Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements

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.

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 include 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.

New Lawsuit

May 23, 2026

A new lawsuit was filed in the MDL this week by a Utah woman who was first administered Depo-Provera in 2010 for contraception.

She received the drug again from 2020 through 2022, with both courses involving brand-name Depo-Provera injections pursuant to her physicians’ prescriptions. At all times, the defendants represented Depo-Provera to be appropriate, safe, and suitable for contraceptive use through its label, packaging, patient inserts, and advertising.

In September 2023, the plaintiff began experiencing alarming neurological symptoms: nausea and vomiting, frequent dizziness, and double vision. On September 29, 2023, she presented to the hospital and underwent an MRI of the brain. The imaging revealed a meningioma overlying the left perirolandic area of her brain. The perirolandic region controls motor and sensory function, making a tumor in that location particularly serious.

As a result of the meningioma, the plaintiff has suffered serious and ongoing injuries. The complaint describes permanent and severe physical harm, mental and physical pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. She has incurred past medical expenses and faces future medical costs, has suffered loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money, and asserts a loss of consortium claim. The complaint characterizes her losses as either permanent or continuing, with future losses expected.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The punitive damages claim rests on allegations that Pfizer acted with conscious disregard for the safety of the plaintiff and similarly situated women—many of whom were young and of lower socioeconomic status—while knowing of the meningioma risk and while already possessing a safer lower-dose alternative in its own product, Depo-SubQ Provera 104.

General Causation Discovery Is Completed

May 14, 2026

The key science phase of the case is now finished. This part of the litigation focuses on general causation, which means the basic scientific question: can Depo-Provera cause meningioma brain tumors? It is different from asking whether Depo-Provera caused one specific woman’s tumor. That case-specific question comes later.

Both sides have now completed depositions of their general causation experts. Plaintiffs questioned Pfizer’s five experts, and Pfizer questioned plaintiffs’ five experts. Each side has also filed Daubert motions, which are requests asking the judge to limit or exclude expert testimony that the other side wants to use. In plain English, each side is arguing over which scientific opinions are reliable enough for a jury to hear.

The next deadlines are May 21 for opposition briefs and May 29 for reply briefs. The court has reset the general causation and Daubert hearing for June 24-25, 2026. That hearing will be one of the most important events in the Depo-Provera litigation so far because it will help determine what scientific evidence plaintiffs can present to prove that Depo-Provera can cause meningiomas. Our lawyers believe these hearings will go well because the science is and has been extremely strong.

MDL Case Count

May 14, 2026

As of today, there are 5,549 cases in the federal MDL. There is also significant parallel activity in state courts. Delaware has 340 cases, New York has 119 cases, California has 91 cases, Minnesota has 72 cases, and smaller groups are pending in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Missouri.

New Delaware State Court Lawsuit

May 7, 2026

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in Delaware state court, the plaintiff alleges she developed a meningioma after using Depo-Provera injections for contraception. She was healthy before receiving the injections and says she and her prescribing providers were not warned that the drug allegedly increased the risk of hormone-sensitive brain tumors.

The plaintiff’s tumor has left her with significant injuries, including conscious pain and suffering, physical injury, bodily impairment, permanent physical deficits, lost income, reduced earning capacity, and substantial medical expenses. She further claims her condition required, or will likely require, hospitalizations, surgeries, medication, and other therapies.

She claims she would not have used Depo-Provera had Pfizer, Pharmacia, and Pharmacia & Upjohn disclosed the alleged meningioma risk, particularly because other contraceptive options were available. The complaint also alleges she did not discover the connection between Depo-Provera and her meningioma until within the applicable limitations period.

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.

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 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 ultimately approving it in 1992.

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 examined medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), also known as Depo-Provera. That study resulted in a stunning odds ratio of 5.55. You rarely see a tort claim with a study as strong as this one.

Depo Provera Timeline of Knowledge

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 abundance of progesterone receptors suggests that progesterone, rather than estrogen, might be a key driver of tumor growth. 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.

Six years later, in 1989, the same research group published a follow-up study in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry that tightened the screws further. That study examined the effect of mifepristone — an anti-progesterone agent — on meningioma cells in primary culture and found that meningioma cell growth was significantly reduced when progesterone was blocked. The implication was direct: if blocking progesterone slows tumor growth, then adding synthetic progesterone accelerates it. Pfizer’s predecessor, Upjohn, was already selling Depo-Provera internationally by this point. The 1989 study should have triggered a serious internal investigation. There is no evidence it did.

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 progesterone’s action 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.

The evidence did not stop accumulating after 1991. A 2015 systematic review published in BioMed Research International surveyed more than 30 years of relevant literature and concluded that mifepristone had a demonstrable regressive effect on meningioma — meaning it stopped or reversed tumor growth by competing with progesterone for receptor binding. The review drew on the Blankenstein studies and dozens of others to reach the same conclusion the 1983 study had pointed toward: progesterone drives meningioma growth, and blocking it reduces it. By 2015, this was not a fringe hypothesis. It was the conclusion of a peer-reviewed synthesis of three decades of research, published while Pfizer was actively marketing Depo-Provera with no warning about meningioma on the U.S. label.

Then, in 2023, researchers published a case series in the Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B that made the connection to Depo-Provera explicit. The study reported on 25 individuals who developed one or more intracranial meningiomas associated with chronic Depo-Provera use. Ten of those patients were instructed to stop using Depo-Provera. Of those ten, five showed clear evidence of tumor shrinkage after discontinuation. The authors concluded there “appears to be a clear progestin meningioma syndrome associated with chronic DMPA use.” This was no longer a biological hypothesis or a statistical association. It was a documented clinical pattern — tumors growing on Depo-Provera, shrinking when it stopped — with Pfizer’s product named directly.

The through line here is hard to miss, right? From 1983 to 2023, the scientific literature was building a case against high-dose synthetic progestogens and meningioma risk, study by study, year by year. Pfizer’s predecessor was in the contraceptive market for most of that period. Pfizer itself has held the Depo-Provera NDA since 2002. The U.S. label still carries no meningioma warning.

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.

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. 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.

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?

What would a Depo Provera settlement look like? Yes, it is early to talk about a settlement. But women signing up for a Depo Provera lawsuit want to know what they are getting into and what they will likely be required to do to get to a settlement.

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, and plaintiffs understandably want to know what kinds 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 the 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 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 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.
• 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 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 10 years old can still be brought despite 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, 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 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.