5 Medical Mass Torts to Watch in 2025
With several high-profile MDLs entering decisive phases, 2025 is bringing with it significant movement in the medical product liability space. This roundup of 5 medical product liability cases offers insight into how courts are responding to theories of liability and increasingly aggressive defense strategies in both pharmaceutical and medical device litigation.
From the expanding GLP-1 litigation to long-running battles over surgical mesh and contraceptives, the 5 MDLs outlined below highlight where the momentum is and how upcoming trials and rulings may influence the trajectory of parallel claims.
1. Ozempic and GLP-1 Agonists (Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly)
.png)
In Re: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Products Liability Litigation, 2:24-md-3094, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This high-profile case revolves around GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, including Novo Nordisk's Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Victoza, and Saxenda, as well as Eli Lilly's Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound. Plaintiffs claim that these medications cause severe gastrointestinal injuries such as gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, and other complications, and manufacturers failed to adequately warn users and healthcare providers about these risks, despite being aware of the potential for such adverse effects.
In response, the FDA has issued multiple safety communications and label updates to inform healthcare providers and the public about the gastrointestinal risks associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. These warnings were released prior to the consolidation of cases into the current MDL.
On November 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a comprehensive 244-page Master Complaint detailing allegations.
As of April 2025, over 1,600 cases are pending in the MDL. The litigation is in the early stages, with discovery underway. The court has scheduled a series of monthly status conferences throughout 2025, with the next conference set for May 19, 2025.
In January 2025, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly filed motions to dismiss most claims in the Master Complaint, except for the failure-to-warn allegations, which they intend to address later in the litigation. Plaintiffs have opposed these motions, emphasizing the need for further discovery and arguing that the manufacturers' conduct justifies the continuation of all claims.
An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 2025 to evaluate scientific evidence on the potential link between GLP-1 receptor agonists and gastrointestinal injuries. This will be a crucial Daubert-style proceeding where both sides will present expert testimony on causation. The outcomes of this and ongoing discovery will shape the direction of the litigation, including the potential for future bellwether trials.
The off-label promotion and widespread use of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Ozempic and Mounjaro for weight loss, despite FDA approval primarily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, has drawn increased scrutiny around whether existing warnings adequately address the risk of serious gastrointestinal side effects.
Read more about this case: Ozempic MDL: Background, Timeline, & 2025 Updates
2. Bard Hernia Mesh (CR Bard/Becton Dickinson)
In Re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, 2:18-md-02846, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Bard’s hernia mesh products were initially manufactured using non-medical grade polypropylene, a material not designed for permanent implantation in the human body, raising serious concerns about the safety and long-term biocompatibility of the materials used in these devices.
Bard first faced major hernia mesh litigation in 2011, when the company settled approximately 2,700 cases related to its Composix Kugel mesh for $184 million.
The current MDL builds upon the legal and factual foundations established in earlier litigation, consolidating claims that around 20-30 different polypropylene-based mesh implants manufactured by CR Bard, a subsidiary of Becton Dickinson, are defective. Plaintiffs allege that these mesh products degrade over time, leading to serious complications such as infections, organ perforations, chronic pain, and the need for revision surgeries.
The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the Marlex polypropylene used in Bard's 3DMax hernia mesh also explicitly warn against its use in permanent human implantation.
In October 2024, Becton Dickinson agreed to a settlement to resolve approximately 38,000 lawsuits. While the specific terms were not disclosed, the company indicated that the settlement would utilize a significant portion of the $1.7 billion it had previously reserved for product liability litigation. This settlement process is being overseen by special masters appointed by both federal and state courts, ensuring a uniform claims process for all plaintiffs.
Despite this substantial settlement, over 24,000 cases remain active as of April 2025. Individual plaintiffs have the option to opt out of the settlement and pursue separate claims. Becton Dickinson has not admitted liability and continues to defend against these remaining lawsuits.
Of the four cases that have proceeded to trial, three resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs, with awards ranging from $255,000 to $4.8 million. These outcomes may influence the strategies of both plaintiffs and defendants in the ongoing litigation.
The settlement program is structured to address claims over a multi-year period, with initial payments expected before the end of 2025.
3. Paragard IUD (Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical)
.png)
In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, 1:20-md-02974, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
The Paragard IUD MDL claims that the intrauterine copper birth control device can fracture upon removal, leaving broken pieces embedded in the uterus. While the FDA approved Paragard in 1984, it has received thousands of adverse event reports through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, including over 3,000 reports of device breakage or fracture. These malfunctions have allegedly caused serious injuries, including organ perforation, chronic pain, infection, infertility, and the need for complex surgical retrieval.
According to the Master Complaint filed on March 9, 2021, plaintiffs assert that Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical were aware of the risks but failed to adequately warn consumers and healthcare providers.
While a federal judge has dismissed dozens of suits based on state-specific statutes of limitations, many plaintiffs continue to pursue their claims. The MDL remains active, with discovery ongoing and expert witness testimony expected to play a central role in the upcoming trials.
As of April 2025, more than 3,000 cases are pending. The court has scheduled three bellwether trials to begin in early 2026, with the first trial set for January 12, followed by trials on March 3 and May 11. These trials are intended to test key claims and defenses and may help shape future settlement negotiations.
A significant aspect of the litigation involves the adequacy of the Paragard IUD's warning label. While the FDA mandated a warning about breakage during removal in 2019, plaintiffs argue that the label remains vague, omitting details about potential complications like organ damage, chronic pain, and infertility. This issue is expected to play a central role in the upcoming trials.
4. Depo-Provera (Pfizer)
In Re: Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation, 3:25-md-03140, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
The Depo-Provera case involves lawsuits brought by women who developed intracranial meningiomas, benign but potentially serious brain tumors, after long-term use of the injectable contraceptive. On February 7, 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these cases for pretrial proceedings before Judge M. Casey Rodgers, alleging that Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) increases the risk of developing such tumors.
Plaintiffs claim that Pfizer and its affiliates failed to adequately warn healthcare providers about the risk of developing meningiomas associated with prolonged use of Depo-Provera. They also allege that the manufacturers did not promote safer alternatives, such as Depo-SubQ Provera 104, which delivers a lower dose of the hormone via subcutaneous injection. The MDL alleges failure to warn, defective design, and innovator liability, and emphasizes that US labeling still does not mention the risk of developing meningioma , despite years of warnings issued in the EU, Canada, and South Africa.
As of April 1, 2025, over 130 cases have been consolidated into the MDL. The litigation is in its early stages, with initial discovery and pretrial proceedings underway. The court has selected five pilot cases to proceed through discovery and trial, aiming to address common issues and defenses early in the process.
5. Elmiron (Janssen Pharmaceuticals)
In Re: Elmiron (Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, 2:20-md-02973, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Thousands of plaintiffs have developed serious and often permanent vision problems after long-term use of Elmiron (pentosan polysulfate sodium), a drug commonly prescribed to treat interstitial cystitis, a chronic bladder pain condition. This MDL alleges that Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose a known risk of its medication: prolonged exposure to Elmiron can cause pigmentary maculopathy, a rare but progressive retinal disease that may lead to irreversible vision loss.
Plaintiffs claim that Janssen had access to adverse event data and emerging scientific literature linking Elmiron to retinal toxicity as early as 2018, yet delayed updating the drug’s warning label until June 2020. Even then, the updated label included vague language about “retinal changes,” without clearly warning about the risk of vision-threatening maculopathy. Many patients continued using the drug unaware of the potential for permanent ocular damage, with symptoms often misdiagnosed as age-related macular degeneration or other retinal conditions.
As of April 2025, the MDL includes more than 1,900 active cases, with centralized proceedings before Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The litigation has moved into an advanced discovery phase, with both sides exchanging medical records, scientific studies, and expert opinions on dosage thresholds, latency periods, and mechanisms of injury. In December 2023, the court identified a pool of bellwether cases that will proceed to early trial, offering a testing ground for liability and damages theories.
The first bellwether trial is expected to begin in late 2025 and could serve as a bellwether not only in the procedural sense, but also for gauging the jury’s response to claims involving drug-induced latent injuries and delayed corporate disclosures.
Supporting the Entire Mass Tort Lifecycle
Major medical product liability cases can involve thousands of individual claims moving through a single MDL, but rarely follow a one-size-fits-all approach. Unlike class actions, these cases demand individualized proof of harm and causation, often built from an enormous patchwork of unorganized data, such as peer-reviewed studies, adverse event reports, medical marketing materials, regulatory actions, FDA trial data, expert testimony, and more.
Uncovering these cases is difficult and involves cross-referencing an abundance of publicly available data across many different sources. Without the right tools and methodology, this is incredibly time-consuming and inefficient.
This is where Darrow comes in. Darrow supports plaintiff firms from violation detection through litigation by streamlining the investigative process, accelerating case development, and connecting attorneys with the right plaintiffs to help move mass torts forward.
Detecting Medical Liability Cases
At Darrow, we use proprietary legal intelligence infrastructure made up of artificial intelligence models and data analytics to scan, cluster, and analyze data points across vast public sources available online that indicate a legal violation. We then turn this information into actionable legal insights, significantly reducing the typical time and cost it takes for firms to pinpoint strong medical mass torts.
Once we’ve found a potential violation, our team of experienced legal experts and legal intelligence analysts meticulously review and compile all supporting evidence. They assess case strength and evaluate damages to ensure that every medical liability case we uncover is legally sound and backed by strong evidence.
Recent shifts in federal oversight make this work even more relevant. As regulatory bodies face shrinking budgets, evolving political pressures, and reduced capacity for proactive enforcement, early signs of harm may go unnoticed or unaddressed.
Darrow helps fill that gap by continuously monitoring and analyzing public data to detect emerging threats in real time, ensuring that credible legal violations are identified, investigated, and brought forward with speed and precision.
Providing In-House Legal Consulting
Once we’ve partnered with a firm to litigate a case, Darrow’s legal consultants provide end-to-end support throughout the entire medical mass tort lifecycle, from case filing to surviving motion to dismiss, ensuring firms have all the evidence and documentation they need to pursue their cases.
Attorneys can connect directly with their designated legal consultant through the Darrow portal, a secure and centralized platform designed to streamline communication, case progress tracking, and evidence sharing. The portal gives partners real-time access to key documents, legal analysis, and case updates, making it easier than ever to stay informed, collaborate efficiently, and move cases forward with confidence.
Connecting Attorneys With Quality Plaintiffs
Once we’ve developed a strong legal mass tort and partnered with a firm for litigation, our team works to connect attorneys with high-quality, pre-vetted individuals who meet the specific criteria for the case. We carefully review each plaintiff’s details and backstory, including their medical history, symptom progression, treatment timeline, and relevant documentation, to ensure alignment with the case’s legal and factual requirements, helping firms build momentum quickly and move forward with confidence.
Doing so saves valuable time during intake and allows attorneys to focus on litigation, not lead qualification.
Attorneys can log in to our user-friendly portal, PlaintiffLink, to review identified and vetted plaintiffs and to communicate with our team, minimizing the operational hurdles and costs tied to finding quality plaintiffs.
Interested in partnering with Darrow on your next medical mass tort? Contact us.
This Might Interest You:
Partner with Darrow to grow your practice
