Depo Provera Lawsuit Guide: Latest Updates (2026)
Contributor
Reviewed ByAdam Ramirez, J.D.
Editor
Read in 10mins
Litigation Active – Depo-Provera Cases Are Still Pending
Status: Active – settlement signed July 2026, claims now being processed
Docket: MDL No. 3140, In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Judge M. Casey Rodgers
Pending cases: 6,412 as of October 1, 2026
Next key date: November 30, 2026 – settlement registration deadline
Summary
- Depo-Provera is an injection that uses progesterone to prevent pregnancy
- Brain tumors and other serious side effects have led to lawsuits
- About 80% of MDL plaintiffs are expected to qualify for the settlement, but its terms are confidential
Depo-Provera is a popular and highly effective birth control medication. Rather than taking a daily pill, patients receive injections every three months. The medication contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic progestin that disrupts ovulation. It also thickens the mucus that surrounds the egg, forming a barrier to prevent fertilization.
Despite its popularity, Depo-Provera can cause side effects that can require treatment. These effects can even cause permanent disabilities or death. As of October 2026, there are 6,412 pending cases in MDL No. 3140, and signed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in July 2026. Personal injury lawyers are continuing to file on behalf of their clients.
ConsumerShield helps consumers understand their legal situations and find lawyers to represent them. Contact us for a free case evaluation and a Depo Provera lawsuit attorney referral.
Free Depo Provera Lawsuit Case Review!
Mentioned by
- Where the Depo-Provera Lawsuit Stands Now
- Examples of Depo-Provera Lawsuits
- Depo Provera Settlement Amounts
- Eligibility Criteria for Filing a Depo-Provera Lawsuit
- How to File a Depo-Provera Lawsuit
- Statute of Limitations for Depo-Provera Lawsuits
- Side Effects That Could Support a Depo Provera Lawsuit
- Recent Scientific Study Linking Depo Provera to Brain Tumors
- European Warning Labels Highlight Depo Provera Risks
- Types of Depo Provera Lawsuits
- Contact ConsumerShield for Assistance
Following the case
34 updatesFull Depo Provera Lawsuit Updates Timeline (2024–2026)
October and November Conferences Canceled
In a docket order, Judge Rodgers canceled the case management conferences set for October 16 and November 20, 2026. In their place, plaintiffs' leadership, the Data Administration Subcommittee, the State-Federal Liaison Committee, and BrownGreer had to file written status updates by noon Central on October 16, November 20, and December 14, 2026. The court's MDL web page listed the next conference for December 18, 2026.
Court Hears Expert Evidence on General Causation
Judge Rodgers held the hearing on the parties' Rule 702 motions, which test whether expert opinions on whether Depo-Provera can cause meningioma are sound enough for jurors to hear. The minute entry shows lawyers and experts took part in person and by Zoom, with Delaware's Judge Kathleen Vavala, Magistrate Judge Cannon, and Special Master Herndon joining remotely. The court heard testimony and argument and said a written order would follow.
Preemption Motion Referred to Magistrate Judge
Judge Rodgers referred the preemption motion Pfizer filed for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon for a report and recommendation under Rule 72(b), meaning a proposed ruling that the district judge then reviews. The same day, Case Management Order 18 formally created the administrative docket tied to the settlement, which the court had agreed in July would carry no filing fee.
Show 31 earlier updates
Judge Appoints Officials to Manage Settlement Money
Judge Rodgers entered three orders setting up how settlement money will be held and paid. Under Case Management Order 15, Matt Garretson will run a Supplemental Compensation Fund, deciding whether eligible claimants who apply should get extra money and how much. Case Management Order 16 named CPA Randall Sansom trustee of the Qualified Settlement Fund. A third order made BrownGreer responsible for resolving medical liens on awards.
7% Fee Holdback Ordered for Common Benefit Work
Judge Rodgers signed Common Benefit Order No. 2, placing a 7% assessment on the gross recovery in covered Depo-Provera cases. This pool pays lawyers for work that helped all plaintiffs. Under the order, the money comes only out of the claimant's lawyer's fee, so the injured woman's share is not reduced.
Strict Rules Set for Plaintiffs Who Do Not Settle
Case Management Order 14 covers women who opt out, are found ineligible, or file new cases. The court paused most MDL activity and noted a November 30, 2026, cutoff for settlement registration. Women who keep suing generally have 90 days to serve a sworn fact sheet, full medical records, proof of use, and a case-specific expert report on causation; template reports will be struck. Those who comply must mediate before Magistrate Judge Hope Cannon and attend an in-person conference in Pensacola. Missing these steps can mean dismissal with prejudice.
BrownGreer Named Settlement Administrator
In Case Management Order 13, the court appointed BrownGreer PLC to administer the settlement program. Its duties include reviewing each claimant's records, deciding who is eligible, working with the fund administrator on payments, screening for fraud, and reporting to the court on progress. BrownGreer was already serving as the MDL's data administrator.
Judge Reviews Settlement Terms at Status Conference
As recorded in Case Management Order 12, on July 21, 2026, the parties signed a Master Settlement Agreement, and they estimated that about 80% of MDL plaintiffs would be eligible. The terms are confidential, and eligibility will not turn on any later court ruling. Registration was expected to wrap up in November 2026, and payments were to start reaching claimants in 2027's first quarter. The judge agreed to open an administrative docket with no filing fee for claims and wrote that the deal gives thousands of eligible plaintiffs an excellent result without drawn-out litigation.
Three New Pilot Cases Replace Original Test Cases
Since all five original pilot plaintiffs qualify for the settlement, Pfizer asked to swap in new ones. Per Case Management Order 12, the court agreed to use the cases of Christina Yeager, Vivian Davis, and Katherine Allison Ponder, deciding the statute of limitations (filing deadline) question first on a fast track. Their lawyers adopted the existing briefs. The hearing on general causation and Rule 702 expert challenges was set for September 18, 2026, and the August conference was canceled.
Global Deal Reached and December Trial Canceled
Plaintiffs' lead counsel and Pfizer reached a global agreement giving every MDL plaintiff who meets set eligibility criteria a chance to resolve her claim. In Pretrial Order 30A, the judge postponed her preemption ruling and pushed the expert hearing from June 24–25 to July 27, 2026, since not every case would be covered. A separate order vacated the trial deadlines in Toney, the first pilot case, ending its December trial setting.
Plaintiffs' Leadership Team Reappointed for Another Year
After reviewing reapplications, Judge Rodgers reappointed the leadership team in Pretrial Order 31. Christopher Seeger stayed on as lead counsel, with Bryan Aylstock and Ellen Relkin as co-leads, along with the executive and steering committees and subcommittees. The judge described the team's work so far as exemplary. The new terms end March 20, 2027.
Preemption Motion Fully Briefed and Under Review
Case Management Order 11 reported that extra briefing on preemption ended February 27, 2026, so Pfizer's summary judgment motion was ready for decision. Depositions of general causation experts were set between February 28 and March 20, 2026. Briefing on challenges to those experts was due to finish by May 29, 2026, and the pilot cases stayed in discovery.
Delaware Supreme Court Declines Early Appeal
In the coordinated Delaware state cases, the Delaware Supreme Court refused an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before final judgment. Some plaintiffs had challenged November 2025 Superior Court orders that put early focus on general causation, named BrownGreer data administrator, and required proof of use and diagnosis. The justices agreed the orders were tools for managing the docket that did not decide a substantial issue, so they stayed in place.
Key Rulings to Apply to Every MDL Case
Judge Rodgers entered Pretrial Order 30, stating her decisions on Pfizer's preemption motion and the Rule 702 expert motions would bind all MDL cases, not only the five pilots. Because the FDA approved the warning after oral argument, supplemental preemption briefs were due January 30, February 20, and February 27, 2026. If preemption was denied in whole or part, she would then rule on the causation experts, with a hearing set for May 26–28, 2026.
First Pilot Case Put on Track for December Trial
Case Management Order 10 noted that the court adopted the proposed discovery and pretrial schedule for Toney, the first pilot case. Plaintiffs served their general causation expert disclosures on January 1, 2026, and Pfizer's were due February 9. A later order confirmed this first bellwether trial was set for December 7, 2026.
Court Orders New Preemption Briefs After FDA Label Change
At the December 19 conference, summarized in Case Management Order 9, Judge Rodgers noted the FDA's December 12 label approval and told the parties to propose a schedule for more preemption briefing. She planned to set Toney for trial on December 7 or 14, 2026, and asked for a schedule for the other four pilots starting in January 2027. A joint Rule 702 hearing on general causation with the Delaware and New York judges was set for May 26–28, 2026.
FDA Approves Meningioma Warning for Depo-Provera
The FDA approved Pfizer's labeling supplement adding meningioma risk to the Warnings and Precautions and patient counseling sections for both the intramuscular Depo-Provera CI shot and the under-the-skin Depo-SubQ Provera 104. Pfizer first submitted the request on February 5, 2024. The agency sent an action letter on November 1, 2024, and Pfizer's June 12, 2025, amendment was a complete response to it. The MDL court later asked for new preemption briefs on what the approval means.
Preemption Ruling Put on Hold Until FDA Acts
After an October 24 conference held jointly with the New York and Delaware judges at the New York County Courthouse, Judge Rodgers entered Case Management Order 7. She said she would wait to rule on preemption until the FDA decided Pfizer's June 2025 label change request, then order more briefing. She also accepted a roughly six-week extension of the general causation schedule so the MDL would line up with the state court timelines.
Judge Hears Preemption Arguments as State Courts Coordinate
Judge Rodgers heard oral argument on Pfizer's preemption motion on September 29, 2025, as noted in Pretrial Order 30. The status conference that day, summarized in Case Management Order 6, reported that New York's cases went to Justice Sabrina Kraus, Delaware's Judge Kathleen Vavala had held a first conference, and California's cases were expected to go to an Alameda County judge. Justice Kraus joined by Zoom.
Exception Added for Women Who Used the Shot Before June 2005
Pretrial Order 22A eased proof rules for plaintiffs whose only Depo-Provera use was before June 2005 and whose records can't be found. Such a plaintiff avoids a show cause order by giving BrownGreer a sworn declaration that lists every provider, confirms she asked each for records, and attaches replies saying none exist or that the provider can't be located. Pfizer kept the right to challenge that proof later.
Pfizer Files Preemption Motion for Summary Judgment
Pfizer and its two Pharmacia units filed their preemption summary judgment motion, asking the court to throw out every claim in the five pilot complaints. Preemption is a defense that federal drug law bars state failure-to-warn claims. Pfizer kept the right to seek summary judgment on other grounds later. At a status conference held the same day, the parties reported that preemption discovery was finished, including plaintiffs' disclosure of five experts.
Leadership Firms Ordered to Disclose Unfiled Cases
Concerned that firms might be holding back cases until after a preemption ruling, Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order 27. Each leadership firm had to certify how many unfiled Depo-Provera cases it held by July 31, 2025. Firms that later filed a lopsided number of cases could have their leadership roles reviewed. Together the firms certified 9,571 unfiled cases, per Case Management Order 5.
Authorized Generic Makers Dropped From the MDL
Case Management Order 4 recorded the parties' agreement to dismiss the authorized generic defendants, Prasco LLC, Greenstone LLC, and Viatris Inc., without prejudice, so claims against them could be refiled. Plaintiffs were told to remove them from amended complaints unless they meant to pursue them. Any new pleading naming them would face a show cause order and possible dismissal by the court on its own.
Plaintiffs Must Disclose Litigation Funding Deals
Citing concern about predatory lenders, Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order 25. Lawyers who know a client received third-party funding tied to her Depo-Provera claim had 30 days to file a sealed declaration naming the lender and listing loan dates, amounts, fees, interest rates, and other key terms. Deals signed after the order must be disclosed within 30 days.
Preemption Argument Set for September 29
In Case Management Order 3, the court scheduled oral argument on any preemption summary judgment motion for September 29, 2025, and asked the parties to adjust briefing so it would be done by September 26. Pfizer had produced over 1.4 million documents, more than 10 million pages, from 18 of 51 custodians. Plaintiffs expected the generic makers to be released in the coming weeks.
Court Sets Process to Flag Missing Proof
Pretrial Order 22 set out how gaps in each plaintiff's proof of use and diagnosis are found and fixed. Proof of use must show her name, a date, a listed product, and that it was given to her. Plaintiffs who fail to cure a gap face an order to show cause from the court. A similar process for flawed complaints followed in Pretrial Order 23.
Judge Appoints Plaintiffs' Leadership Team
In Pretrial Order 18, Judge Rodgers named Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss lead counsel, with Bryan Aylstock and Ellen Relkin as co-leads, plus liaison counsel, executive and steering committees, and subcommittees. Jeremy Branning became defense liaison counsel. The one-year terms ran to March 16, 2026. Earlier, Case Management Order 1 said women should be adequately represented in leadership.
Pilot Schedule Puts Preemption and Causation First
After the March 13 conference, the court issued Case Management Order 2 with a scheduling order for the five pilot cases. Discovery opened March 27, 2025, preemption discovery closed July 25, and preemption summary judgment motions were due August 24, 2025. The parties agreed no master complaint or Science Day was needed. The generic makers agreed to give affidavits on whether they had any role with the drug.
Every Plaintiff Must Prove Use and Diagnosis
Pretrial Order 17 requires each plaintiff to give early records showing she used each named defendant's product and was diagnosed with a meningioma. The questionnaire, answered under penalty of perjury through BrownGreer's MDL Centrality site, was due July 14, 2025, for cases already on file and 120 days after filing or transfer for later cases.
Direct Filing Into the MDL Approved
Under Pretrial Order 10, plaintiffs can file Depo-Provera meningioma cases straight into the Northern District of Florida instead of filing elsewhere and waiting for transfer. Each complaint must name a Designated Forum, the court where it would otherwise have been filed. Direct filing does not change which state's law or filing deadline applies, and the parties kept their right to have cases sent back for trial.
Special Master and Data Administrator Appointed
With the parties' consent, Judge Rodgers made retired judge David Herndon a special master to help run the MDL and its five pilot cases. He may work directly with the lawyers and report privately to the court. In a separate order the same day, BrownGreer PLC was named data administrator to gather and organize plaintiff information, including identifying details for everyone taking part in the MDL.
Five Pilot Cases Chosen After First Conference
Following the February 21 initial conference, Case Management Order 1 picked five pilot cases to move through discovery and trial: those of Donna Toney, Alicia Wilson, Kristina Schmidt, Rachel Valera-Arceo, and Allison Blonski. Early discovery would target shared defenses such as preemption and general causation. Multi-plaintiff complaints were barred, and proposed plaintiffs' leadership slates were due February 28.
JPML Creates Depo-Provera MDL in Florida
The federal panel that assigns MDLs, the JPML, centralized the federal cases as MDL No. 3140, sending them to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Florida's Northern District. Plaintiffs had sought California, while Pfizer favored New York. The order covered 27 actions in eight districts and noted 41 related cases. All parties agreed the MDL should be limited to claims of intracranial meningioma from Depo-Provera or a generic version.
Panel Sets Depo-Provera Motions for January Hearing
The JPML's hearing session order listed two plaintiff motions to centralize the Depo-Provera cases for oral argument on January 30, 2025, in Miami. One group, including Kristina Schmidt, wanted a Northern District of California forum. A second group, including Kathleen Fazio, favored the Central District of California.
Where the Depo-Provera Lawsuit Stands Now
In the past few months, there’s still been a lot of activity around the case:
A New Study Bolsters Plaintiffs’ Claims
Just like in many other MDLs involving dangerous drugs, there’s an ongoing debate over how dangerous Depo-Provera is. In September 2025, a study in JAMA Neurology found that long-term use of the shot dramatically increased meningioma risk. It’s not the only study to reach this conclusion, but it bolsters the plaintiffs’ arguments.
A New Defendant Is Added
In September 2025, a Depo-Provera lawsuit filed by a California woman named Kaiser Permanente as a defendant. The suit argued that Kaiser was partially responsible because (1) it claimed to have independently reviewed drug safety information and (2) it promoted Depo-Provera as a safe drug.
The Total Case Count Continues to Grow
As more plaintiffs hear about the mass tort and file their own lawsuits, the Depo-Provera MDL continues to grow. In August 2025, the total plaintiff count was 550. In September, it reached 800. By October of 2026, MDL No. 3140 had 6,412 pending actions.
Settlement Agreement in Principle
On June 15, 2026, Pfizer and numerous plaintiffs agreed to a settlement in principle and let U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers know of the development. This led the court to vacate deadlines connected with the bellwether trial.
Depo-Provera Settlement Process Continues
In July of 2026, the federal judge in charge of the lawsuits gave the go-ahead to administer the settlement. The parties involved signed a Master Settlement Agreement. Eligibility, settlement amounts, medical proof requirements and other details remain confidential.
Settlement Administration and Registration Deadline
In August 2026, Judge Rodgers appointed BrownGreer as the lawsuit settlement administrator. On August 28, she set a 7% common-benefit assessment on attorneys’ fees, which will not be deducted from the plaintiffs’ recovery. On September 4, she appointed Matt Garretson as Allocation Master. Registrations will close by November 30, 2026, and the first settlement payments are expected in the first quarter of 2027.
Examples of Depo-Provera Lawsuits
In April 2025, a Utah woman filed a lawsuit in the Depo-Provera MDL, alleging she developed intracranial meningiomas after using the contraceptive injection for over a decade. According to the complaint, she received Depo-Provera injections between 1996 and 2006 for contraception and menstrual regulation.
In 2007, she began experiencing severe headaches and migraines and was diagnosed with a meningioma. The tumor was removed in 2008. The plaintiff claims she only recently became aware of the connection between Depo-Provera and meningiomas, following new scientific studies published in late 2024.
A Florida woman has also joined the MDL in April, alleging she developed hearing loss and tinnitus due to meningiomas linked to Depo-Provera injections received in the early 2000s. She began experiencing hearing loss symptoms in 2019, prompting medical evaluations that led to the discovery of a brain tumor.
New lawsuits have also emerged in Kentucky and Tennessee, with plaintiffs alleging that long-term Depo-Provera use led to multiple brain tumors requiring invasive surgeries.
A Kansas plaintiff who received Depo-Provera injections from 2021 to 2022 developed symptoms in 2025. They include vertigo, headaches and vision loss. Imaging studies revealed an intracranial meningioma.
Depo Provera Settlement Amounts
In June of 2026, Pfizer and the plaintiffs of numerous lawsuits announced a global settlement in principle. The Master Settlement Agreement was signed on July 21, 2026, though its terms and payout amounts remain confidential. About 80% of MDL plaintiffs are expected to qualify. Those who do not or who choose to opt out have the option to continue litigation but will face Pfizer’s general-causation and Rule 702 expert challenges.
If cases ultimately prove liability for meningiomas, drug manufacturers may be liable for economic and non-economic losses suffered by victims.
Economic losses include past and future medical expenses, lost income and diminished future earnings. These losses may be significant because of the cost of brain surgery and the lengthy recovery time required.
Non-economic losses cover the ways the meningioma reduces the victim’s quality of life. These losses may include the pain, mental suffering and disabilities caused by a meningioma. Again, a victim could suffer significant non-economic losses because of how a brain tumor can alter their quality of life.
To avoid paying a huge damage award to each victim, drug manufacturers facing an MDL will often offer a global settlement. This settlement usually includes a large fund that pays victims preset amounts based on factors such as age, disease and prognosis.
More seriously injured patients will be eligible to receive larger payouts. These types of settlements help ensure that victims receive compensation in proportion to the severity of their injuries.
Eligibility Criteria for Filing a Depo-Provera Lawsuit
To file a Depo-Provera lawsuit, you must have suffered an intracranial meningioma to be eligible to file a lawsuit. You must have used Depo-Provera or Depo-SubQ Provera 104 for a year or at least four injections. The meningioma must have been confirmed via imaging studies, and you must be able to provide medical or pharmacy records.
People who have a medically diagnosed meningioma that is supported by imaging studies, along with a well-documented history of Depo-Provera use, are those who typically fit the criteria best.
Other considerations will be how long ago you used the drug, the diagnosis you received and other factors that can prove or disprove the proximate cause.
How to File a Depo-Provera Lawsuit
Before doing anything else, reach out to a lawyer who can help you understand whether you’re eligible to file a claim. They will also assist you in gathering evidence to demonstrate that you took Depo-Provera and have received a diagnosis of a related health issue.
Using all of this information, your lawyer will prepare and file the claim. The process will typically involve negotiating with insurance companies, which you should always allow your lawyer to handle.
Since a Master Settlement Agreement has been reached, you must act quickly if you have not yet filed a lawsuit. Waiting too long puts you at risk of missing the eligibility window, which ends on November 30, 2026. Keep in mind that your state’s statute of limitations will still apply.
Statute of Limitations for Depo-Provera Lawsuits
Product liability claims all carry statutes of limitations, though the exact time you have can vary from state to state. Typically, the ticking clock will begin the moment that you discover the injuries you sustained since they take time to appear.
The statutes of limitations for product liability cases typically range from two to three years from when you suffered the injury or discovered you had developed a meningioma. Make sure to verify your particular state’s deadline.
Because missing the statute of limitations results in being barred from recovering damages, it’s vital to get help from a product liability attorney as quickly as possible. They will be able to guide you through the process of filing a claim.
Side Effects That Could Support a Depo Provera Lawsuit
Depo-Provera has known risks, such as headaches, anxiety and depression. It can also cause a loss in bone density. However, a recent study points to a more serious and potentially life-threatening side effect. Women who take Depo-Provera appear to have an increased risk of developing non-cancerous brain tumors.
Specifically, a study conducted in France found that women exposed to progestogens contained in Depo-Provera had an increased risk of developing a meningioma. These tumors do not grow on the brain. Instead, they develop in the meninges, producing the following symptoms:
- Headache
- Blurry vision
- Hearing loss
- Seizures
- Numbness or tingling
- Muscle weakness
- Poor coordination
- Slurred or impaired speech
- Amnesia
Most meningiomas are benign. This means they grow slowly and do not spread to other body systems. As a result, doctors have several treatment options, including surgery and radiation therapy. They may also choose not to treat the Depo-Provera brain tumor if its effects are minor.
However, a small percentage of meningioma cases are cancerous. The resulting brain tumors grow aggressively.
Also, both benign and malignant meningioma can cause life-threatening symptoms if they press on major nerves or brain regions. The impairments and disabilities from meningioma can significantly reduce your quality of life. For example, you may need to change jobs and alter your activities when you suffer from a meningioma that causes seizures.
Depo Provera can also cause other side effects including reduced bone density, anxiety and depression. Pfizer's label has long warned of these risks. It added a meningioma warning only in December 2025. No studies have revealed any connection to long-term or permanent infertility. Women typically recover their fertility within a few months after ending their treatments.
Other Known Side Effects
Depo-Provera puts you at risk of suffering from a number of health issues. It can lead to the development of osteoporosis, causing your bones to become thinner and more prone to breaking. The medication also appears to trigger mental health concerns.
Long-term side effects also include a heightened risk of developing meningioma (a usually benign brain tumor) and breast cancer. This is a particular danger for younger women. Additionally, you’re more likely to suffer from blood clots if you use Depo-Provera. Depo-Provera users claim they were not properly warned about the potential for serious health complications, such as meningiomas.
Recent Scientific Study Linking Depo Provera to Brain Tumors
A 2024 French study (Roland et al., 2024) published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) supports the recent lawsuits. Researchers found that women injected with the active ingredient in Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) over a prolonged period had a 5.6-times higher risk of developing intracranial meningiomas. This study is the latest in a growing body of research linking Depo Provera to the development of rare brain tumors.
European Warning Labels Highlight Depo Provera Risks
American women prescribed Depo-Provera were unaware of regulatory actions taken in Europe regarding progestogen medications and their potential link to rare brain tumors. The European Medicines Agency and U.K. health authorities updated Depo-Provera’s label to explicitly warn about meningioma risks in 2022. Likewise, lawsuits allege that the Canadian label for the drug also mentions meningiomas.
In 2024, Pfizer requested an update to the warning label for Depo Provera to include the risk of meningiomas, but the FDA denied the request. Pfizer resubmitted the request in 2025 and the FDA approved it in December of 2025.
Types of Depo Provera Lawsuits
You will not find Depo Provera numbers in medical malpractice statistics. Doctors are generally not responsible for injuries that result from side effects the manufacturer fails to warn of. Instead, these usually result in product liability cases against the manufacturer.
Patients have not filed any class action lawsuits for injury or death caused by Depo Provera. Class action lawsuits occur when many people suffer similar injuries and have similar legal claims. The class action process allows each class action lawyer to share the burdens of recovering evidence and fighting motions.
The downside is that the entire class shares the damage award or settlement, resulting in smaller damage awards. Moreover, since the class is treated together, a jury will not hear the unique facts for any class member except the class representative.
Another litigation procedure for handling widespread injuries from defective drugs is called multidistrict litigation (MDL). Federal court cases filed in multiple geographic regions get consolidated into one federal court to be overseen by one district court judge.
An MDL case allows the victims to share discovery and cooperate on motions. However, the cases retain their separate characters and get tried separately.
Depo-Provera cases are also pending in state courts. These cases could require separate procedures and agreements from those of the federal MDL.
Contact ConsumerShield for Assistance
If you believe your use of Depo-Provera has caused a benign or malignant meningioma, you should speak to an attorney about your options. ConsumerShield provides lawyer referrals to people who need legal advice and representation. Contact us to schedule a free case evaluation.
Depo Provera Lawsuit Knowledge Base
No topics match your search.
Frequently Asked Questions
The claims continue as individual cases in a MDL, and they are being resolved via the July 2026 Master Settlement Agreement.
Scientists have not found a link between Depo-Provera and long-term or permanent infertility. On the contrary, they have found that women regain their fertility in about five and a half months after ceasing the use of the medication. However, future scientific studies could provide support for such claims.
Depo-Provera has been linked to the development of meningioma. This is a type of tumor that carries WHO grades of I to III. The majority of these tumors are benign. A small percentage of meningiomas (grade III), however, can be malignant. There are no studies linking Depo-Provera to other types of cancer.
Resources
Explore related articles and sources cited on this page.