This page provides updates on Depo Provera lawsuits for victims, explains the litigation process, and offers predictions on potential settlement amounts.
A recent scientific study has presented compelling evidence linking Depo-Provera use to brain tumors. Women who used Depo-Provera and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor may be eligible to file a lawsuit seeking financial compensation. This new evidence is fueling a surge of Depo Provera lawsuits across the country.
Our lawyers are currently consulting with over 100 women weekly who used Depo Provera and have received a meningioma diagnosis. Our firm is dedicated to this litigation, representing women who had at least two injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor. If you meet these criteria, contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Table of Contents
➤ Depo Provera Lawsuit FAQs
➤ Evidence Linking Depo Provera to Brain Tumors
➤ Estimated Settlement Value of Depo Provera Cases
➤ Deadline for Depo Provera Lawsuits
➤ Contact Us About Depo Provera Cases
Our firm is dedicated to providing the latest news and updates on this developing litigation. Here’s the current situation:
New Kentucky Lawsuit
April 16, 2025: A new lawsuit filed in Kentucky alleges that prolonged Depo-Provera use caused the plaintiff to develop an intracranial meningioma, requiring brain surgery and resulting in lasting neurological issues. The plaintiff received DMPA injections from approximately 2001 to 2006 and began experiencing symptoms (headaches, balance problems, facial numbness) between 2013 and 2017. She was diagnosed with a meningioma in October 2022 and underwent brain surgery in January 2023. The lawsuit alleges failure to warn, defective design, and innovator liability, noting the U.S. labeling’s silence on meningioma risk despite warnings in the EU, Canada, and South Africa. This case will be transferred to the Depo-Provera MDL.
Judge Stays on Top of Defendants
April 11, 2025: Following the March Case Management Conference, Judge Rodgers ordered authorized generic drug defendants Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco to submit affidavits of non-involvement. While Prasco complied, Greenstone and Viatris missed the deadline, leading to a Court Order to Show Cause. The judge subsequently confirmed that Greenstone and Viatris have now provided the required affidavits. Judge Rodgers is emphasizing strict compliance with court orders and deadlines, underscoring the need for plaintiffs’ counsel to remain equally diligent in this high-stakes MDL.
New Lawsuit
April 8, 2025: A new lawsuit filed in Tennessee names Pfizer and others, alleging injuries from long-term Depo-Provera use. The plaintiff claims extended use led to multiple intracranial meningiomas requiring invasive treatment and causing lasting physical and economic harm. She began using Depo-Provera in the 1990s, continuing for over a decade. A brain tumor was found in 2011, yet injections continued until a craniotomy in 2013. After a period off the drug, she resumed use, and a second meningioma was discovered in 2018. The lawsuit alleges failure to warn despite existing scientific evidence and label changes in other countries, as well as the availability of safer alternatives not promoted in the U.S. Claims include strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty, with the plaintiff seeking compensatory and punitive damages and demanding a jury trial.
MDL Doubles in Size
April 1, 2025: The Depo Provera brain tumor MDL nearly doubled in size last month with 52 new cases, reaching a total of 130. This number is expected to increase further once a short-form complaint is finalized, streamlining the process for new plaintiffs to join the litigation. While the pace of mass torts can be slow, this MDL is anticipated to proceed relatively quickly.
March 31, 2025: Proof of Product Use
Providing evidence of Depo Provera use is crucial. Plaintiffs’ lawyers proposed a uniform process for collecting this evidence in the MDL. Plaintiffs must complete a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” within 120 days of March 14, 2025 (or filing). The court ordered third parties (pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, insurers, military providers) to provide records confirming Depo-Provera or generic DMPA injections, even if traditional records are unavailable. Institutions often retain distribution data (purchase orders, shipping logs, insurance payments). Plaintiffs can use a court-approved HIPAA/HITECH release form with a provider ID form to request records. Non-cooperative providers can be subpoenaed using the same authorization without additional steps. Third parties must comply with these subpoenas or releases without imposing facility-specific requirements or unreasonable fees.
March 25, 2025: MDL Moving Quickly
Despite the typical pace of mass torts, the Depo Provera MDL is moving swiftly. Consolidated on February 7, it already has a second case management conference, multiple pretrial orders, and a clear discovery roadmap. Judge Rodgers appointed BrownGreer as Data Administrator, Judge Herndon as Special Master, and a Common Benefit Special Master. Agreements have been reached on direct filing, service, confidentiality, early proof of use/injury, and discovery protocols. Discovery is open with an aggressive schedule for pilot cases. Defendants must produce preemption/general causation documents by May 11, preemption discovery ends in late July, summary judgment motions on preemption are due in August, and expert discovery on general causation ends in early 2026. This rapid progress, driven by trial dates and forward momentum, is key to pressuring Pfizer towards a settlement.
March 31, 2025: Proof of Product Use
Providing evidence of use of Depo Provera will be central to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers have proposed a uniform, court-authorized process for collecting proof-of-use evidence in the MDL.
Plaintiffs are now required to complete a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” within 120 days of March 14, 2025 (or within 120 days of filing for newly added cases). To meet that requirement, this order compels third parties—including pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, insurance companies, and military medical providers—to provide records confirming whether a plaintiff was injected with Depo-Provera or its generic equivalent (DMPA), even when traditional medical records may no longer be available.
Many of the women in this litigation were injected with Depo-Provera years—sometimes decades—ago. In many cases, individual medical records have been lost, destroyed, or never reflected the specific manufacturer of the DMPA injection. But institutions often retain distribution-level data (e.g., purchase orders, shipping logs, insurance payment records) that we need to get to establish that a particular facility used Pfizer’s Depo Provera or a generic alternative during a given time window.
The order authorizes plaintiffs to use a court-approved HIPAA and HITECH-compliant release form, along with a medical provider identification form to request those records. If providers refuse to cooperate voluntarily, counsel may serve them with a subpoena incorporating the same authorization without having to jump through any additional hoops. The judge under this order would require third-party entities to comply with these subpoenas or releases, and they cannot impose facility-specific red tape, such as requiring their own forms, original signatures, or unreasonable processing fees that slow down the process.
March 25, 2025: MDL Moving Quickly
We told you Judge Rodgers would move quickly. If you are not used to mass torts, this timeline might not seem particularly fast, but trust us—it is. The Depo Provera MDL was just consolidated on February 7, and in just over a month, we already have a second case management conference, multiple pretrial orders in place, and a clear roadmap for discovery.
Judge Rodgers has wasted no time getting this litigation moving. The Court has appointed BrownGreer as the Data Administrator, Judge Herndon as Special Master, and a Common Benefit Special Master to oversee fees and expenses. The parties have made substantial progress in a short period, reaching agreements on direct filing, service, confidentiality, early proof of use and injury, and discovery protocols—all of which the Court has now formalized with minor modifications. One sticking point remains: how to handle deficiencies in plaintiffs’ initial submissions. The judge has directed the parties to work with BrownGreer and propose a uniform process by April 14.
Discovery has officially opened, and the scheduling order for the pilot cases is aggressive. Defendants must complete their document production on preemption and general causation by May 11, and preemption discovery wraps up by late July. By August, we will see summary judgment motions on preemption, and by early 2026, expert discovery on general causation will be completed. In short, Judge Rodgers has made it clear that this case will not drag on.
And that is exactly how you get to a settlement. The key to getting meaningful resolutions in mass tort litigation is simple: trial dates and forward momentum. Pfizer, like any major pharmaceutical company, will not put real money on the table for a global settlement unless it feels the heat of impending verdicts. That pressure only comes when cases are moving efficiently through discovery, preemption defenses are being resolved, and bellwether trials are firmly on the horizon.
Right now, Judge Rodgers is doing what is best for everyone: pushing this ball forward. This MDL is not bogged down in procedural delays or endless negotiations—discovery is moving fast, preemption motions are on a tight schedule, and the judge is making it clear that this litigation will not stall. Pfizer and the other defendants know that the closer they get to actual jury trials, the greater the risk they face. They have seen what happens when juries hold corporations accountable for failing to warn about dangerous drugs.
Pfizer has no reason to consider a global resolution without the credible threat of verdicts. But with the pace Judge Rodgers has set, that pressure will mount quickly. If history is any guide, the turning point will come when bellwether trials are scheduled, and Pfizer is forced to weigh the uncertainty of jury awards against the certainty of a structured settlement. That is why speed matters and why this early progress is so critical for plaintiffs.
March 24, 2025: Details on Plaintiffs’ Leadership Structure
The plaintiffs’ leadership committee in the Depo-Provera MDL will have one lead counsel, supported by two co-lead counsels, a 6-member Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, and a 10-member Steering Committee, along with subcommittees for science/experts and law/briefing. Lead counsel has ultimate authority but is expected to collaborate with the Executive Committee on all decisions.
March 20, 2025: Filing a Lawsuit Is Now Easier
A new court order allows women to file Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits directly in the MDL, eliminating the need for transfer from other federal courts. This streamlines the process and avoids delays. Judge Rodgers also ruled against requiring a master complaint or short-form complaints, further accelerating the litigation process for both plaintiffs and attorneys, allowing direct filing in the Northern District of Florida regardless of where the plaintiff was diagnosed.
March 19, 2025: Depo-Provera Litigation in State Courts
Many Depo-Provera lawsuits will proceed in state courts, particularly in Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois, for which Judge Rodgers appointed liaison counsel. State courts operate independently from the federal MDL and may offer procedural advantages or historically more sympathetic juries in pharmaceutical cases, potentially leading to higher verdicts and settlements. In some instances, state courts may also move faster than the MDL, offering a quicker path to trial.
March 17, 2025: MDL Leadership Appointments and New CMO
Judge Rodgers finalized appointments to the plaintiffs’ counsel steering committee (PSC), which will make collective decisions for all plaintiffs in the MDL. She also issued a new Case Management Order setting deadlines for initial “pilot” cases, including a July 25, 2025 deadline for preemption discovery, August 24, 2025 for preemption summary judgment motions, October for general causation fact discovery, and February 2026 for Daubert motions on general causation experts.
March 14, 2025: Direct Filing in the Depo Provera MDL
Pretrial Order No. 10 allows Depo Provera MDL 3140 plaintiffs to file directly in the MDL, eliminating the need for initial filing in another district and transfer. This direct filing is solely for pretrial coordination and consolidated discovery. Plaintiffs must identify their “Designated Forum” for jurisdictional purposes, and attorneys admitted pro hac vice in other MDLs can file directly without local counsel. The order clarifies that direct filing does not waive Lexecon rights (cases can still be remanded for trial) and that defendants waive personal jurisdiction objections for pretrial proceedings but retain the right to challenge it later. Choice of law principles remain unchanged. This streamlined approach is standard in MDLs, improving efficiency for all parties.
March 11, 2025: Litigation Gets Moving: 10 Key Developments
Judge Rodgers is expected to expedite the Depo Provera MDL, and attorneys have submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report outlining a proposed discovery plan and case management schedule focused on intracranial meningioma claims. Key areas of agreement include:
Despite the typical pace of mass torts, this MDL is expected to proceed rapidly.
March 1, 2025: Judge Rodgers’ Comment About Women Attorneys in Depo Shot Leadership Under Attack
Judge M. Casey Rodgers faces a judicial misconduct complaint for emphasizing the need for female attorneys in leadership roles in the Depo-Provera MDL, given that all plaintiffs are women. The complaint alleges “impermissible bias and judicial misconduct,” arguing that gender, not merit, was prioritized. This is viewed as a meritless attack on Judge Rodgers for promoting a balanced leadership team reflective of the plaintiffs, a common and hardly controversial practice in MDLs.
March 3, 2025: Depo-Provera MDL Adds 8 Cases in First Month
In its first month, the Depo-Provera brain tumor MDL added eight new cases, bringing the total to 78 pending cases. The monthly volume of new cases will be closely watched, as there is a potentially large pool of plaintiffs.
March 1, 2025: First Depo Provera Case Management Order
Judge Rodgers issued Case Management Order No. 1, outlining initial steps, including the selection of five pilot cases and a mandatory Rule 26 conference for all parties on March 3, 2025. A Joint Rule 26 Report is due by March 7, 2025, followed by a case management conference on March 10, 2025, to discuss the report and next steps. The Court also requested proposed Plaintiffs’ lawyers leadership slates by February 28, 2025.
February 22, 2025: Another California Lawsuit
A new lawsuit filed in California alleges that Depo-Provera use caused the plaintiff to develop an intracranial meningioma. The plaintiff, who started injections in 2011, claims she was not warned of the risks and developed severe symptoms leading to a meningioma diagnosis in 2015, followed by surgery and radiation. This case, filed in California, will be transferred to the MDL in Florida.
February 19, 2025: New Study Confirms Meningioma Risk
A new study linked medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, to a significantly increased risk of meningioma. Women using MPA for over a year had a 3.55 times higher risk compared to users of a common oral contraceptive. This risk persisted with long-term use, even after controlling for other factors. The EMA has recommended a meningioma warning on the drug’s label, but the U.S. FDA has not, raising concerns about inadequate warnings for American patients.
February 18, 2025: Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon
Judge Cannon, who previously worked with Judge Rodgers in the 3M earplug litigation, has been appointed as the magistrate judge in the Depo-Provera litigation.
February 17, 2025: Pretrial Order
Pretrial Order No. 4 establishes rules for all Depo-Provera lawsuits, ensuring a uniform and efficient process. It creates a master docket for most filings, with specific filings also required in individual case dockets. The order waives the Certificate of Good Standing requirement for out-of-state attorneys and exempts them from paying another pro hac vice fee if already paid in another Depo-Provera case. Attorneys must file a Notice of Appearance in each case they handle. Standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply for serving legal documents unless otherwise agreed. This order aims to organize the potentially large number of lawsuits.
February 10, 2025: How Many Depo Provera Plaintiffs?
A projection estimates 16,651 to 18,156 potential Depo-Provera meningioma cases for progesterone receptor-positive individuals aged 18-55, with a broader estimate of 27,752 to 30,261 total cases in that demographic. This conservative estimate focuses on cases with a more immediate causal link. However, litigation success requires clear causation, which will be contested. Challenges include individual risk factors and proof of use. The actual number of plaintiffs may be higher due to delayed diagnoses and long-term users outside the core demographic, as indicated by our firm’s high volume of inquiries.
February 8, 2025: Big Surprise – The MDL Will Be in Florida
The JPML consolidated over 70 Depo-Provera lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers, surprising many who expected New York or California. The JPML cited Judge Rodgers’ extensive experience with large MDLs, including the 3M earplug litigation. Her expertise in complex litigation, organizational skills, and fair approach were key factors. Her near completion of the 3M litigation makes her well-suited to oversee this new MDL.
February 5, 2025: Ohio Depo Shot Lawsuit
A new lawsuit in Ohio alleges Depo-Provera caused the plaintiff to develop an intracranial meningioma. The plaintiff received injections between 2008-2011 and 2022-2024 before her diagnosis in November 2023.
February 4, 2025: The European Double Standard
Unlike in the U.S., similar progestogens have been restricted or removed in Europe due to their link to brain tumors. France removed three high-dose progestogens before a key study, and the EMA and UK updated Depo-Provera’s label with meningioma warnings. This discrepancy raises questions about whether American patients are adequately informed.
January 30, 2025: JPML Hearing Is Today
During the JPML hearing in Miami, plaintiffs’ attorneys advocated for California as the MDL venue due to the high number of cases filed there and its recognition of innovator liability. They also noted accessibility for plaintiffs who have undergone brain surgery. Pfizer preferred New York, citing its headquarters and location of key evidence/witnesses. A generic drug manufacturer suggested the California filings were strategic for venue selection. The JPML’s decision is expected in the coming weeks.
January 29, 2025: Filing the Best Depo Provera Lawsuits First
Attorneys are strategically prioritizing the strongest Depo-Provera lawsuits, focusing on cases with prolonged use, severe injuries, and well-documented medical histories, often involving multiple or large meningiomas requiring significant treatment. This aims to highlight the serious risks and the failure to warn by Pfizer and other manufacturers, shaping the litigation’s trajectory.
January 28, 2025: Is It All About the Money?
While financial compensation is the only available justice in civil cases, Depo-Provera lawsuits also aim to protect women by holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions.
January 21, 2025: New Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit
A new Depo-Provera class action lawsuit for medical monitoring has been filed, seeking to establish a program for individuals who used Depo-Provera for over a year and face an increased risk of meningiomas but have not yet been diagnosed. This differs from personal injury/wrongful death lawsuits, which seek compensation for existing injuries or fatalities linked to Depo-Provera. The medical monitoring suit aims for proactive measures like screenings and early detection programs.
January 20, 2025: Pfizer’s Claim in the MDL
Pfizer claims it sought to update Depo-Provera’s label with a meningioma warning but was blocked by the FDA, setting up a preemption defense. This argues that federal regulatory decisions shield Pfizer from state law liability for failure to warn. However, preemption defenses in pharmaceutical cases are often unsuccessful, requiring strong evidence that the FDA explicitly prohibited a stronger warning. Pfizer has yet to fully support this claim, and its reliance on this defense may inadvertently acknowledge a link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors. Plaintiffs have additional claims beyond failure to warn.
January 16, 2025: How Does Depo Provera Cause Meningioma?
The link between Depo Provera and meningioma is believed to stem from its high levels of synthetic progestin, mimicking progesterone, which can stimulate hormone receptors on meningiomas, promoting tumor growth. Studies show a dose-response relationship: more injections correlate with a higher risk. This explains the rarity of cases with only one injection. The cumulative effect of synthetic progestin exposure over long-term use is particularly dangerous. While the exact biological mechanism isn’t legally required to prove the connection, plaintiffs’ attorneys are prepared to explain this to jurors.
January 12, 2025: New Lawsuit in Boston
A new lawsuit in Massachusetts names Pfizer and other companies, alleging that prolonged Depo Provera use (1996-2005) caused the plaintiff to develop a meningioma. Given the pending MDL motion, there’s an argument for plaintiffs’ lawyers outside California (and near New York) to delay filing until the MDL venue is decided next month, hoping for coordination.
January 10, 2025: MDL Panel Hearing
The JPML hearing to centralize Depo Provera lawsuits (MDL No. 314) will be in Miami on January 30, 2025. MDL approval is expected, even Pfizer agrees on the need for it. The key decision is whether the MDL will be in New York (Pfizer’s preference) or California (preferred by most plaintiffs). The Depo Provera litigation will likely proceed as an MDL, consolidating cases for pre-trial proceedings under one federal judge while maintaining individual claims, suitable for cases with varying injury severity and damages.
January 8, 2025: Inoperable Brain Tumors
Our attorneys are seeing more cases of inoperable meningiomas, which cannot be safely removed due to their location near vital brain structures. These cases are strong due to the significant physical and emotional suffering they cause, with limited treatment options like radiation or monitoring. Affected women often experience debilitating symptoms such as severe headaches, vision loss, and memory problems.
January 1, 2025: Depo-Provera Litigation Gaining Traction
The Depo-Provera litigation is gaining momentum with more plaintiffs claiming the birth control shot caused their meningiomas. The increasing lawsuits suggest strong scientific evidence supporting the link. Likely MDL proceedings will streamline these cases. Factors driving this include more women recognizing the connection, European warnings increasing pressure on Pfizer, and expert testimony/studies reinforcing the causal link. This growing litigation poses a significant challenge for Pfizer and could become a major pharmaceutical mass tort.
December 30, 2024: Pfizer Foreshadows Preemption Defense in JPML Response
In its response to the MDL petition, Pfizer advocated for New York as the venue and outlined a potential preemption defense. This defense argues that Pfizer cannot be sued for failure to warn under state law because drug warning label changes are governed by federal law and the FDA. Pfizer will likely argue that the FDA rejected its request to add a meningioma warning. However, preemption defenses in drug litigation are often unsuccessful, requiring strong evidence of explicit FDA prohibition. Pfizer’s reliance on this defense may also suggest an acknowledgment of Depo-Provera’s link to significant harm.
December 7, 2024: New Lawsuit in Pennsylvania State Court
A new Depo Provera lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia, alleging that prolonged use caused a debilitating meningioma in a plaintiff who began injections as a teenager. The lawsuit names Pfizer and associated companies, claiming failure to adequately warn about the risks of medroxyprogesterone acetate. The plaintiff, who underwent multiple brain surgeries and suffers ongoing impairments, seeks compensatory and punitive damages, also including claims against healthcare providers for allegedly failing to disclose safer alternatives.
December 2, 2024: California Woman Files New Depo Provera Lawsuit
A new lawsuit in California alleges that long-term Depo shot use caused the plaintiff to develop two intracranial meningiomas requiring brain surgery. The lawsuit names Pfizer and other companies, asserting they knew for decades about the meningioma risks but failed to adequately warn in the U.S., despite warnings in the EU and Canada. The plaintiff received approximately 76 injections over 19 years and continues to experience complications. The complaint highlights studies dating back to the 1980s linking progestin-based drugs to meningiomas, alleging failure to investigate or alert the medical community. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability, arguing Pfizer should have promoted safer alternatives like Depo-SubQ Provera 104.
November 30, 2024: Depo Provera Class Action MDL Sought in Northern California
A motion has been filed to coordinate over 20 Depo-Provera lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The motion argues for consolidation in California due to the high number of cases filed there and the state’s innovator liability laws, allowing suits against Pfizer even if plaintiffs used the generic version. The motion references lawsuits in California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Nevada, arguing that California is a key jurisdiction given the large number of Depo-Provera users and the recent study linking the drug to a significantly increased risk of meningiomas.
November 25, 2024: ACOG Disappoints
ACOG addressed the study linking Depo-Provera to a 5.5-fold increased meningioma risk but downplayed the finding by presenting it as a smaller absolute risk increase. They also characterized meningiomas as “benign,” neglecting the severe burdens they can impose. This framing may lead patients to underestimate the risk. Given the study’s statistical significance, ACOG should provide clear and comprehensive information reflecting the genuine concern.
November 18, 2024: Why 150 Milligrams?
The 150 mg dose of Depo-Provera raises questions, especially given the effectiveness of lower-dose alternatives like Depo-SubQ Provera 104. This prompts inquiry into whether the 150 mg dose was rigorously tested against lower doses for necessity and whether it played a role in amplifying health risks like brain tumors. If safer alternatives existed and Pfizer ignored them, it could be a key aspect of liability in this litigation.
November 14, 2024: Projected Number of Depo-Provera Lawsuits
Based on a study reporting a 5.5-fold increased meningioma risk for Depo-Provera users and an estimated 2-3 million annual prescriptions in the U.S., a rough calculation suggests approximately 52.25 meningioma cases could occur annually per 100,000 users. However, the high volume of inquiries our firm is receiving may indicate this is an underestimation, potentially due to delayed diagnoses or long-term users outside the core demographic.
November 13, 2024: Pfizer’s Post-Market Surveillance
A central issue in this litigation will be the adequacy of Pfizer’s post-market safety monitoring for detecting and responding to early reports linking Depo-Provera to meningiomas. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will examine Pfizer’s pharmacovigilance practices to determine if they adequately assessed brain tumor risks or ignored warning signs. Discovery will focus on internal documents and adverse event reports to ascertain if Pfizer overlooked the problem or was aware of a potential link but failed to act appropriately. Liability hinges on whether Pfizer knew or should have known about a significant meningioma risk and failed to adequately warn physicians and patients.
November 12, 2024: Depo Sub-Q Provera 104
Depo Sub-Q Provera 104, a lower-dose (104 mg vs. 150 mg) subcutaneous version of Depo-Provera, is likely much safer with a significantly lower brain tumor risk associated with high cumulative doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate. The lower dose reduces the level of synthetic progestin per injection. Pfizer’s potential reasons for not prioritizing this safer product may include maintaining market share for the original Depo-Provera and concerns about reduced revenue per patient due to less frequent dosing, as well as potential logistical challenges with subcutaneous administration. This will likely be a focus of discovery.
November 7, 2024: Questions You Have About Filing a Depo Provera Lawsuit
Our lawyers answer 12 common questions women have about filing a Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuit.
November 5, 2024: New Depo Provera Lawsuit Filed in California
A new lawsuit in California alleges Depo-Provera caused a life-threatening brain tumor in a plaintiff who used it from 1999 to 2018. The suit claims Pfizer and other companies failed to disclose risks despite scientific evidence. This case was filed in the Northern District of California, which is increasingly looking like the best location for the Depo Provera MDL.
October 31, 2024 – European Warning
Pfizer has added a meningioma warning to Depo-Provera labels in the EU and UK, advising discontinuation if meningioma is diagnosed and caution for patients with a history of it. However, this wording is vague and doesn’t strongly warn about the drug’s potential to cause these tumors, nor does it advise on prevention. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will likely highlight this discrepancy with the U.S. label.
October 30, 2024: Depo Provera Design Defect Claim
Beyond failure to warn, a strong strict liability design defect claim exists, arguing that Depo-Provera’s high progestin dose was unreasonably dangerous. The existence of a safer alternative, Depo-SubQ Provera 104, supports this claim, suggesting Pfizer should have promoted it or redesigned the original formula. Plaintiffs will argue Pfizer prioritized market share over safety by not marketing the safer alternative and not fully disclosing risks.
October 29, 2024: When to File for a Depo Provera Class Action?
A formal Depo Provera class action lawsuit hasn’t been filed yet due to the current lack of a large number of active claims (“numerosity”). While more plaintiffs are expected, the current number of federal lawsuits (only three) may not be enough for the MDL Panel. However, a significant number of Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits are expected to be filed in state court in Pennsylvania.
October 27, 2024: Depo Provera Attorney Advertisement Underscores the High Hopes for Depo Provera Settlements
Advertisements for Depo Provera lawsuits on platforms like Facebook indicate the high hopes for settlements, driven by the potential number of lawsuits, Pfizer’s ability to pay, and the average payout in meningioma lawsuits (around $3 million). This is attracting many attorneys to the litigation.
October 21, 2024: When Will a Meningioma Warning Be Added?
The absence of a meningioma warning on the U.S. Depo-Provera label, unlike in Europe, raises significant patient safety concerns. In Europe, Pfizer proactively added this warning, likely due to research and regulatory pressure. The FDA has not mandated a similar warning in the U.S., and Pfizer has not sought one, despite years of studies linking hormonal contraceptives to meningioma risk. This creates a negative perception for Pfizer.
October 11, 2024: Two Shots or Four?
Depo-Provera lawyers are debating the minimum number of injections needed for a causal link in meningioma lawsuits. Our firm has set the criteria at two shots, as science doesn’t definitively establish a minimum, and erring on the side of allowing more women to seek justice is prudent. Given the pivotal study’s significant 5.5 risk ratio, a meningioma diagnosis after just two shots, without other major risk factors, strongly suggests Depo-Provera as the cause.
October 8, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuit Statute of Limitations
Concerns about the statute of limitations in Depo-Provera lawsuits should not be a major issue for women acting now due to the discovery rule (which delays the start of the statute until the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and its connection to the defendant’s conduct) and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment (arguing that the defendants willfully concealed known risks).
October 6, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuits in Philadelphia
A significant number of Depo Provera lawsuits from across the country are likely to be filed in state court in Pennsylvania, specifically in Philadelphia.
October 1, 2024: Lawyers Seek Compensation For Generic Depo-Provera Users
Typically, failure-to-warn lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers are challenging. However, plaintiffs’ lawyers are developing an argument for compensation for users of generic Depo Provera. The allegation is that Pfizer used subsidiaries Greenstone and Prasco to market an “authorized generic” version, chemically identical to the brand-name drug but under a generic label. This strategy allegedly allowed Pfizer to maintain market share and revenue while limiting liability for warnings, exposing consumers to risks without adequate disclosure. Plaintiffs will argue that Pfizer had a duty to ensure all versions, branded or generic, contained proper warnings about known risks like meningiomas. These lawsuits will contend that Pfizer’s failure to include critical meningioma warnings on Depo Provera’s label extended to the authorized generics, and Pfizer should be liable due to its control over these essentially identical products.
September 25, 2024: Will There Be a Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit?
This litigation is more likely to be consolidated in an MDL rather than a class action. A class action combines all plaintiffs into a single case with compensation divided equally, which is unsuitable given the varied injuries. An MDL allows each plaintiff to retain their individual case, with injuries and damages evaluated separately, while consolidating pretrial proceedings for efficiency. Individual cases can still go to trial if no global settlement is reached. Parallel state MDLs may also arise in states with a high number of cases or where corporate defendants reside, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.
September 22, 2024: Why Pfizer Should Be Responsible for the Generics It Owns
Authorized generic manufacturers involved in the Depo-Provera litigation, including Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco, have direct or indirect ties to Pfizer, granting Pfizer significant control over their operations. Greenstone was a wholly-owned Pfizer subsidiary, and Pfizer retained a majority stake in Viatris after a spinoff. Prasco also relied on Pfizer for manufacturing and product pipeline. Due to this control, it is argued that Pfizer should be responsible for any failure to warn associated with these generics. These companies acted as extensions of Pfizer’s business, using identical formulations and infrastructure. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will argue that Pfizer’s failure to update the original Depo-Provera label with meningioma warnings also applies to these generics, as Pfizer benefited from and controlled their operations and misleading labels across all product versions.
April 25, 2024: Pfizer Releases Public Statement Addressing Links To Meningioma Brain Tumors
Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, issued a public statement acknowledging the potential risk of meningiomas associated with long-term progestogen use, following a new BMJ study. Pfizer stated it is collaborating with regulatory agencies to update product labels and patient information leaflets with appropriate warnings.
March 29, 2024: British Medical Journal Finds Link Between Prolonged Use Of Depo-Provera And Increased Risk Of Brain Tumors
A study in the British Medical Journal found that prolonged Depo-Provera use significantly increases the risk of meningioma brain tumors. The study indicated that users were over five times more likely to be diagnosed with meningiomas compared to non-users. This strong scientific evidence, with a risk ratio of 5.5, is expected to significantly drive the Depo-Provera litigation.
Depo-Provera, the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate, is an injectable contraceptive administered every three months. This long-lasting option, injected into the arm or buttock, offers high effectiveness when taken on schedule. Pfizer has significantly profited from Depo Provera, with nearly 24.5% of sexually experienced women in the U.S. using it between 2015 and 2019 (according to a December 2023 National Health Statistics Report).
Depo-Provera’s approval journey was marked by regulatory hurdles and controversy. Developed by Upjohn (now part of Pfizer) in the 1950s initially for cancer treatment, its contraceptive potential led to FDA applications in 1967, 1978, and 1983, all rejected due to cancer risk concerns that now foreshadow the current brain tumor litigation. Despite U.S. setbacks, Upjohn successfully marketed it internationally, starting in France in 1969. After further studies and global acceptance, the FDA finally approved it as a contraceptive in 1992.
Controversy persisted regarding bone density loss and potential cancer/neurological risks like meningiomas. Upjohn merged with Pharmacia in 1995, and Pfizer acquired Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2002, assuming responsibilities for Depo-Provera. While generics exist, many are still manufactured by Pfizer and sold by other companies.
Depo-Provera uses a synthetic hormone, progestin, to prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation and thickening cervical mucus, hindering sperm from reaching the egg. It also thickens the uterine lining. With consistent use, it’s over 99% effective, making it very popular. Besides contraception, it’s also prescribed for gynecological conditions like endometriosis, alleviating pain and discomfort.
A significant March 2024 study in the British Medical Journal established a clear link between Depo-Provera use and meningioma, a type of brain tumor. The research analyzed data from the French National Health Data System, including 108,366 women, 18,061 of whom had undergone meningioma surgery.
Key findings:
The study on MPA (Depo-Provera) showed a striking odds ratio of 5.55. Nine cases out of 18,061 total cases (0.05%) were exposed to MPA, compared to 11 controls out of 90,305 total controls (0.01%). This strong odds ratio is rare in tort claims.
A 1983 study in the European Journal of Cancer & Clinical Oncology identified a high concentration of progesterone receptors in human meningioma cells, suggesting progesterone could drive tumor growth. This provided a biological explanation for how synthetic progesterone in drugs like Depo-Provera might accelerate these tumors. Researchers concluded progesterone, not estrogen, might be the key driver. This should have raised concerns about prolonged use of progesterone-based drugs like Depo Provera as early as 1983.
A 1991 Journal of Neurosurgery study found that mifepristone, an anti-progesterone agent, effectively reduced meningioma growth by blocking progesterone receptors. This provided compelling evidence of progesterone’s central role in promoting meningioma growth and suggested hormone-blocking treatments as a viable therapy. This breakthrough should have prompted consideration of the effects of increased progesterone levels from drugs like Depo-Provera. This finding, along with a 1990 study, supports the argument that Depo Provera could cause or exacerbate meningiomas, strengthening the causation claim in lawsuits.
A meningioma is the most common type of brain tumor, developing in the protective membranes covering the brain and accounting for 40% of all brain tumors. Most are non-cancerous and slow-growing, often existing for years without symptoms.
Meningiomas are graded as:
Meningiomas are usually detected via MRI and may be found incidentally. Treatment for symptomatic intracranial meningiomas typically involves a craniotomy, a highly invasive brain surgery. Complete removal can be risky due to the tumor’s location, often requiring additional treatments like radiation or chemotherapy. Key surgical risk factors include superficial tumors, significant swelling, involvement of critical veins, and Grade II-III tumors. Postoperative anxiety and depression are common, often requiring medication. Surgery may also trigger seizures. Meningiomas linked to progesterone-based contraceptives often occur at the skull base, making removal more complex. Given the treatment’s severity and potential long-term complications, we anticipate significant settlement payouts if this litigation is successful. We believe all three grades represent strong personal injury claims.
Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have a legal duty to ensure product safety and provide clear warnings about known risks. Under strict liability for failure to warn, a manufacturer can be liable for not adequately informing patients and prescribers about serious side effects, even if the drug isn’t defectively designed. This duty is crucial for informed medical decisions. U.S. labeling for Depo-Provera failed to disclose the meningioma risk despite scientific literature and foreign regulatory warnings. Lawsuits will argue Pfizer knew or should have known of this risk and its failure to update the label constitutes a breach of this duty. Had the risk been disclosed, sales likely would have declined as patients opted for safer alternatives, fundamentally altering the risk-benefit assessment for many women.
Our firm seeks to represent women who received at least two Depo-Provera injections and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma (or other brain tumor). This is our minimum eligibility criterion (explained in our October 11 update). Women with more extended use will likely have stronger claims due to a dose-response relationship, but we believe at least two injections are sufficient for a viable claim. Most women contacting us with brain tumors have used the drug long-term.
Pfizer’s potential liability stems from its failure to adequately warn consumers about the risk of meningioma brain tumors, despite decades of evidence and its duty to conduct post-market surveillance. This omission prevented informed decisions about using the contraceptive. The long-recognized link between progesterone and meningiomas should have prompted action from Pfizer. This failure to warn could lead to significant financial liability in product liability lawsuits, arguing that informed consent was impossible. By not updating the label, Pfizer may be seen as prioritizing profit over safety. The seriousness of brain tumor injuries and the availability of safer alternatives will likely make this litigation distinct from other birth control lawsuit settlements.
It is very early to accurately estimate Depo Provera settlement amounts. However, based on similar tort cases, if causation is established, cases with significant complications could range from $275,000 to $500,000, reflecting the varying severity of meningiomas. Grade III (malignant) cases could have much higher trial values, potentially in the tens of millions, although global settlements may average lower. Pfizer, a company with substantial financial resources, can afford significant settlements. A study of meningioma lawsuits showed an average payout over $3 million, with neurosurgery-related claims being the highest. If a strong link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas is established, potential damages could also be substantial.
While early, this litigation is almost certainly heading towards an MDL (multidistrict litigation) in both federal and state courts, consolidating pretrial proceedings while keeping individual cases separate. Bellwether trials will help guide settlement negotiations. If these trials go poorly for Pfizer, a pre-trial settlement is likely. Most plaintiffs will likely only need to submit medical records and paperwork. Settlement payouts will likely be tiered based on the severity of the meningioma and treatment required, with those requiring surgery receiving higher compensation.
Key defendants include:
To support a claim, individuals need to prove (1) use of Depo-Provera (via medical or insurance records) and (2) a meningioma or other brain tumor diagnosis (via medical records). Your Depo Provera attorney will assist in gathering and presenting this evidence.
Plaintiffs in this litigation may have more time to file than initially thought due to the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The statute of limitations typically begins when the injury occurs, but the discovery rule delays this until the plaintiff knows or should reasonably know of both the injury and its cause. Plaintiffs will argue they couldn’t reasonably connect Depo-Provera to meningioma until recent studies or a warning from Pfizer (which is still absent).
Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations: This can extend the filing time if a defendant’s misconduct delayed awareness of the injury’s cause. Plaintiffs will argue Pfizer intentionally withheld information about meningioma risks, misrepresented Depo-Provera’s safety, and downplayed long-term risks in labeling and promotional materials. Regulations require drug manufacturers to disclose risks and update warnings, which plaintiffs allege Pfizer failed to do.
Estoppel: Plaintiffs may argue that Pfizer is estopped from using the statute of limitations as a defense due to its alleged intentional concealment of risks, which misled them and the medical community, preventing timely discovery of the connection between Depo-Provera and meningioma.
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 or contact us online.
