covering the formation of the MDL, early scientific disputes, preemption briefing, and earlier case-management orders.

Read Past Lawsuit Updates

Depo-Provera Lawsuit FAQs

The research did not begin with the 2024 epidemiology study. Earlier laboratory and clinical work showed that many meningiomas contain progesterone receptors and may respond to changes in hormonal signaling. Those studies support biological plausibility, but they do not establish by themselves that Depo-Provera causes a tumor.

The March 2024 BMJ study supplied a different kind of evidence: a population-level association between prolonged injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate use and intracranial meningioma surgery. Later research added support to the association. Plaintiffs will rely on the combined record, while defendants are expected to challenge study design, dose, latency, confounding factors, and whether the findings prove general and specific causation.

That distinction matters. The older receptor studies help explain a possible biological mechanism; the newer epidemiology addresses whether the injury appears more often in exposed patients. A viable individual case still requires proof of Depo-Provera use, a meningioma diagnosis, timing consistent with the alleged risk, and medical evidence connecting the exposure to the injury.

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 detected on an MRI scan and may be found incidentally, especially in patients without 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, plaintiffs allege that U.S. labeling failed to disclose the risk of meningioma despite scientific literature and regulatory developments pointing to an association. They argue that Pfizer knew, or should have known, of the elevated risk and should have updated the label sooner. Pfizer disputes liability.

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 reviewing claims for women who received at least two Depo-Provera injections and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma. Two injections is our firm’s current intake guideline, not a publicly announced court or settlement requirement.

Women who used Depo-Provera for longer periods may have stronger exposure evidence than those who used it only a few times. Two injections may be enough for our firm to investigate a claim, but exposure alone does not establish causation or guarantee settlement eligibility.

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 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 alleged failure to warn could expose Pfizer to liability. Plaintiffs will argue that an adequate warning would have affected prescribing or contraceptive decisions. Pfizer may dispute causation, the adequacy and timing of the scientific evidence, and whether federal law permitted a different warning. Those disputes will affect both liability and settlement value.

Meningioma surgery, recurrence, neurological injury, and long-term monitoring can produce substantial damages. The value of an individual claim will still depend on its medical and factual proof.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

The parties have announced an agreement in principle, but no official individual payout schedule has been made public. Based on our attorneys’ experience evaluating pharmaceutical injury claims, we estimate that qualifying claims could fall roughly between $150,000 and $1 million or more. Tumor grade, surgery, recurrence, permanent neurological injury, lost income, duration of Depo-Provera use, and the strength of the medical proof may all affect value. These are our projections, not promised results or figures announced by the court or defendants.

Other Meningioma Lawsuits Give Us More Information on Settlement Compensation

A study of meningioma litigation reported average plaintiff payments above $3 million in the cases it reviewed. That figure should not be treated as an average Depo-Provera settlement. The study involved a selected group of litigated medical and neurosurgical claims, including cases with severe operative injury, and it did not evaluate a pharmaceutical mass-tort settlement program. Its value here is narrower: it shows that juries and defendants can place substantial value on serious meningioma injuries. Our Depo-Provera projection remains $150,000 to $1 million or more for qualifying claims.

How Would a Depo-Provera Settlement Potentially Take Shape?

The federal cases are coordinated in MDL No. 3140 in the Northern District of Florida. An MDL is not a class action. Each plaintiff keeps an individual claim while the court coordinates common discovery and pretrial issues. The June 15 agreement in principle changed the immediate path of the litigation, but the final public documents have not yet explained how individual claims will be scored.

• Likely value factors: Tumor grade, surgery, radiation, recurrence, permanent deficits, lost wages, duration of use, and the quality of the exposure records.
• Our estimated range: $150,000 to $1 million or more for qualifying claims, subject to the final program and individual evidence.
• Required proof: Claimants should expect to submit injection records, diagnostic imaging, pathology, treatment records, and documents supporting economic losses.
• Deductions and releases: Any gross award may be affected by attorney fees, case expenses, medical liens, and program rules. A claimant may also have to sign a release.
• State-court cases: Claims outside the federal MDL may require a separate resolution process.

The agreement in principle is meaningful, but it is too soon to calculate a claimant’s net payment until the written program and allocation rules are public.

Who Are the 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.
• Viatris Inc.: Formed in 2020 by combining Mylan N.V. with Pfizer’s Upjohn business. Greenstone was not a party to that transaction. Plaintiffs allege Viatris participated in the distribution and sale of relevant products.
• Greenstone, LLC: A separate Pfizer-affiliated company identified in complaints involving authorized generic versions.
• Prasco Labs: Another “authorized generic” distributor allegedly marketed Depo-Provera as a generic product without altering its chemical composition or labeling.
• Pharmacia & Upjohn: The original NDA holder for Depo-Provera, which Pfizer acquired.

Proof Needed for a Depo-Provera Lawsuit

Individuals pursuing a Depo-Provera claim will need to prove at least two central facts: that they received Depo-Provera and that they were diagnosed with a meningioma. Additional evidence may be necessary to prove timing, causation, damages, and settlement eligibility.

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

Filing deadlines vary by state and by the facts of the claim. An older diagnosis is not automatically barred, but it is also not automatically timely. The discovery rule, equitable tolling, statutes of repose, and any settlement enrollment deadline may produce different results. A claimant should not delay while waiting for final settlement terms.

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 may delay the limitations period until a plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, both the injury and its possible cause. Plaintiffs may argue that the connection was not reasonably knowable before the 2024 epidemiology, publicity surrounding the litigation, or the December 2025 U.S. label change. Defendants may argue for an earlier date. State law controls that dispute.

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, arguing that the company intentionally withheld information about the drug’s risks. 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 the statute of limitations should be tolled due to deliberate concealment of material safety information, including knowledge from studies on progestin’s effects 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 Brain Tumor Lawsuit

If you are considering filing a Depo Provera lawsuit, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online. We can help you.