Lawsuit Information Center https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ Published by Personal Injury Lawyers Discussing Auto and Truck Accidents, Medical Malpractice and Products Liability Issues - Miller & Zois, LLC Mon, 18 May 2026 20:17:48 +0000 en-US hourly 1 112650642 Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/vaginal-mesh-lawsuits-in-2026.html Mon, 18 May 2026 18:52:09 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=16370 This page is for women considering filing a vaginal mesh lawsuit in 2026.

Vaginal mesh litigation has become one of the most significant mass torts in recent history, involving thousands of lawsuits against multiple manufacturers of transvaginal mesh (TVM) products.

This article provides a history of the vaginal mesh litigation and gives you the lay of the land for bringing a vaginal mesh lawsuit in 2026. Our lawyers also discuss our average settlement amounts and jury payouts for victims with successful claims.

Continue reading
]]> 16370 Roblox Child Sex Abuse Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/roblox-sex-abuse-lawsuit.html Mon, 18 May 2026 17:17:44 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=27839 A growing number of families are suing Roblox after learning their children were groomed, exploited, or exposed to sexually explicit content through the platform. Roblox spent years branding itself as a safe, kid-focused place to create and play. These lawsuits say that the promise did not match reality, and too many children have been exploited as a result.

Several high-profile cases, including federal lawsuits filed around the country and consumer class action claims over marketing and monetization practices, allege that Roblox failed to protect minors from foreseeable risks. In federal court, most of the child exploitation and grooming cases are now coordinated in the Roblox MDL in the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-md-03166-RS, before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg.

The core allegations are straightforward. Families claim Roblox allowed predators and explicit content to circulate, failed to enforce meaningful safety barriers, and profited from design choices that kept kids engaged while leaving them vulnerable. Many complaints describe the same pattern: predators initiate contact through in-game chat or messaging, build trust, and then push children to move conversations to third-party apps like Discord or Snapchat, where monitoring is weaker, and the harm escalates.

Continue reading
]]> 27839 Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/depo-provera-lawsuit.html Mon, 18 May 2026 14:20:58 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=24000 This page is for victims considering filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Our lawyers provide the latest updates on these claims, explain the litigation process, and predict Depo Provera settlement amounts.

A new scientific study has provided stunning evidence that using Depo-Provera can cause brain tumors. Women who used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a meningioma brain tumor can file a Depo-Provera lawsuit seeking financial compensation. This new evidence is leading to a wave of Depo-Provera lawsuits nationwide.

Our lawyers are speaking to over 100 women a week who used Depo-Provera and have been diagnosed with meningioma. Our law firm is committed to this litigation and handling Depo-Provera lawsuits for women who had at least two injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor. If you meet these criteria, we will make the process of signing up for this litigation easy for you. Contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

Continue reading
]]> 24000 Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/suboxone-tooth-decay-lawsuit.html Sat, 16 May 2026 14:13:47 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=18714

This page examines Suboxone, its associated dental complications, and the subsequent Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits that occurred in 2025. 

What is the Suboxone lawsuit about? The lawsuit is about what Suboxone does to your teeth. The core of every Suboxone lawsuit is that the defendants knew of the risk of severe tooth decay and other dental injuries. They did not convey that risk to prescribing doctors or patients because they chose profits over people.

Unfortunately, our lawyers are no longer taking on new Suboxone cases in 2026.  

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit Updates for 2026

The Suboxone tooth decay litigation continues to evolve rapidly, with critical new developments shaping the trajectory of these cases. As 2026 unfolds, plaintiffs and their attorneys continue a complex legal battle against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, over its failure to warn patients about the devastating dental consequences of its sublingual film formulation.

With new case filings, procedural rulings, and strategic legal maneuvers unfolding each month, staying informed is crucial for those following this litigation.

These updates provide the latest insights into the Suboxone litigation that you won’t find elsewhere.

Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Note 14 Depositions

May 16, 2026

The litigation is heating up.  Plaintiffs’ Suboxone lawyers noted 14 depositions last week.  These are the witnesses:

Witness Indivior Connection What the Connection Appears to Be
Kim Daly Custodian Named as Indivior custodian of records.
Timothy Baxter Former Indivior Former Indivior medical director or global medical director connected to Suboxone safety and medical issues.
Graham Cairns Indivior Connected to Indivior UK Limited, with a senior chemistry role.
Randal Batenhorst Indivior Appears publicly as a senior regulatory affairs executive at Indivior.
Baher Mankabady Indivior Publicly identified as a senior vice president at Indivior.
Ed Johnson Indivior-related Indivior clinical research and early buprenorphine or Suboxone related work.
Paul Fudala Indivior Full-time Indivior employee at the time of submission.
Mark Schobel Aquestive Connected to MonoSol or Aquestive, the film technology partner
Nick Reuter Custodian Listed as an Indivior custodian in the Suboxone litigation and connected to the Indivior Patient Help Foundation
Vickie Seeger Indivior-related Identified in Suboxone litigation materials as a Reckitt employee involved in collecting and reviewing abuse, misuse, diversion, and pediatric exposure data.
Shaun Thaxter Former Indivior CEO Former chief executive officer of Indivior and one of the most significant witnesses on corporate knowledge and decision-making.
Clorey Toombs Yes, Indivior Director, Regulatory Affairs Strategy for Indivior.
Richard Norton Indivior-related Work involving buprenorphine related products.

Schedule A Plaintiffs Must File Suit

April 28, 2026

At last week’s case management conference, Judge Calabrese stated that the “time for doing has passed” and that Schedule A plaintiffs must either file individual cases or be dismissed.

Schedule A was created to allow thousands of plaintiffs to file abbreviated complaints without full injury details or medical records, preserving their claims before state statute of limitations deadlines expired. That list originally held almost 10,000 claims. About 5,000 remain. The court’s position, and it is easy to see where the judge is coming from, is that two years is enough time to have gathered the documentation needed to file a proper individual case.

Suboxone Lawsuit Schedule Becomes Clear

April 1, 2026

Judge Calabrese entered a new case management order laying out the bellwether schedule for the Suboxone tooth decay MDL.

That is good news, right?  The problem is that the court set the first trials on a path to begin in 2028.

The order calls for 20 cases to be randomly selected from the remaining 100 case pool for core discovery by June 10, 2026, after which the parties will identify 15 preferred representative cases by July 2.

Depositions in those tooth decay cases will run through January 15, 2027. Dispositive motions are due by March 12, 2027, and the court expects to narrow the group to four final bellwether cases by June 11, 2027. The first trial is currently projected to begin in March 2028.

So the MDL now has a concrete path to trial, albeit a long one.

Get More Suboxone Lawsuit Updates 👈

New Suboxone Lawsuit

March 1, 2026

In a new lawsuit, a family from Darrow, Louisiana, filed suit in the MDL 3092, alleging that long-term use of Suboxone sublingual film left them with permanent and extensive dental damage after they were prescribed the medication to treat opioid dependence.

The plaintiff is a resident of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, who was prescribed Suboxone film in Hammond, Louisiana, and used the product as directed while living in Darrow. The plaintiff initially became dependent on opioids after being prescribed pain medication by a physician for pain management. Seeking treatment for opioid use disorder, the plaintiff was placed on Suboxone film as part of medication-assisted therapy.

The lawsuit emphasizes that the plaintiff used Suboxone film exactly as prescribed, dissolving the acidic film in the mouth daily, often multiple times per day, for an extended period. During treatment, neither the plaintiff nor the prescribing physicians were warned that the product’s acidic formulation could erode enamel, accelerate decay, or cause permanent dental deterioration. At the time of prescription and use, the labeling allegedly contained no adequate warning regarding dental erosion, tooth decay, or the need for dental monitoring.

Over time, the plaintiff began experiencing significant dental deterioration. The complaint states that, as a direct result of using Suboxone film as prescribed, the plaintiff suffered permanent tooth damage and required substantial dental intervention to repair the destruction to multiple teeth. The injuries include serious and irreversible damage consistent with enamel erosion and decay, resulting in extensive restorative dental work and ongoing oral health complications.

The plaintiff contends that the injuries were particularly devastating given the purpose of the medication — to support recovery and stability. Instead, the plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to the film’s low-pH formulation, which dissolves in the mouth and can remain in contact with teeth for extended periods, created repeated acidic exposure that compromised dental integrity.

The suit further asserts that even after mounting reports of dental injuries associated with transmucosal buprenorphine products, warnings were not timely provided to patients like the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that adequate warnings, monitoring instructions, or earlier availability of safer alternative delivery systems could have prevented the extensive damage suffered.

100 Plaintiffs Make Core Discovery Pool

February 25, 2026

Judge Calabrese has randomly selected 100 plaintiffs in the Suboxone Film MDL for potential inclusion in the Core Discovery Pool under Case Management Order No. 15. These cases were chosen from files where defendants say records collection is substantially complete.

Selection does not mean a case is headed to trial, but it does move it into a smaller group for more intensive, case-specific discovery.

This is an important structural step in the path to a settlement.  We need trial dates to put on real pressure and this gets us close to that. So this Core Discovery Pool is how the judge begins testing cases in detail and building toward eventual bellwether trials and serious settlement discussions.

Suboxone Lawsuit Meeting

January 18, 2026

There will be a court conference on January 21, 2025, where the judge and the lawyers will meet to talk about how this large Suboxone case is moving forward. This type of meeting is called a case-management conference, which simply means the judge checks on progress, resolves problems, and sets next steps.

At the conference, the lawyers plan to talk about the following topics:

  1. Information from outside companies

    Some information in the case is held by companies not part of the lawsuit, most notably the victims’ medical records. The judge will hear updates on earlier court orders requiring those companies to turn over documents. The court may also discuss whether two companies failed to follow those orders and, if so, whether they should be held in contempt of court (which could result in penalties for noncompliance).
  2. The court will review how well the plaintiffs are providing the required information. This includes:

    • Updates on the first two rounds of census forms, which are basic questionnaires that collect important details about each plaintiff’s case

    • Problems with missing or incomplete information from the first round

    • The status of collecting medical records and other documents, including an agreement to finish this process by the end of January

  3. Information from defendants

    The judge will also hear updates about documents the defendants must produce, including:

    • Missing portions of a non-disclosure agreement

    • Issues caused by document scanning or formatting errors

    • A disagreement over whether certain documents should remain confidential or be shared more broadly

  • Scheduling going forward

Finally, the court will decide where the next conference, scheduled for February 25, will take place.

Suboxone Settlement Update

January 14, 2026

As of September 2025, many individuals dealing with dental injuries linked to Suboxone are understandably eager for clarity on when settlement payouts might actually begin. The desire for resolution is real, but so is the litigation timeline.

Some are floating the idea that a settlement could come early. It is not impossible. It is just unlikely.  These cases tend to move when trials loom, and the risk of a public jury verdict becomes immediate. With key bellwethers scheduled for 2026, that’s when real pressure is likely to mount on Indivior.

In our view, the current chatter about an early Suboxone settlement is just that.

Cleaning House

January 7, 2026

MDL Adds 33 Cases

The judge held a 45-minute Zoom status conference today to address several ongoing document-related issues in the Suboxone case. The discussion focused on missing documents, document quality problems, and the progress of evidence collection.

During the conference, the judge ordered the parties to prepare a list of any remaining parts of the Suboxone tablet non-disclosure agreement that are missing and submit it by January 12, 2026. The MDL judge also required a representative from the document storage company to appear at the January 21 hearing to explain what happened to any materials that are still missing.

The judge also directed the parties to submit written explanations about problems caused by document-scanning errors. These errors may have affected whether certain attachments were properly captured and searchable.

In addition, the judge instructed both sides to keep working together to identify which plaintiffs have largely completed the required collection of medical and other records. This helps determine which cases are ready to move forward.

Judge Campbell is also requiring Plaintiffs’ leadership to promptly respond to the defendants’ request to limit public access to parts of a prior hearing transcript.

Finally, the judge asked for an update on the status of depositions, meaning sworn testimony from company employees who are responsible for maintaining documents or have relevant knowledge.

MDL Totals 1,907 Cases

January 6, 2026

As of January 2026, the Suboxone tooth decay MDL includes 1,854 pending cases, with 1,907 total cases.

MDL Adds 33 Cases

December 9, 2025

The Court held a Zoom status conference to address several ongoing document-related issues in the Suboxone case. The discussion focused on missing documents, document quality problems, and the progress of evidence collection.

During the conference, the judge ordered the parties to prepare a list of any remaining missing parts of the Suboxone tablet non-disclosure agreement and submit it by January 12, 2026. The Court also required a representative from the document storage company to appear at the January 21 hearing to explain what happened to any materials that are still missing.

The Court also directed the parties to submit written explanations about problems caused by document-scanning errors. These errors may have affected whether certain attachments were properly captured and searchable.

In addition, the judge instructed both sides to keep working together to identify which plaintiffs have largely completed the required collection of medical and other records. This helps determine which cases are ready to move forward.

The Court also required Plaintiffs’ leadership to promptly respond to the defendants’ request to limit public access to parts of a prior hearing transcript.

Finally, the judge asked for an update on the status of depositions, meaning sworn testimony from company employees who are responsible for maintaining documents or have relevant knowledge.

Show Cause Orders

September 28, 2025

Over the past two weeks, plaintiffs in the Suboxone Film MDL have filed 132 responses to show cause orders. These orders require plaintiffs to explain why their claims should not be dismissed for missing census forms or other procedural gaps. The recent wave of filings reflects a coordinated effort to address those issues and ensure cases remain active on the docket even if they have previously been slow to provide information.  Other cases where there is no response? They will get dismissed as they should.

New Order

September 18, 2025

A new order from Judge Calabrese marks a clear shift toward stricter enforcement in the Suboxone tooth decay litigation. During a September 9, 2025, in-person status conference, the court addressed a series of procedural issues, most of which revolve around noncompliance with prior court directives. The judge made it clear that both plaintiffs and third-party record holders will face consequences if they fail to meet the court’s expectations moving forward. This sounds like bad news — the judge is cracking down on plaintiffs — but most plaintiffs’ lawyers welcome it.

The judge said he would order the three remaining third-party providers to turn over medical or related records for specific plaintiffs. These are groups whose records are necessary to evaluate plaintiffs’ claims, and whose providers have so far failed to comply with existing court orders.

If the providers do not comply by the end of the month, the party requesting the records can file a motion for contempt under Rule 45. Rule 45 governs subpoenas under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When a person or entity does not comply with a subpoena, the issuing party can ask the court to hold that person or entity in contempt, which may result in penalties such as fines or other sanctions. If that does not put some fear in you, I’m not sure what will.

Second, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims of several plaintiffs who failed to comply with Case Management Order No. 15. This means the claims are permanently dismissed and cannot be refiled. In mass tort litigation, plaintiffs must meet deadlines for submitting documents, records, or other required information. Failure to comply can result in a complete loss of the claim.

Is this a bad thing? No. There are over 10,000 cases, and we need to determine sooner rather than later how many of them are viable and eligible for a Suboxone settlement. So the courts’ show cause orders against plaintiffs who failed to complete census submissions required by Case Management Order No. 12 are advancing the ball for all plaintiffs who have followed the rules and are doing what they should do.

Finally, the court indicated it will issue an additional order concerning the procedures for Census Round 2. This is another device to help get parties the information they will ultimately need for settlement.

Status Conference Today

September 9, 2025

Today’s Suboxone hearing is about keeping the cases moving. The judge will check on subpoenas to treatment centers and a pharmacy that have not turned over records. The court will also look at the plaintiff’s census. If a plaintiff has not sent in the census or medical record forms, the judge may dismiss that case. There will be updates on the small group of “Record Collection Pool” cases, including who stays in and who is out.

On the defense side, the court will push for clearer rules and deadlines for document production and the testimony of corporate witnesses. There is a dispute about old company emails and a recent privilege clawback that the judge may resolve.

Take-home message for existing plaintiffs?  Get your paperwork in to protect your claim.

Suboxone Lawsuit Count

September 5, 2025

As of Tuesday, there are 1,882 filings in the Suboxone tooth decay MDL pending in the Northern District of Ohio. As we have been saying, that figure does not reflect the true scale of the litigation.

Under Case Management Order No. 14, the court has permitted batch filings of up to 100 plaintiffs per complaint. As a result, the number of docketed cases significantly understates the number of individuals actually pursuing claims.

Based on available data and the structure of these batch filings, it is reasonable to estimate that the number of individual plaintiffs now exceeds 20,000.

The big question is how many compensable claims are there our of this estimated 20,000 plaintiffs.  Our guess is less than half..

Batch Filing of Suboxone Lawsuits

August 27, 2025

On Monday, Judge Calabrese held a 25-minute show-cause hearing regarding four providers who failed to produce records despite prior orders. Plaintiffs’ lawyers described extensive efforts to obtain the records since March 2025, including repeated phone calls and certified mail, but the four providers remain noncompliant. They requested that the court order the providers to pay reasonable fees and expenses incurred in pursuing the records, in addition to other possible sanctions.

No representatives for the noncompliant providers appeared. The judge took the matter under advisement and directed the Clerk to serve a copy of the minutes on each provider.

Without pharmacy and provider compliance, plaintiffs cannot prove prescription histories, leaving cases stuck in neutral. Judge Calabrese’s willingness to entertain sanctions and fee-shifting shows the pressure is building to break this logjam and keep the MDL moving toward bellwether trials and, ultimately, settlement.

Batch Filing of Suboxone Lawsuits

August 18, 2025

As we have been saying, we are seeing fewer Suboxone lawsuits but with larger batches of plaintiffs. In one recently filed lawsuit, 54 plaintiffs from across the United States filed a joint complaint in the Suboxone MDL alleging serious dental injuries from their prescribed use of Suboxone film. The plaintiffs claim that the manufacturers knowingly designed Suboxone film with an acidic formulation that causes irreversible dental damage, including tooth decay, erosion, and loss, without adequately warning physicians or patients.

Each plaintiff asserts that they used Suboxone film as prescribed for opioid use disorder or pain management and later suffered permanent tooth injuries or underwent significant dental procedures. The lawsuit alleges that defendants ignored mounting internal reports and published literature linking Suboxone’s acidity to oral health risks, and failed to update the product’s labeling through the FDA’s Changes Being Effected process despite a legal duty to do so. A weak and insufficient warning was only added in June 2022, after the FDA mandated it.

More on Getting Pharmacy Records to Prove Your Case

August 10, 2025

Again, one of the most persistent choke points in moving Suboxone tooth decay cases toward trial has been the sheer slog of collecting medical and pharmacy records.

In theory, this should be a straightforward paper chase where plaintiffs sign HIPAA releases, pharmacies hand over prescription histories, and the litigation grinds forward. In practice, it has become a trench war for Suboxone lawyers (and, of course, paralegals).  Many of the pharmacies holding these records have been slow-walking, ignoring, or outright defying court-ordered production deadlines.

Without these records, plaintiffs cannot make the critical evidentiary showing that they were prescribed brand-name Suboxone film strips before the onset of their dental injuries, leaving cases stalled in procedural limbo. The bottleneck is not merely administrative. It is a tactical chokehold that defense interests are only too happy to see persist.

Judge Calabrese’s latest move, a sweeping show-cause order targeting nearly twenty noncompliant pharmacies, signals the court’s impatience with these delays. He is not simply threatening sanctions in the abstract. He is ordering custodians to appear in person on August 25 to explain why they have flouted orders requiring production within thirty days of receiving a signed authorization. This escalation follows months of back-and-forth and comes after the plaintiffs’ steering committee documented repeated failures by record-holders to engage with direct requests.

A clear path to a Suboxone settlement depends on resolving this bottleneck now. The first bellwether trials hinge on narrowing the pool of 500 cases to a tight 15-case trial set. Until records flow freely, that process cannot start, and the MDL risks losing the momentum that bellwethers are designed to generate. But the bigger issue is the impossibility of getting to a global settlement if plaintiffs still do not have records.  Indivior’s attorneys will not take our word for it, and, for once, it is hard to argue with them.

Is Indivior Misjudging What a Suboxone Settlement Will Look Like?

July 17, 2025

Indivior may be betting that juries will not connect with people in recovery. That stigma will carry the day. Those in addiction treatment will not be seen as trustworthy or sympathetic. If that is their calculation, it is not just flawed. It is dangerous. And it could cost them billions more than a fair settlement would.

For years now, we have been talking to the people behind these cases. They are parents, workers, spouses, and friends. People who fought their way back from addiction and followed the treatment plan. They took Suboxone, stayed the course, and did the work. They were not reckless. They trusted the system. What they did not expect was permanent dental damage hidden behind that trust.

They were never warned. They were not given a choice. Now they are paying the price physically, emotionally, and financially. Broken teeth. Chronic pain. Tens of thousands of dollars in unreimbursed dental work. Many have lost their confidence along with their health.

We think jurors are smart, and they will see all of this. They will see real people who took responsibility for their lives, only to be harmed by a company that failed to disclose the risk.  It will not be hard to convince them that Indivior put profits first, second, and third on its priority list.  If Indivior believes jurors will turn away because these plaintiffs are in recovery, then they are misjudging the decency and judgment of everyday Americans. That will be an expensive mistake if they let these lawsuits go to trial.

Suboxone Lawsuit Profile Is Changing

July 11, 2025:  Unlike some mass torts, Suboxone is flying under the radar. But that is starting to shift. The plaintiffs in these cases are compelling: people in recovery, often with no prior dental issues, now facing tens of thousands of dollars in dental reconstruction. Once those stories start making it into mainstream media—or trial exhibits—Indivior’s risk calculus could shift quickly. A high-profile verdict could blow this wide open.

Deposition Process

July 8, 2025: The MDL judge issued a new order outlining how depositions will proceed going forward. This applies to both general witnesses and those involved in the bellwether process unless those details are already covered in earlier orders.

Depositions will usually happen in person unless both sides agree to do it remotely. If a deposition is conducted over Zoom or a similar platform, the party requesting it must set everything up and ensure that only authorized individuals are present. Everyone involved must follow strict rules, especially when it comes to protecting confidential documents and ensuring that no one records the deposition except for the official court videographer.

The order also spells out how exhibits should be handled. Lawyers must provide materials to the witness in advance, whenever possible, especially for remote depositions. Witnesses must also confirm that they will not review sealed documents until the deposition begins. Scheduling is also covered here. If the plaintiffs’ Suboxone lawyers wish to depose someone who works or has worked for the company, the defense team has ten days to provide at least two available dates. In most depositions, only one lawyer from each side will question the witness; however, the plaintiffs’ team can have two lawyers split up the questioning if they notify the opposing side in advance. All this is designed to keep things running smoothly as the litigation moves into deeper discovery and toward trial preparation.

Indivior’s Blind Spot

July 3, 2025: There is a quiet but dangerous assumption built into Indivior’s defense strategy.  It is the idea that juries will not connect with plaintiffs because of their history of opioid addiction. That maybe these people will be viewed as flawed, or somehow less worthy of compensation. If that is the mindset, it is not just a legal miscalculation. It is a complete misreading of the cultural and emotional terrain these cases live in.

Juries are not just spreadsheets of liability analysis. There are six to twelve people sitting in a room, listening to testimony from folks who did what the system asked of them. They got clean. They stayed on treatment. And in return, they were handed a drug that quietly wrecked their teeth. We are not talking about cavities here. We are talking about people in their 30s and 40s wearing full dentures, facing tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket dental bills, and receiving little to no warning from the company that knew exactly what was coming. When you hear those stories in open court, they stick.  It is not hard to see a jury getting really mad and awarding punitive damages.

We have heard from teachers, warehouse workers, nurses, and single parents. Some can no longer chew properly. Others are terrified of public speaking or job interviews because they cannot hide what Suboxone did to them. There is a dignity in those stories that cuts through any courtroom attempt to lean on stigma. And it is not like Indivior is walking in with a clean record. This company has already pleaded guilty to felony charges related to its marketing practices. That history may not technically be part of the evidence, but our lawyers think the conduct is going to bleed into how jurors see it.

If Indivior is playing for sympathy or assuming plaintiffs’ pasts will do their defense work for them, they are misreading the moment. These cases are not weak. The plaintiffs’ Suboxone lawyers are ready. And if reasonable settlement talks do not happen, juries will decide what this dental damage is worth. That number might not be something Indivior can live with.

Getting Suboxone Pharmacy Records 

June 27, 2025:  One challenging part of the Suboxone litigation is getting pharmacy records.  The pharmacies do not make it easy on you. At the end of last month, Walgreens, Safeway, and Porch Light Health | Front Range Clinic were ordered by the judge to show cause for allegedly failing to comply with Case Management Order No. 13, which requires the production of pharmacy records within 30 days after receiving valid medical authorizations.

Yesterday, the judge withdrew its show-cause order as to the two providers identified by Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel as having complied with the record requests, but left the hearing in place for Walgreens Pharmacy. The show-cause hearing for Walgreens is scheduled for Friday.

Path to Trial

May 24, 2025: This week, the MDL judge issued Amended Case Management Order No. 15. This order outlines the comprehensive bellwether trial protocol in the federal Suboxone litigation.  It establishes a phased process for selecting plaintiffs, beginning with the identification of a 500-member Records Collection Pool.

Plaintiffs in this pool must provide signed medical authorizations for records related to Suboxone treatment and the injuries claimed. Plaintiffs who do not comply may have their cases dismissed, and those who drop out must be replaced promptly. The goal is to collect medical documentation to determine a representative subset for trial preparation.

From the initial 500 cases, 100 will be randomly chosen for the Core Discovery Pool. These plaintiffs and the defendants must exchange detailed fact sheets and medical records through a secure platform called Rubris Crosslink. Following this, 50 cases will be finalized as the Core Discovery Pool, split among random, plaintiff-picked, and defense-picked selections. After depositions and document exchanges, 15 Trial Pool cases will be selected (five from each side and five randomly). Ultimately, six potential bellwether trial candidates will be named, with each side striking one case to finalize four for trial. All trials will, unfortunately, be single plaintiff trials.

This protocol serves as a structured roadmap for our first trial for victims in this litigation, assuming we progress that far without a global Suboxone settlement first.

Drop in “Schedule A” Claims

March 13, 2025: Not long after the Suboxone MDL was formed, the looming (potential) statute of limitations in states with a two-year deadline created a rush to file claims by June 2024. To prevent the court from being inundated with individual filings and, frankly, to save plaintiffs’ lawyers a fortune in filing fees for no good reason,  Judge Calabrese permitted a consolidated lawsuit, referred to as the Schedule A cases, encompassing approximately 9,600 individuals. Most of these cases were still in the process of gathering the necessary documentation to substantiate their claims. In recent weeks, the number of Schedule A complaints has been reduced to 8,611 because attorneys initially preserved potential claims that ultimately did not prove viable.

We are hoping to get a new order this week to deal with the next theoretical statute of limitations date that is on the horizon to avoid this same problem.

November 23, 2024: Multiple Lawyers

Many Suboxone victims have hired more than one lawyer for their claim. One key takeaway from Thursday’s status conference was the need for attorneys to familiarize themselves with the Rubris Crosslink platform, mentioned in our November 15 update below, to begin addressing this issue. Duplicate representation can create conflicts and inefficiencies that slow down case progress and, if left unresolved, complicate settlement negotiations.

The Rubris Crosslink will help solve the problem of Suboxone victims hiring multiple lawyers by providing a centralized system to identify and manage overlapping legal representation. This is not a Suboxone-specific problem—we see victims with agreements with multiple law firms in every mass tort. Why? Mostly, it results from misunderstandings, aggressive marketing, and people just wrongly thinking two bites of the apple are better than one.

The platform uses its database to track cases across participating firms, flagging instances where a client has retained more than one lawyer. This enables firms to resolve conflicts early, ensuring smoother case management and better outcomes for victims.

September 23, 2024: Why Do Suboxone Lawyers Prefer Cases with Use Before June 2018?

The Suboxone lawsuits primarily target the use of the brand-name Suboxone before June 2018. Before this time, Indivior, the company responsible for the design, testing, and production of Suboxone, controlled most of the market.

After June 2018, generic versions of Suboxone became more widely available and took over most of the market share. The current wave of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits is focused on the brand-name version of the drug, alleging that its defective design contributed to severe dental problems such as tooth decay, erosion, and tooth loss.

Why not sue the generic manufacturers? You can. But it is more complicated. This difficulty arises from the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court, which effectively protects generic drug manufacturers from liability for failure-to-warn claims – the signature claim in this litigation. Generic manufacturers are legally required to copy the brand-name drug’s labeling exactly, including warnings, as per FDA regulations. They cannot independently change or add warnings to the drug’s label, even if they become aware of potential risks.

Because generic manufacturers must follow the label of the original brand-name drug, the courts have consistently ruled that they cannot be held liable for failing to provide additional warnings beyond what the brand-name manufacturer has included. This means that for lawsuits like those related to Suboxone, plaintiffs are limited primarily to targeting Indivior, the original manufacturer, even if they were harmed by the generic version of the drug.

July 2, 2024 – Suboxone Settlement Rumors

There is some scattered talk of early settlement talks on the Suboxone MDL. Will this happen? I’m betting no. I don’t see Indivior getting serious about settlement until June 2026 at the earliest.

But who knows? I’m passing the rumor along to you for what it is worth.

May 17, 2024 – Plaintiff Attorneys’ Request for Tolling Period Goes On

We have been talking in the last few updates about a tolling agreement that would allow plaintiffs to avoid filing a lawsuit but still allow them to keep their case safe on the statute of limitations.

No one is sure of what the statute of limitations is for certain, and there are also nuances of specific cases that could vary this deadline to file a Suboxone lawsuit. But lawyers on both sides acknowledge that a potential bar date of June 17, 2024, exists for many plaintiffs in states with a two-year statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs wanted a tolling period for clients retained by the bar date, allowing time to investigate claims, such as obtaining medical or pharmacy records to substantiate Suboxone use.

Victims’ Suboxone lawyers have argued that without this period, a rush of complaints would result in filing Suboxone suits that seem viable but will not be after the medical records are collected.

The defendants insist on not waiving their time-bar defenses. They want to make plaintiffs’ lawyers spend the time and money to file thousands of lawsuits, hoping some will drop out.

In a new ruling today, the judge decided to borrow a procedural innovation we saw in the Xarelto litigation to find a Goldilocks middle ground. By June 14, 2024, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will file a complaint on the master MDL docket, listing individual plaintiffs on a schedule. Defendants may file a motion to sever by July 1, 2024, with severed claims continuing as separate actions and amendments relating back to the original filing.

What does that mean? I’m not 100% sure. We will know more at the case management conference next month. But I can tell you how I think this will work.

By June 14, the plaintiffs’ lawyers in leadership must file a comprehensive complaint on the master MDL docket, including a schedule (Schedule A) listing individual plaintiffs. This schedule will contain specific information for each plaintiff, such as names, the firm representing them, their residency and citizenship, designated venue, and details regarding their case, such as where they were prescribed and used Suboxone film.

Then, Defendants will have until July 1, 2024, to file a motion to sever, requesting that the MDL judge separate individual plaintiffs’ claims from the master complaint. If the judge grants the motion to sever, the severed claims will continue as separate individual actions, ensuring that the claims remain active and linked to the original MDL filing.

Plaintiffs whose claims are severed would need to immediately file an amendment to their lawsuits in their new individual actions. These amendments will relate back to the original filing date in the MDL, preserving the plaintiffs’ original filing dates and any associated statute of limitations considerations.

This middle-ground approach allows for an organized and streamlined process to manage numerous claims without overwhelming the court system with simultaneous filings. It probably gives plaintiffs mostly what we need, but just adding in a bunch of additional hoops.

February 4, 2024 – JPML Creates Suboxone MDL

On Friday, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created an MDL Suboxone class action lawsuit, consolidating all federal lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers of Suboxone film did not adequately inform consumers that the medication for opioid use disorder includes components that could lead to dental decay.

The Panel moved the 15 Suboxone lawsuits, originally spread across five judicial districts, to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio. Judge J. Philip Calabrese has been assigned to manage these proceedings.

The MDL is In re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) Film Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:24-md-03092.

January 30, 2024 – Statute of Limitations Issues in Suboxone Litigation

The statute of limitations is potentially problematic for some in the Suboxone litigation.

So if you cannot get a lawyer on the phone, it could be because you are in a state where the two-year statute of limitations gives lawyers cause for concern.

I used a lawyered-up word like cause for concern because the deadline to file is often not simple in mass tort lawsuits. For just one example, if your injuries showed up more recently, that may be a way around the statute of limitations. There is an argument that some are making that the deadline to file a Suboxone lawsuit has not even begun because the warning on the product is inadequate.

Still, most Suboxone lawyers – including us are now only taking cases in these jurisdictions because of “concerns” about the statute of limitations.

These are the states in which we are taking new cases:

Texas, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington D.C., Vermont, Wyoming.

If you live in one of these states, the time to file a Suboxone lawsuit could be running out. Contact us today. (This has since been updated, and we are taking cases in all 50 states now.)

January 22, 2024 – New Suboxone Case Highlights Statute of Limitations Issue

A new Suboxone case was filed this week that will highlight the challenges of bringing Suboxone lawsuits that may be filed after the statute of limitations has passed.

The plaintiff in this case is a resident and citizen of Kentucky, residing in Mt. Sterling within Montgomery County. The plaintiff experienced tooth damage directly linked to the use of prescription Suboxone film by the defendants.

In 2011, a physician prescribed Suboxone film to treat the plaintiff’s opioid use disorder. However, the plaintiff says he only discovered in the last few months of 2023 that the film had caused tooth decay.

That last allegation will be essential. Arguably, Kentucky’s draconian one-year statute of limitations has passed. But there is a way around it: the discovery rule. The plaintiff is saying he did not learn of his injuries until 2023 and filed his Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit within a year of the manifestation of his injury

Frequently Asked Questions About the Suboxone Litigation

What is the real reason people are suing over Suboxone?

It’s simple: Indivior knew this drug would destroy people’s teeth and kept quiet about it—because profits mattered more than patients. The Suboxone lawsuits are about holding them accountable for failing to warn users about the catastrophic tooth decay caused by prolonged exposure to the acidic film.

The Indivior Suboxone dental lawsuit alleges that the drug’s manufacturer failed to warn patients about the risk of severe tooth decay, extractions, and other dental injuries caused by Suboxone film. Many people who took Suboxone for opioid addiction treatment were unaware that the medication could lead to irreversible dental damage, and now they are seeking compensation through lawsuits.

Who qualifies for the Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit?
If you took Suboxone film and developed significant dental problems, such as rapid tooth decay, enamel erosion, or tooth loss, you may qualify to file a Suboxone lawsuit.  Again, our firm is not taking new cases in 2026.
Can I still apply for the Suboxone lawsuit?
Our lawyers used to say yes when we answered this question. Now the answer is maybe. Time may be running out. The answer depends on individual circumstances, including the statute of limitations in your state. If you suffered dental injuries from Suboxone, you should check your eligibility as soon as possible, and you can reach out to us to find out.
How do I sign up for the Suboxone lawsuit?
Filing a claim is relatively straightforward. If you are eligible, our lawyers make signing up for the Suboxone class action lawsuit very easy. Our law firm allows you to sign up online by submitting basic details about your use of Suboxone and your dental injuries. After signing up, a legal team will review your case and determine if you qualify.
How bad does my tooth damage have to be to have a case?

The strongest cases involve:

  • Multiple extractions (3 or more)
  • Significant decay or erosion
  • Multiple extractions, usually three or more
  • Significant tooth decay, enamel erosion, or tooth loss
  • Root canals, crowns, bridges, implants, dentures, or other major restorative dental work
  • Clear proof of Suboxone film use, especially brand-name Suboxone film
  • Use of Suboxone before the January 2022 FDA dental warning (even though it is an extremely flawed warning)
  • Dental records showing the damage developed or worsened after Suboxone use began
  • No long history of severe dental problems before taking Suboxone
  • Out-of-pocket dental bills, future treatment estimates, or records showing ongoing dental needs
How do I know if I have a strong case for the Suboxone lawsuit?
If you used Suboxone film and later developed severe dental problems, such as multiple cavities, tooth extractions, or loss of teeth, you likely have a strong case. Having dental records and proof of Suboxone use can help strengthen your claim. Many attorneys, including us, offer free case evaluations to determine eligibility.

Suboxone

Approved by the FDA in 2002, Suboxone was promoted as a safer and easier way to treat opioid addiction. By combining buprenorphine, a drug that eases withdrawal and blocks the high from stronger opioids, with naloxone to deter abuse, it quickly became a go-to in recovery programs nationwide.

Its roots go back decades, when researchers discovered buprenorphine could manage opioid dependence with a lower overdose risk than methadone. Taken as a dissolvable strip under the tongue, it seemed both effective and convenient. What patients were not told is that the same acidic formulation that made Suboxone easy to take could, over time, wreak havoc on their teeth. That risk did not appear on the label for nearly 20 years.

No Suboxone Recall, But a Warning

No one is arguing that Suboxone has become an essential weapon in treating addiction in 2024. The plaintiffs’ lawyers in a Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit are not calling for a Suboxone recall.

What these attorneys are arguing is that drugmakers like Indivior are responsible for fully disclosing all known risks associated with their products. This transparency enables patients to make informed decisions.  (It also gives them the opportunity, as we discuss above, to mitigate the harm of the side effects. Unlike some side effects, dental risks can often be mitigated through preventive measures like rinsing the mouth after use, increasing fluoride intake, or scheduling more frequent dental checkups. )

By failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of severe dental injuries, Suboxone manufacturers deprived patients of the ability to take proactive steps to protect their health. Without proper warnings, patients are left in the dark, unable to take these precautions and suffering avoidable harm as a result. The crux of these lawsuits is simple: patients deserve the information needed to make informed choices.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits

The original labels for Suboxone tablets and film carried no warnings regarding the risk of tooth damage associated with their prescribed use. But Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits alleged the defendants had plenty of reason to know of the risk and put a tooth decay warning on the product.

Studies Linking Suboxone to Dental Damage

In 2012, Harvard Medical School professors published a case report on a patient whose oral health collapsed after 18 months on Suboxone tablets. With no prior history of serious dental problems, the patient needed extensive treatment for decay across multiple teeth. The authors suggested that sublingual delivery of buprenorphine/naloxone maintained prolonged contact with the teeth, accelerating damage.

The following year, the same lead author and colleagues reported a series of 11 patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who saw rapid dental deterioration after starting buprenorphine treatment. Problems included cavities, cracked teeth, crowns, root canals, and extractions. Researchers noted that the low pH of Suboxone created an acidic environment where enamel erosion and decay thrive.

Other research since then has echoed these findings, reinforcing what these early studies showed years ago: Suboxone’s formulation and delivery can pose serious risks to dental health, risks the manufacturer failed to warn about.

The Ph of Suboxone

Suboxone has a low pH of 3.4 when dissolved in water, indicating a high level of acidity. The pH scale, which ranges from 0 to 14, is used to measure the acidity or alkalinity of a substance. A pH of 7 is considered neutral, while values below 7 indicate increasing acidity, and values above 7 indicate alkalinity. The mouth’s natural pH typically ranges between 6.2 and 7.0, which is slightly acidic but generally safe for maintaining tooth health.

Tooth enamel, the hard outer layer of teeth, begins to demineralize when exposed to an acidic environment, specifically when the pH drops below 5.5. At this point, the enamel starts to lose essential minerals such as calcium and phosphate.  It leads to weakening the tooth structure. This makes teeth more susceptible to cavities and decay. This is not complicated. When substances like Suboxone, with a significantly acidic pH, come into prolonged contact with teeth, they can accelerate this demineralization process.

Acidic environments can result from multiple sources, including certain foods, beverages, bacterial activity, and conditions like dry mouth. These factors lower the mouth’s pH and, over time, contribute to tooth erosion. Given Suboxone’s acidic pH, the drug creates a terribly persistent low pH in the mouth, weakening enamel and causing dental injuries.

So the makers of Suboxone did not even need these studies to be clued into the dental injuries that prolonged contact between tooth surfaces and Suboxone could cause in a patient’s teeth. It was obvious.

What the Suboxone Lawsuit Timeline

The MDL is moving from filing claims to proving claims. Plaintiffs are loading up to start taking key corporate depositions.  We are getting closer

1,832
Pending MDL cases as of June 2026
100
Plaintiffs selected for the Core Discovery Pool
2027
Projected first bellwether trial window
Step 1: The Warning Finally Came

January 2022: FDA dental warning

The FDA warning is important because it gives plaintiffs a clear before and after. Before the warning, many Suboxone film users had no reason to know the medication could damage their teeth. After the warning, the defense has a harder time pretending this was an unknown or imaginary problem.

What this means for plaintiffs: Cases involving Suboxone film use before the dental warning may be especially important because the failure to warn argument is cleaner.
Step 2: The Cases Were Centralized

February 2024: Suboxone MDL created

The MDL put the federal Suboxone lawsuits in one court. That matters because one judge now controls discovery, scheduling, expert issues, and the path toward bellwether trials.

What this means for plaintiffs: Your case may still be individual, but the MDL process helps build pressure by forcing the defendants to face the same core evidence across many cases.
Step 3: Paperwork Became the Gatekeeper

2025 to 2026: Records collection and Schedule A cleanup

The court is now forcing plaintiffs to move from preserved claims to documented claims. That means pharmacy records, dental records, medical records, census forms, and proof of Suboxone film use matter more than ever.

What this means for plaintiffs: Strong claims are not just about having bad dental injuries. Plaintiffs need records that show Suboxone film use, timing, injury, treatment, and damages.
Step 4: Bellwether Cases Start Taking Shape

February to April 2026: Core Discovery Pool selected

The selection of 100 plaintiffs for more detailed discovery is a major step. These are not trial cases yet, but they are the cases that help both sides test the evidence, evaluate injury patterns, and identify which claims may become bellwether candidates.

What this means for plaintiffs: This is where settlement value starts to become more concrete. The defense gets a closer look at real plaintiffs, real dental injuries, and real damages.
Step 5: Trial Pressure Is Real, But Slow

Projected 2028: First bellwether trial window

The trial schedule is frustrating because it pushes the first bellwether trial out to 2028. But the existence of a trial path still matters. Mass tort settlements usually get serious when defendants can see a jury date coming and understand which plaintiffs may be strongest.

What this means for plaintiffs: A settlement could happen before trial, but the current schedule suggests this will not be a quick payout litigation unless the defendants decide they want to avoid bellwether risk.
The Real Bottom Line

The Suboxone litigation is now entering the phase where documentation separates stronger claims from weaker ones. That is good for plaintiffs with clean records, significant dental injuries, and proof of brand name Suboxone film use.

For plaintiffs, the message is simple: the court is not just counting claims anymore. It is testing them. The better documented your case is, the better positioned it may be if settlement talks become serious. 

Dry Mouth

Xerostomia, commonly referred to as dry mouth, is a condition characterized by insufficient saliva production from the salivary glands. This insufficiency can result in various issues, including a decreased pH level within the oral cavity.

Saliva plays a crucial role in maintaining oral health by rinsing away food particles and bacteria, neutralizing oral acids, stabilizing the mouth’s pH balance, and ensuring the mouth remains moist and lubricated.

When saliva production is reduced, the mouth’s pH level can decline, potentially leading to dental decay, cavities, oral infections, and even tooth loss.

Dry mouth can arise from various factors, including Suboxone use, medical conditions like diabetes, Sjögren’s syndrome, and HIV, the natural aging process, radiation therapy to the head and neck, chemotherapy, tobacco consumption, and alcohol consumption.

Suboxone, in particular, has the potential to induce dry mouth. When there is a shortage of saliva, the accumulation of bacteria can contribute to the development of tooth decay, which is a key factor in why so many of these Suboxone users have cavities and severe tooth decay.

Still No Suboxone Warning

Yet despite the increasing evidence linking dental problems to Suboxone and the fact that the drug is acidic, the companies responsible (referred to as “Defendants”) should have taken steps to update the drug’s label. This update would have warned users about the potential risks to their dental health. An update would have avoided any suboxone class action lawsuit or personal injury claims.

But here we are. The defendants chose not to take any action. Suboxone lawsuits allege that the defendants ignored the growing body of research, adverse-event reports, and even their own knowledge about how acidic the drug is. They failed to fulfill their responsibility to address the possible harm Suboxone use could pose to patients’ dental health.

What’s even more concerning is that despite the mounting evidence connecting Suboxone to dental issues and the fact that the drug is acidic, Indivior should have taken steps to update the drug’s label. Such an update would have included a warning to users about the potential risks to their dental health while using Suboxone.

And let’s face it, most recovering addicts spend a significant time without focusing on dental hygiene. This is a vulnerable population that is not always well funded for detailed work that may not be covered by insurance. So we are left with people trying to rebuild their lives after battling opioid addiction who were prescribed Suboxone and believe it’s a safe and effective way to overcome addiction.

These people trusted that the drug would aid their recovery, and if there were risks associated with it, they would know about it. But those responsible for creating and promoting Suboxone didn’t inform patients about the potential risks to their dental health.

2022 Warning

Do you need more proof that a Suboxone dental problem warning was necessary? There is a warning now. In January 2022, Suboxone added a warning about potential dental issues associated with Suboxone use. Specifically, the warning highlights that Suboxone can potentially lead to tooth decay, cavities, oral infections, and even tooth loss.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the people who were supposed to ensure your safety while using Suboxone failed to do so.

They didn’t provide the necessary warnings, instructions, or information about the potential dental dangers. This negligence and lack of transparency jeopardized, for many of you reading this, your health and prevented you from making informed decisions about your treatment.

At the heart of every Suboxone lawsuit lies a “failure to warn” claim, which centers on the allegation that the manufacturers of Suboxone did not adequately inform consumers or healthcare providers about the potential risks and side effects associated with its use.

A failure to warn claim is a legal argument used in product liability law, asserting that a product’s manufacturer or distributor did not sufficiently communicate the dangers or adverse effects of the product to those who purchased or used it.

This lack of proper warning can lead to consumers suffering injuries or adverse health effects that they might have avoided had they been fully informed about the product’s risks.

In the context of Suboxone, these lawsuits contend that the manufacturer failed to provide comprehensive information about the drug’s potential to cause harm, leading to legal actions based on the premise that patients and doctors were not properly warned of the risks involved in its use.

Suboxone Lawsuits

A growing number of Suboxone product liability lawsuits are being filed in courts nationwide. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers of Suboxone engaged in wrongful and negligent conduct in connection with the development, design, testing, labeling, packaging, promoting, advertising, marketing, distribution, and selling of Suboxone.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Suboxone, when used as prescribed and intended, causes harmful damage to the teeth due to buprenorphine’s acidity.

Despite that knowledge, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that the manufacturers initially sold and marketed Suboxone without warning about tooth decay risks.

In January 2022, the FDA issued a public drug safety communication warning about the risks of tooth decay associated with Suboxone. Only after the FDA issued this public warning did the makers of Suboxone revise the warning label for the drug to include a warning about the risk of tooth decay.

That is a classic example of negligent failure to warn, and the manufacturer’s liability appears clear and difficult to defend.

Who Are the Defendants in the Suboxone Lawsuits?

The primary defendant in the Suboxone lawsuits is Indivior, Inc., the pharmaceutical company that makes and sells Suboxone. Indivior is a specialty pharmaceutical company that primarily focuses on developing and selling drugs, like Suboxone, which are used to treat opioid dependency.

Indivor was formerly a division of the British pharmaceutical company Reckitt Benckiser (Reckitt). In 2014, however, Reckitt spun off Indivior and its rapidly expanding opioid addiction treatment business into a new, publicly traded company.

The Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits generally name Indivior, Reckitt, and their various U.S. operating entities as defendants. Primary liability for the Suboxone liabilities will ultimately fall on Indivior, a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange and well capitalized.

Indivior has a checkered past. In 2019, the Department of Justice indicted the company for false marketing claims and a scheme to direct patients to doctors who were likely to prescribe Suboxone.

One of the other primary defendants in the Suboxone lawsuits is Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Aquestive and Indivior developed Suboxone jointly.

Is There a Suboxone Class Action Lawsuit?

Many people refer to the Suboxone litigation as a class action lawsuit. We do ourselves, actually. But technically, this is not a class action—it is a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

The Suboxone MDL (MDL No. 3092) is already pending in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, where lawsuits from across the country have been consolidated before Judge Philip Calabrese. This MDL was established to streamline pretrial proceedings for plaintiffs who allege that Suboxone film caused severe dental injuries, such as tooth decay, loss, and erosion, due to its acidic formulation.

What an MDL Means for Suboxone Plaintiffs

An MDL works similarly to a class action in that it consolidates many cases to improve efficiency. However, each plaintiff retains an individual lawsuit, meaning settlements or verdicts are based on the specific facts of each case.

The MDL process allows a single judge to oversee key pretrial proceedings, including discovery, motions, and expert testimony, which helps ensure consistent rulings and speeds up the litigation.

How an MDL Can Lead to a Settlement

A major feature of an MDL is the bellwether trial process—a series of test trials in which a few representative cases are selected for early jury trials. These bellwether cases help both plaintiffs and defendants gauge how juries are likely to respond to the evidence.

The verdicts in bellwether trials set the tone for settlement negotiations. If juries return large verdicts for plaintiffs, it increases the likelihood of a global settlement in which the defendants agree to pay compensation to resolve all or most of the cases.

While this process can lead to substantial settlements for victims, it differs from a traditional class action because there is no single settlement fund—each plaintiff’s case is still considered individually.

If you are considering filing a Suboxone lawsuit, you want to understand that while this litigation may feel like a class action, it is actually an MDL—meaning your case is part of a larger legal process, but your potential compensation will be based on your individual circumstances. In this litigation, we think that is the best of both worlds

Potential Suboxone Lawsuit Settlement Amounts 

Our lawyers currently estimate that the settlement payout value of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits will be somewhere around $50,000 to $150,000.  Very small cases will be lot less and you can expect settlement over this range, too.

Keep in mind, however, that this is the settlement value of these cases. If Suboxone cases go to trial, the verdict payout could be significantly higher, including punitive damages. We think the potential value of Suboxone cases at trial could be more than $1 million.

Is this compensation prediction premature? Absolutely. We are in the very early stages of the Suboxone tooth decay litigation, which makes it impossible to predict with any certainty what the ultimate Suboxone settlement amounts might be.

If you want to call that pure speculation, that is not unfair. It is nearly impossible to project the average Suboxone lawsuit payout per person with so little information.

Moreover, who will qualify is not yet set in concrete. For some cases, there will be statute of limitations issues that might make some cases worth less. But assuming these cases are successful and backed by strong evidence linking Suboxone to dental damage, our Suboxone lawyers believe this estimate is a reasonable starting point.

Some victims are frustrated we do not have high Suboxone settlement projections because that is not enough compensation for everything they have gone through.  Our attorneys get that.  It would be easy for us to say the average settlement will be $500,000.  It would help us get more clients.  But we have an obligation to tell you what we think and that is what we are doing.

Above, we talk about when we expect there to be a Suboxone settlement.

Suboxone Settlement and Criminal Charges

In 2016, 41 states, along with the District of Columbia, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Defendants for monopolistic practices in the opioid-addiction treatment market, specifically focusing on the drug Suboxone.

The states were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

This case, heard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was eventually settled in the summer of 2023, with Indivior agreeing to pay $102.5 million.

Further legal challenges emerged for Indivior. On April 9, 2019, a federal grand jury in Virginia indicted the company, accusing it of operating an illegal nationwide scheme to boost prescriptions of Suboxone film. The indictment claimed that Indivior’s “Here to Help” program, ostensibly a support resource for addiction patients, was actually used to connect patients with doctors known for prescribing Suboxone and other opioids beyond legal limits.

Indivior was also accused of stopping the production of its tablet form of Suboxone to impede the FDA’s approval of generic versions.

To resolve these charges, Reckitt, the parent company, forfeited $647 million in proceeds from Indivior, paid $700 million in civil settlements to the federal government and six states, and paid an additional $50 million to the Federal Trade Commission.

Reckitt’s settlement amounted to $1.4 billion, a figure more than double what Purdue Pharma paid in 2007 to settle a case with the Justice Department over its marketing of OxyContin.

Additionally, there were personal legal repercussions for Indivior’s executives. Shaun Thaxter, the former CEO, was sentenced to six months in federal prison, fined $100,000, and ordered to forfeit $500,000 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor misbranding of Suboxone film related to misleading statements about accidental pediatric exposure.

Timothy Baxter, Indivior’s former medical director, also pleaded guilty to the same charge and received a sentence of six months of home detention, 100 hours of community service, and a $100,000 criminal fine.

What does this have to do with dental injury lawsuits? Well, it underscores why lies within every Suboxone lawsuit: Invidior and the other defendants put profits ahead of the law, patient safety, and doing the right thing.

]]> 18714 Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/2-billion-verdict-in-missouri-motivates-jj-to-settle-talcum-powder-lawsuits.html Fri, 15 May 2026 12:34:54 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=9657 Our lawyers are handling baby powder lawsuits in all 50 states in 2026. The talcum powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have been ongoing for years. The lawsuits allege that prolonged use of talcum powder (or “talc”), the active ingredient in products such as Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, can cause ovarian cancer in some women.

This page provides an update on J&J talc powder litigation and discusses the settlement amounts in ovarian cancer lawsuits for victims.

Has the deadline passed for you to file a talcum powder lawsuit? Many who assume the statute of limitations has passed to sue Johnson & Johnson may be wrong. But as we write this in January 2026, his settlement has blown up, and we are back at it. We are still signing up new clients, but this may not last much longer. Call us today at 800-553-8082 or get a free and quick case review online.

Continue reading
]]> 9657 Ozempic Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-naion-gastroparesis-lawsuit.html Thu, 14 May 2026 21:08:54 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=17243 Our lawyers are investigating Ozempic lawsuits for patients with NAION, gastroparesis or gastrointestinal conditions, including bowel obstruction or cyclic vomiting syndrome.

Ozempic is the popular brand name for semaglutide, a prescription drug approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. As we all know, Ozempic is also commonly used as a weight management drug. Recent scientific studies have shown that taking Ozempic, particularly at higher doses, can cause gastroparesis.

Until recently, the warning label for Ozempic did not adequately inform patients and doctors about the risk of these injuries. Anyone who suffered injuries after taking Ozempic may be able to seek financial compensation by filing a product liability lawsuit. Our law firm is focusing exclusively

Lawsuits involving Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, Trulicity, and Mounjaro are consolidated in an MDL class action lawsuit. NAION lawsuits are increasing, but as we explain in the updates below.  This page will provide the latest news and updates on the Ozempic litigation, as well as our predictions about the potential settlement value of these cases.

If you have an Ozempic lawsuit, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us online for a free consultation.

Ozempic Lawsuit Updates

Our Ozempic lawyers are committed to keeping you informed about the latest updates and news on this litigation.  Come back frequently. Our attorneys update this page regularly to reflect any new developments or updates.

May 14, 2026

The NAION claims involving Ozempic, Wegovy, and other GLP-1 drugs keep getting stronger. A new Veterans Affairs study published in JAMA Network Open found that GLP-1 users had a higher three-year risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy than patients using older SGLT2 diabetes medications. The study examined 588,168 patients and found a 35% higher risk of NAION among GLP-1 users.

Key Findings From the New VA Study
Study Point Finding Why It Matters for Plaintiffs
Patient pool 588,168 VA patients This was not a small case report. It was a large real-world database study.
Comparison group GLP-1 users compared to SGLT2 inhibitor users The study compared GLP-1 users to patients using other diabetes drugs, which is important for addressing defense arguments about diabetes itself causing the risk.
NAION rate 39 per 10,000 GLP-1 users vs. 29 per 10,000 SGLT2 users The absolute risk is still low, but the direction of the signal favors plaintiffs.
Risk increase 35% higher NAION risk among GLP-1 users This adds to the growing body of evidence showing that NAION is not just a random anecdotal event.
Consistency The risk persisted regardless of how NAION diagnosis was measured That makes the signal harder for defendants to dismiss as a coding or classification problem.

This study is especially important because it builds on the earlier Harvard/Mass Eye and Ear research published in JAMA Ophthalmology, which found a much larger NAION signal among semaglutide users. In that 2024 study, patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed semaglutide had a 36-month NAION incidence of 8.9%, compared to 1.8% in patients taking non-GLP-1 diabetes medications. For patients who were overweight or obese, the incidence was 6.7% with semaglutide compared to 0.8% with non-GLP-1 weight-loss medications.

The defense argument that the NAION reports are isolated, coincidental, or driven only by underlying diabetes is getting sillier. The new VA study does not prove causation by itself, but it provides plaintiffs with another large-scale study showing the same basic safety signal: GLP-1 drugs are associated with a higher risk of NAION.

The manufacturers will point to the modest absolute risk and the observational nature of the data. Fine. But plaintiffs do not need every study to be perfect. But the pattern is clear.  The Harvard study showed a strong signal for semaglutide. The VA study now adds a broader real-world signal across GLP-1 users. Together, these studies make it harder for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly to argue that there was no meaningful warning issue.

This new research also lands at a critical time. The federal GLP-1 NAION litigation is moving forward, and the court has scheduled a Science Day for June 2, 2026. Expect plaintiffs to use this VA study as part of the growing scientific record that these drugs may carry a real risk of sudden and potentially permanent vision loss.

May 6, 2026 – Case Count

There are now 3,626 lawsuits in MDL-3094. There are 86 cases in the NAION MDL.

April 24, 2026 – Status Conference on Tuesday

Attorneys in the federal GLP-1 vision loss MDL will appear before Judge Karen Spencer Marston on Tuesday for a status conference.

The hearing will open with a docket overview, followed by a report on parallel state court litigation pending in Indiana and New Jersey (where many Ozempic NAION lawsuits are being filed by victims nationwide).

The parties will then turn to planning for Science Day, an early MDL proceeding in which experts present the underlying science to the judge before formal expert discovery begins. Also on the agenda are the status of initial case management orders, including first-day orders and the overall case management schedule, and a report on the progress of document discovery.

April 6, 2026 – New NAION Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed in federal court against Novo Nordisk alleges that an Illinois man lost vision in his right eye and suffered permanent loss of peripheral vision after taking Ozempic, the widely prescribed diabetes and weight loss drug. The plaintiff, a resident of Illinois, was prescribed Ozempic and took it as directed by his physicians. He alleges the drug caused him to develop NAION.

The plaintiff’s vision loss has not only caused severe physical injury but has also produced significant emotional harm and forced radical changes to his daily life. The lawsuit names both Novo Nordisk Inc., the New Jersey-based subsidiary that markets the drug in the United States, and Novo Nordisk A/S, the Danish parent company.

The central legal claim, as it is with all of these lawsuits, is failure to warn. The plaintiff alleges that Novo Nordisk knew or should have known that Ozempic carried a risk of NAION and failed to adequately disclose that risk to prescribing physicians or patients. The complaint also alleges that the company’s marketing was deceptive and misleading about the true safety profile of the drug.

March 25, 2026 – Wegovy and NAION Risk

A new safety signal is emerging with the GLP‑1 drugs, and it is not a small one. A recent study indicates that Wegovy may carry a substantially higher risk of vision loss than Ozempic, even though both medications use the same active ingredient, semaglutide. The difference appears to come down to dosage. Wegovy is prescribed at higher doses, and researchers found that patients taking it were about five times more likely to develop ischemic optic neuropathy or what neurologists call an “eye stroke.”

We have already seen studies showing that Ozempic and Wegovy users face roughly double the risk of NAION compared to people taking other diabetes drugs. But this new analysis raises the stakes. Researchers reviewed more than 30 million FDA adverse event reports and found that semaglutide drugs, not GLP‑1 medications in general, but semaglutide specifically, were the only drugs strongly associated with optic nerve injury. And Wegovy produced the most powerful safety signal.

Just as important, the study did not find the same risk with Mounjaro or Zepbound. This is not a class‑wide problem. It is a semaglutide problem, and the dose appears to matter… a lot.

The strength of the evidence in GLP-1 NAION lawsuits as really increased in the last six months.

March 2, 2026 – NAION Warning

In the U.K., the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has issued a safety update warning that semaglutide, the widely used diabetes and weight loss drug sold as Wegovy, Ozempic and Rybelsus, may be linked in rare cases to a serious eye condition that can cause sudden vision loss.

The regulator said semaglutide may be associated with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, a condition that affects the optic nerve and typically causes sudden, painless loss of vision in one eye. Patients who experience sudden or rapidly worsening eyesight while taking the drug are being told to seek urgent medical attention.

February 16, 2026 – Thyroid Cancer

A new study concludes that GLP-1 drugs such as  Wegovy, Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Zepbound do not appear to increase the risk of thyroid cancer in humans. While these medications carry an FDA boxed warning based on rodent studies that showed C-cell tumors, researchers found no reliable human data showing an increased risk of thyroid cancer or accelerated tumor growth. So maybe this is not a concern.

This matters in GLP-1 litigation. More than 3,000 product liability lawsuits are pending, largely focused on gastroparesis and vision injuries such as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), now centralized in two MDLs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge Karen Marston.

There is a real temptation in fast-moving pharmaceutical litigation to allege that a blockbuster drug causes every serious medical event reported after use. But that is dumb. These drugs are helping some people.  No need to run from that.  When emerging data cuts against a thyroid cancer theory, we need to be grateful and move on. Plaintiffs are far better served focusing on injury categories where the scientific signal appears stronger and more consistent, such as, again, NAION vision loss. Those claims are supported by growing adverse event data, mechanistic plausibility, and a developing body of peer-reviewed literature that we think will get us past Daubert.

February 16, 2026 – Status Conference Last Week

At the February 10, 2026, status conference, the Court and counsel addressed several key administrative and case management issues in the MDL.

First, the parties provided a comprehensive docket update. This included current MDL case counts, the number of newly filed short-form complaints, and the status of Plaintiff Fact Sheet submissions and compliance. The discussion focused on overall inventory growth, any deficiencies in PFS production, and whether additional case management steps are needed to keep discovery on track.

Second, the Court received updates on related state court litigation in Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey. Counsel outlined the procedural posture of those cases, any upcoming trial settings or dispositive motions, and coordination issues between the MDL and parallel state proceedings.

Third, the parties addressed the management of so-called mixed-injury cases, specifically the Brown, Lee, Marsh, Morris, and Ralph matters. These cases involve overlapping or multiple injury theories, raising questions about case administration and discovery sequencing. The judge discussed how those cases will proceed within the MDL framework. Finally, the court considered the pending motion in Daigle seeking to convert a dismissal, with counsel outlining their respective positions on whether the prior dismissal should be modified and how that would affect the case going forward.

January 17, 2026 – Our 2026 Prediction

We predict the NAION cases will be worth a great deal.  Gastroparesis cases will be valuable for victims who have had a long-term course of permanent injury.  Gastroparesis cases where the victim did not suffer much or for long are unlikely to be worth a great deal.

January 6, 2026 – 3,097 Total MDL Cases

As of January 2026, the GLP-1 weight loss drug MDL includes 3,063 pending cases.

Pre-2026

December 19, 2025 – New MDL (No. 3163)

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has created a separate MDL for cases alleging that GLP-1 drugs including Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Trulicity cause permanent vision loss from a condition known as NAION, assigning the new docket to Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The panel rejected Eli Lilly’s request to fold the vision loss cases into the existing GLP-1 gastrointestinal injury MDL already before Judge Marston, instead creating a standalone docket. The panel noted that a separate MDL would make case tracking easier and allow Judge Marston to determine the appropriate level of coordination between the two litigations herself.

Several plaintiff groups had argued for centralization before a different judge in New Jersey, but the panel sided with the defendants on venue, citing Judge Marston’s extensive existing knowledge of the drugs, their regulatory history, and the science involved.

MDL No. 3163 is the new MDL and this is the case number is 2:25-md-03163.

December 9, 2025 – Update on MDL cases

With the explosive growth in the use of Ozempic and other GLP-1–based weight-loss drugs, it’s no surprise that the related class action MDL continues to expand. In November alone, 27 new cases were added, bringing the total number of filings to 2,947. This steady upward trend reflects both the widespread adoption of these medications and the increasing number of patients alleging undisclosed or insufficiently warned-about side effects.

September 30, 2025 – MDL Case Count Update

The Ozempic / GLP-1 MDL now has 2,914 pending cases. That is an increase of 800 new cases since August 1. So we are seeing about 200 new cases added to this MDL each month.

September 30, 2025 – New Lawsuit Yesterday

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a woman from Cabazon, California, claims she suffered severe and potentially permanent gastrointestinal injuries after using Wegovy.

The plaintiff, who began taking Wegovy in May 2023, alleges that she developed ileus, a blockage in the small intestine, followed by a diagnosis of gastroparesis, a condition that affects the stomach’s ability to empty normally. She asserts that these injuries led to significant pain, vomiting, and medical intervention, ultimately forcing her to discontinue the drug.

The complaint accuses the defendants of failing to adequately warn consumers and physicians about the risks of serious gastrointestinal side effects, including conditions requiring emergency care or hospitalization. The plaintiff further contends that Novo Nordisk aggressively marketed Wegovy as a “miracle” weight-loss drug while downplaying its risks and misleading consumers about the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety.

September 21, 2025 – Shift of Focus to NAION

Plaintiffs have faced an uphill battle proving that gastroparesis was directly caused or worsened by Ozempic rather than being an existing complication of underlying diabetes.

The focus of this litigation has since shifted to focus on vision loss and a rare eye condition called non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

The narrative for these cases is more straightforward and stronger.  In August 2024, the European Medicines Agency ordered updated warning labels for Ozempic and related drugs to include vision loss and NAION risk, a move that plaintiffs’ lawyers can point to as regulatory validation. NAION also has the advantage (from a litigation standpoint) of being sudden and severe, often permanent partial or total vision loss in one eye. For plaintiffs, this clarifies damages and makes causation easier to argue, particularly where there’s no diabetes-related eye disease in the record.  NAION offers a cleaner story for juries, and our lawyers are now focusing on these cases.

September 11, 2025 – NAION MDL Sought (by Lilly)

Eli Lilly has filed a motion to centralize all federal lawsuits alleging vision loss from GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs, specifically claims involving non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

The motion seeks either the creation of a new MDL, dubbed “GLP-1 RAs Products Liability Litigation (No. II),” or the consolidation of these NAION cases into the existing MDL No. 3094, which currently handles gastrointestinal injury claims involving the same class of drugs. These include Lilly’s Mounjaro and Trulicity as well as Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy.

Lilly has explicitly asked that the cases be assigned to Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where she already presides over MDL 3094. The company argues that her familiarity with the relevant science, regulatory history, and case management structure makes her the most logical and efficient choice to oversee the expanding litigation.

The unusual aspect of this motion is not just its timing but its assertiveness. Defendants typically resist MDL treatment because consolidation can galvanize the plaintiff bar and accelerate discovery pressure. Lilly’s active pursuit of centralization reveals a clear strategy: it wants Judge Marston to handle these claims.

The motion emphasizes so-called “combination cases” that allege both GI and NAION injuries, which Lilly argues necessitate coordinated pretrial proceedings. But Lilly could not care less about that.  What Lilly is really telling us is that it thinks Judge Marston is with the defendants in this litigation.

Either way, the NAION docket in New Jersey, which is handling cases from plaintiffs all over the country, will continue to grow, with or without a new MDL.

September 6, 2025 – The Types of Ozempic Claims We Are Taking

Based on Judge Marston’s new order, we are now taking two types of claims:

  1. Vision injuries (NAION)
  2. Gastroparesis that is confirmed by a gastric emptying study (scintigraphy, breath test, or WMC)

September 5, 2025 – Materials That Make up GLP-1 Drugs

The FDA announced yesterday a new “green list” of foreign manufacturers authorized to supply raw materials for compounded versions of GLP-1 drugs, such as Wegovy and Mounjaro.

The move aims to curb the influx of unsafe or counterfeit active pharmaceutical ingredients used by compounders while still allowing some compounding under strict quality standards. Although more than three dozen overseas suppliers made the list, their names were redacted, and any imports from non-listed companies could be detained.

Both Lilly and Novo Nordisk dropped on the news.

September 1, 2025: FDA Approves Wegovy for Fatty Liver Disease

The FDA has granted a new indication for Wegovy (semaglutide) to treat metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), a serious form of fatty liver disease in adults with moderate to advanced fibrosis. This marks the first GLP-1 drug approved for MASH.

August 15, 2025: Huge New Ruling

U.S. District Judge Karen Spencer Marston has now issued two major rulings that will shape the future of the GLP-1 receptor agonist MDL, which includes more than 2,000 cases against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.

In the judge’s order today, the court resolved a cluster of Daubert motions by holding that plaintiffs’ gastroparesis claims must be grounded in objective medical testing. As Judge Marston put it, “any Plaintiff claiming to suffer (or have suffered) from gastroparesis, must show that their diagnosis is based on a properly performed gastric emptying study.”   That standard may narrow the pool of viable claims, unfairly, we would argue.  But it also clarifies the evidentiary hoops we need to jump and forces defendants to confront plaintiffs armed with hard diagnostic proof.

We now know this litigation is not going away and we really did not know this for sure going into this ruling. The companies tried to knock out twelve of the seventeen counts in the master complaint, arguing that statements about their drugs being “safe and effective” were non-actionable puffery and that design defect theories were federally preempted.

Judge Marston agreed in part, dismissing design defect claims and striking vague allegations about fraudulent omissions in general marketing. But she refused to accept the puffery defense. Plaintiffs had identified specific safety and efficacy representations, many amplified by paid scientists and celebrities, that went miles beyond boilerplate. Those, she found, “are sufficient to survive dismissal at this early stage of the litigation.” Most importantly, the court held that omissions from the drugs’ labels, including the lack of gastroparesis warnings, were pled with enough specificity to move forward.

For victims, the rulings cut both ways. On one hand, claims of stomach paralysis must now be tied to a gastric emptying study or equivalent test, which could eliminate individuals whose doctors relied only on clinical impressions.  Some people will be unjustly left out of the litigation, and that is not fair. On the other hand, the central narrative survives: that Novo and Lilly aggressively marketed GLP-1 drugs for weight loss while concealing known risks, reaping billions in the process. Warranty and labeling claims remain alive, and the court declined to prune state law negligence and warranty counts at this stage. The net result is that victims who can produce objective proof of their injuries still have a clear path to trial, and Novo and Lilly will face discovery on allegations that they knowingly downplayed life-altering side effects in the pursuit of market dominance.

August 14, 2025 – New Jersey NAION Class Action Gains Steam

Novo Nordisk may soon face a coordinated mass tort proceeding in New Jersey state court over claims that its blockbuster weight loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy caused permanent vision loss.

More than 30 plaintiffs have petitioned for multicounty litigation designation. That is nine more than our last report below on June 17.   The plaintiffs allege that the drugs caused them to develop non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, a serious and irreversible condition. The proposed venue is Middlesex County, where the cases are currently spread across eight judges and involve plaintiffs from 13 states.

We say class action, but it is not a pure class action. Like the federal MDL, this would be a multicounty litigation, a coordinated mass tort structure that centralizes pretrial proceedings without consolidating the cases for trial. Each plaintiff maintains an individual claim, but discovery, expert challenges, and motions practice are streamlined across the docket. The aim is efficiency, but the result is often to give plaintiffs greater structural leverage, especially in early bellwether trials or global settlement discussions.

You are seeing more and more of this in mass torts.  Law firms like us are increasingly choosing state courts to press complex drug injury claims outside the procedural bottlenecks and evidentiary gatekeeping that have come to define too many federal MDLs. In fact, the path the Ozempic MDL is on is one that you want to avoid.

June 24, 2025 – Beyond Just NAION: Ozempic and Wegovy Linked to Increased Risk of Vision Loss

A new study in JAMA Ophthalmology has added another entry to the growing ledger of concerns about Ozempic and Wegovy, with yet more concerns involving the loss of vision.

Researchers from the University of Toronto found that patients taking semaglutide, the active ingredient in both drugs, were twice as likely to develop neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). This disease gradually destroys central vision and often leads to permanent impairment.

The study looked at nearly 140,000 patients with type 2 diabetes from 2020 to 2023. The risk was small in absolute terms, just over two in 1,000 for semaglutide users versus one in 1,000 for non-users. But the increase was real and statistically significant. Researchers controlled for other known risk factors, including kidney function, smoking, and the use of insulin and metformin.

What stands out is not just the result, but the biological plausibility: GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic alter vascular and inflammatory pathways. These are mechanisms directly implicated in macular degeneration. That ought to matter to doctors. It certainly should matter to patients.

Ozempic was not marketed as a weight loss miracle, but it became one. The public embraced it before science caught up. Now that evidence is emerging, first about stomach paralysis, now about vision, companies like Novo Nordisk will have to answer not just for what they disclosed, but for what they never bothered to investigate.

June 17, 2025 – NAION Claims Are Heating Up

Twenty-one New Jersey plaintiffs who say they suffered permanent vision loss after taking Ozempic or Wegovy are seeking to consolidate their lawsuits into a multicounty litigation against Novo Nordisk. They are asking New Jersey state courts to coordinate the growing number of cases involving a rare and irreversible eye condition called non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION. These plaintiffs argue that centralization would streamline discovery, reduce inconsistent rulings, and make the litigation more manageable as filings continue to increase, the same arguments that got us a gastroparesis MDL.

What is notable here is that the NAION claims are now generating more attention from lawyers than the earlier wave of gastroparesis lawsuits. While stomach paralysis cases helped launch the Ozempic litigation, the vision-loss allegations are getting a lot of buzz because the injuries are so significant.

Permanent blindness, especially when it develops suddenly and without prior warning, presents a particularly high-stakes form of injury that is more likely to motivate individual lawsuits, media coverage, and eventual jury trials.

As scientific studies continue to examine a possible causal link between GLP-1 receptor agonists and optic nerve damage,  these cases will continue to move to the center stage.

June 10, 2025 – NAION Warning

Momentum is building behind calls for the FDA to take action on Ozempic’s potential vision risks. Several ophthalmologists and public health advocates are now urging the agency to require a black box warning on semaglutide drugs, including Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus, in light of mounting evidence linking them to nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

This comes after recent reports in JAMA Ophthalmology and a Danish registry study suggested a statistically significant association between semaglutide use and sudden vision loss events. The push for regulatory change is being amplified by attorneys involved in the New Jersey multicounty litigation effort, who argue that Novo Nordisk has long been aware of this potential risk but has failed to update its labeling accordingly.

A black box warning would represent a major shift. It would not only reshape physician prescribing behavior but could also open the door to new theories of liability for failure to warn. For plaintiffs’ lawyers, it would be a powerful piece of evidence showing that the dangers of NAION were both foreseeable and preventable.

Expect pressure to grow, especially as more independent case reports emerge and as media coverage draws attention to the life-altering nature of these injuries. This is not just a litigation story anymore—it is rapidly becoming a public health issue.

June 2, 2025 – Early Defense Strategy Emerges in Vision Loss Cases

Novo Nordisk is already telegraphing part of its defense strategy for the NAION lawsuits: blame the underlying health conditions. In several recent filings, the company has suggested that diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol, common among Ozempic users, are known risk factors for optic nerve damage and vision loss, and that any injury suffered by plaintiffs may be unrelated to semaglutide exposure.

This is a familiar pharmaceutical defense attorney playbook: frame the condition as multifactorial and shift the focus away from the drug’s role. But it is a risky strategy in front of a jury. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will argue that Novo Nordisk had an obligation to warn even if the drug only slightly increased the baseline risk, especially since patients with diabetes are already vulnerable to ocular damage and would be even more cautious if fully informed.

This line of defense also ignores the emerging scientific consensus that NAION events in semaglutide patients are occurring at a higher-than-expected rate. Some of the most severe injuries are showing up in people with no significant prior eye issues. If the litigation progresses to expert testimony and case-specific discovery, juries may not be sympathetic to a company that downplays catastrophic injuries as just a coincidence.

It is an early sign that the NAION litigation will not just mirror the gastroparesis MDL but could evolve into its own battleground, with distinct scientific questions, plaintiff demographics, and a higher potential for headline verdicts.

May 19, 2025 – Ozempic Vision Loss Lawsuits Filed Over NAION Side Effect

The Ozempic litigation is expanding. Multiple vision loss lawsuits have now been filed against Novo Nordisk by patients who developed non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). This serious and potentially irreversible eye condition can lead to blindness after using Ozempic.

These new Ozempic lawsuits allege that Novo Nordisk failed to warn patients and doctors about the risk of NAION, despite evidence from clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance, and adverse event reports. These cases are especially troubling because the current label for Ozempic does not include any warning about vision loss or NAION, even though the scientific literature and real-world reports suggest a link between semaglutide (the active ingredient in Ozempic) and optic nerve damage.

These vision loss claims are expected to grow. Similar lawsuits involving Wegovy and Rybelsus, two other semaglutide drugs that Novo Nordisk manufactures, are also in development. All three medications are part of the GLP-1 receptor agonist drug class and share similar pharmacological profiles.

From a litigation standpoint, the argument is clear: patients were never given the chance to make an informed decision, and many never would have agreed to use Ozempic had they been properly warned. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are pointing to the company’s well-chronicled aggressive marketing tactics, including off-label promotion of Ozempic for weight loss, as further evidence that patient safety took a backseat to profit.

For attorneys already tracking Ozempic stomach paralysis or gallbladder injury claims, these vision loss lawsuits represent a new and severe injury theory.  NAION lawsuits may carry much higher settlement amounts due to the life-altering nature of blindness and the complete absence of warnings.

February 26, 2025 – New NAION Study

A recent study published last week in JAMA Ophthalmology investigated the potential link between semaglutide and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a rare eye condition that can lead to sudden vision loss.

The research analyzed data from 37.1 million adults with type 2 diabetes, including over 810,000 new users of semaglutide. The findings indicated an increase in the relative incidence of NAION among semaglutide users compared to those not exposed to the drug. Specifically, the incidence rate was 14.5 cases per 100,000 person-years among semaglutide users.

So it does not happen often.  Should there be a warning that there is a risk of this awful eye problem so patients can choose whether to take the risk?  Of course.

The authors of this study also recommend that healthcare providers consider this increased risk when prescribing Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy and discuss it with patients as part of a comprehensive benefit-risk assessment.

January 28, 2025 – New Study, More Concern

A recent study published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery has added another layer of concern to the growing Noro Nordisk Ozempic lawsuits and the broader litigation over GLP-1 receptor agonists.  We did not need another layer to have plenty of concern.

The study analyzed data from over 350,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and found that patients initiating GLP-1RA therapy—including drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro, of course—had a significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer within the first year of use compared to those prescribed other diabetes medications.

Like most single studies, this study admittedly proves nothing.  Maybe the spike is due to increased medical surveillance rather than the drug itself directly causing cancer. But the findings still raise more red flags about the potential risks of GLP-1 medications. There is too much smoke around these drugs for there not to be some fire on some of these new “maybe” side effects.

January 22, 2025 – New Study Throws More Cold Water on Ozempic

A new January 2025 study has emerged to throw more cold water on the ostensible miracle drug Ozempic and similar GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). While these medications are widely promoted as groundbreaking treatments for diabetes and obesity, this latest research highlights a troubling reality: Ozempic is not all it is cracked up to be. The study reveals a mixed bag of health outcomes, with no doubt some real benefits but also significant risks that raise serious concerns about the drug’s overall safety profile.

While GLP-1RAs like Ozempic may reduce the risks of dementia, heart disease, and some infections, they are also associated with severe and often life-altering complications. The study found increased risks of gastrointestinal disorders, kidney stones, arthritis, fainting, and even drug-induced pancreatitis in patients using these medications. This adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that Ozempic may not be as safe as advertised. Patients who trusted these medications to improve their health are left to deal with unexpected and painful consequences—consequences that drug manufacturers either overlooked or failed to adequately warn about. This is yet another reminder that flashy marketing, early success, and a fawning media do not tell the whole story.

Does this mean Ozempic is an awful drug and there should be an Ozempic recall?  No. But a drug should warn of the known risks.

Ozempic

Ozempic (generically known as semaglutide) is a prescription medication that is used in the management of type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is part of a class of drugs known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. GLP-1 is a hormone in the body that gets released in response to food intake and helps regulate blood sugar levels.

There is also evidence that Ozempic can induce weight loss in people with obesity, even those without diabetes. Ozempic is approved for the management of type-2 diabetes. Recently, however, doctors have prescribed Ozempic to treat obesity and weight management.

Ozempic is manufactured by the Dutch pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, which focuses primarily on the development and sale of diabetes drugs.

Ozempic was first developed by Novo Nordisk in 2012, was approved by the FDA, and was released in the U.S. market in December 2017. In 2021, a higher-dose version of Ozempic (sold under the brand name Wegovy) was approved by the FDA.

Ozempic (and other GLP-1 drugs) work by stimulating insulin production after meals. GLP-1 is a naturally occurring peptide in the body that helps control blood sugar levels. GLP-1 agonists mimic the effects of this peptide, making them useful in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

So this drug helps to reduce blood sugar to normal levels. Ozempic also slows down the digestive process, which helps to maintain normal glucose levels. Ozempic is administered as a once-weekly injection with a minimum dosage of 0.25 mg and a maximum dose of 1 mg.

Beyond its primary use in diabetes, the weight-loss effects of Ozempic, observed in clinical trials, led to further exploration of the drug’s potential in this area. As a result, semaglutide has also been approved in higher doses under the name “Wegovy” for chronic weight management.

How does Ozempic work? It works great. The drug is sweeping the country, and it is helping many patients. The question is, did the drug maker warn of all the risks so that a minority of patients did not unnecessarily suffer?

Our law firm is focusing our efforts in 2026 on two claims: NAION and gastroparesis, with a particular focus on NAION cases (we are not taking many gastroparesis cases in 2026)..

Gastroparesis Is Awful

That said, gastroparesis can be a tough condition. Gastroparesis is a condition in which the stomach’s muscles don’t work as they should. Normally, strong muscle movements help move food along the digestive system. But if you have gastroparesis, this movement in your stomach is either too slow or absent, making it hard for your stomach to empty food properly.

This can mess up your digestion and lead to several problems, like feeling nauseous, throwing up (sometimes even food that hasn’t been digested), belly pain, bloating, getting severely dehydrated, feeling full quickly when eating, food not digesting and staying in the stomach, acid reflux, blood sugar levels going up and down, not feeling hungry, losing weight, not getting enough nutrients, and a drop in your quality of life.

The news gets worse: there is no known cure for gastroparesis.

So, if you are reading this and you are not a victim, imagine the hunger pangs that prompt you to nourish your body, only to be met with pain, nausea, and vomiting every time you try to eat.

This condition traps its sufferers in a relentless cycle of discomfort. With a stomach that refuses to cooperate, the basic human need to eat becomes a battleground. Every meal is a calculation, a risk, and often a regret. The physical symptoms are just the beginning; the psychological toll is equally devastating. The constant worry about when the next flare-up will occur, the anxiety of eating in public, and the stress of managing a diet that is both safe and nourishing can be overwhelming. It is miserable.

The pain and discomfort of gastroparesis are not fleeting, either. They linger and echo through every aspect of your life, casting a shadow over daily activities and social interactions. The chronic nature of the condition means that relief is often temporary and incomplete, leaving sufferers to navigate a maze of treatments and dietary adjustments in search of some semblance of normalcy.

Gastroparesis is frequently misunderstood or overlooked, especially by those unfamiliar with its effects, which can make the experience even more isolating for sufferers. The symptoms of gastroparesis are non-specific and often resemble those of other conditions like functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, or peptic ulcer disease. This can lead to frequent misdiagnosis or a failure to diagnose the condition at all.

Because it is an “invisible” illness, it is often disregarded by family and friends, making empathy hard to come by. As a result, many individuals with gastroparesis feel alone in their struggle, compounding their emotional and physical burden.

The misery of gastroparesis is not just in its physical symptoms but also in the way it steals the simple pleasures of life, like enjoying a meal without fear or pain. It is a condition that demands constant vigilance and adaptation and tests the resilience of those it afflicts.

This Could Have Been Avoided

The frustration is palpable when you learn that this could have been avoided, that the medication you took, the one promised to help with another condition entirely, came with a hidden price tag: an increased risk of developing cholecystitis or gastroparesis. But where was the proper warning to put the risk of this misery in fair context? Where was the caution that could have spared you from this relentless cycle of pain and despair? That is what Ozempic lawsuits are about.

The bottom line is that drug makers have a duty, a moral obligation, to fully disclose the risks associated with their products. Patients deserve to make informed decisions about their health care, weighing the benefits of a medication against its potential risks. This is where the lawsuits come into play.

NAION and Ozempic

In 2024, a new and alarming potential side effect of Ozempic emerged in the ongoing litigation: Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION). NAION is a serious condition in which blood flow to the optic nerve is blocked, leading to sudden, sometimes irreversible vision loss.

Typically, this condition is linked to underlying risk factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and elevated cholesterol levels. However, it can also occur unexpectedly due to the eye’s structural characteristics, making it a concerning and unpredictable threat.

As we mentioned in our July 3, 2024, update above, the link between Ozempic and NAION is not yet definitively proven. However, a new study has emerged that strongly suggests a connection between the drug and the development of NAION.

According to the research, rapid fluctuations in blood glucose levels—commonly seen with the use of diabetes medications like Ozempic—may adversely impact blood flow to the optic nerve, triggering this condition in individuals who are particularly susceptible.

Our law firm is actively investigating these cases. Given the severity of NAION and its potential link to Ozempic, our Ozempic attorneys believe that claims related to this issue could lead to substantial settlement amounts, reflecting the life-altering impact of sudden vision loss. We are fully prepared to pursue these claims and hold the responsible parties accountable.

Why NAION Claims Are Different

Unlike gastroparesis, NAION causes sudden and often permanent vision loss. That makes these claims easier to prove, because the injuries are obvious, severe, and not easily confused with preexisting conditions. These are the cases most likely to drive high settlement values.

Estimated Ozempic Lawsuit Settlement Amounts 

Estimating the potential settlement value of new product liability cases like this is almost impossible to do with any real accuracy. That is particularly true of the Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuits, as they are very new. At this point, we don’t know how the scientific evidence in these cases will hold up in court. That is a major variable in any defective drug case.

Still, victims want to know how much the Ozempic side effects lawsuit will pay out. So what our lawyers can do, however, is provide an educated guess as to the possible settlement compensation payout range for Ozempic cases based on various assumptions about the causation evidence. Based on these significant assumptions, our attorneys believe that a successful Ozempic lawsuit could have a settlement value range of $400,000 to $700,000. This is the settlement value estimate for the “top tier” Ozempic cases, which would be those in which the plaintiff suffered severe gastroparesis or death.

In our April 5, 2024, update above, our attorneys talk about the type of cases we are seeing in this litigation. Some of them involve injuries that resolve quickly. You will not see settlement payouts anywhere near that number for those types of lawsuits. However, serious, permanent injury cases may yield significant value.

Practical Reasons That May Drive an Ozempic Settlement

The financial dynamics of the pharmaceutical market suggest significant potential payouts in the Ozempic-related litigation. These defendants are getting ridiculous profits from Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, Trulicity, and Mounjaro. These companies are in a position to handle extensive settlement costs without crippling their financial standing.

Drug companies typically prefer to prolong litigation as long as possible.  They also do not care as much as you would think about besmirching the name of the company with adverse publicity of big verdicts against them. But this is different – they are worried about the drug’s reputation and their ability to sell more of it.

It is the profits these drugs are bringing in that may change the calculus.  It may make it more likely that these companies will prefer settling claims out of court more quickly to protect their profits and avoid the public relations disaster of a verdict and the additional scrutiny that adverse verdicts on these drugs could bring.

The thinking is that these defendants might opt to offer substantial settlement payouts to quickly resolve the litigation and mitigate any negative publicity that could arise during a trial. Such a strategy not only helps maintain the brand’s market position but also potentially avoids exposing additional harmful evidence that could lead to even higher compensation claims or punitive damages.

So the expectation hope is that defendants will issue significant compensation to claimants sooner rather than later to circumvent the reputational damage and financial unpredictability associated with jury verdicts.

New Ozempic Warning

On September 28, 2023, the FDA added a new warning to the Ozempic label about the potential for increased risk of ileus, a blockage that keeps food or liquid from passing through the colon.

The new warning on the Ozempic label states that:

Ileus: Ileus is a serious but rare side effect that has been reported in patients taking Ozempic. Ileus can cause abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. If you experience any of these symptoms, contact your healthcare provider immediately.

The FDA also recommends that healthcare providers monitor patients taking Ozempic for signs and symptoms of ileus, and that they consider discontinuing Ozempic if ileus is suspected.

The point being underscored here is that we have a drug on the market, but the risks of the drug are far from nailed down.

Key Allegation

Every Ozempic lawsuit centers on one claim: Novo Nordisk failed to warn patients and doctors about the serious risk of gastroparesis and vision loss. Patients were left in the dark about dangers that could have changed their decisions to take the drug.

The Focus of Every Ozempic Lawsuit Is the Failure to Warn

Every Ozempic lawsuit asserts the key claim in this litigation:  Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic, failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of developing gastroparesis, a condition characterized by delayed stomach emptying, as a side effect of the drug.

While the Ozempic label mentions common adverse reactions like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and constipation, it does not link these symptoms to gastroparesis, nor does it include them in the “Warnings and Precautions” section. The label does mention delayed gastric emptying in the context of drug interactions. It describes a minor delay in gastric emptying as part of the drug’s mechanism. Still, it does not explicitly state gastroparesis as a risk or potential chronic condition resulting from Ozempic use.

Additionally, Novo Nordisk’s promotional materials, including their primary website, fail to mention the risk of gastroparesis in the “Important Safety Information” section. The materials also highlight changes in labeling over time, such as the removal of specific guidance on side effects from the “Patient Counseling Information” section, which may cause physicians to misinterpret symptoms like vomiting as minor or temporary.

Victims’ Ozempic lawyers argue that Novo Nordisk was aware or should have been aware of the potential link between Ozempic and gastroparesis, based on clinical studies, case reports, and medical literature. That is the core of these lawsuits. The company failed to provide adequate warnings about this risk, which allegedly led to a lack of awareness in the medical community and potentially affected prescribing decisions.

You also have to remember that we are not just talking about Ozempic in terms of clues to the risk. Ozempic is a  GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). The risk of gastroparesis is common across the GLP-1RA class, which includes medications like tirzepatide, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, and lixisenatide. Published literature on the association between gastroparesis and any GLP-1RA, not just Ozempic, should have alerted manufacturers to the need for warnings about this risk to patients and prescribing physicians.

Ozempic lawsuits contend that if the risks of gastroparesis had been adequately disclosed, it would have influenced the physician’s decision to prescribe Ozempic or to monitor for symptoms of gastroparesis more closely. Why not disclose the risk? There could be any number of reasons. But, like everything, it usually comes down to money. More warnings equal fewer sales, which equals less money. It is as simple as that.

NAION Warning Case Is Even Better

In June 2025, European regulators added non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) as a very rare side effect on the Ozempic label. NAION is a serious eye condition that can cause sudden, permanent vision loss when blood flow to the optic nerve is disrupted.

The updated warning instructs patients to stop taking Ozempic immediately if they notice sudden changes in vision and to seek urgent medical care. Doctors in Europe are also being advised to discuss this risk with patients before prescribing semaglutide drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, or Rybelsus.

In the United States, the FDA has not yet added a specific NAION warning to the Ozempic label, though vision problems are mentioned more generally. This gap highlights a recurring concern: drugs like Ozempic are widely prescribed, but the full scope of their risks is still being uncovered. The recognition of NAION in Europe shows that safety questions remain and that regulators are still working to define the true risks of this medication.

Ozempic Class Action Lawsuit

In February 2024, the MDL panel certified an Ozempic class action lawsuit. A Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) class action can potentially speed up the settlement process in lawsuits like the Ozempic case in two important ways that may lead to earlier Ozempic settlements:

Streamlined Proceedings: MDLs consolidate similar cases to streamline the legal process. By bringing numerous similar lawsuits into a single court, MDLs help reduce duplicative discovery, avoid conflicting rulings across courts, and increase the efficiency of the legal process. This consolidation can lead to quicker settlements because it creates pressure on the defendants to resolve many cases at once rather than dealing with each case individually over a prolonged period.

Higher Negotiation Leverage: In an MDL, the large number of cases consolidated together increases the plaintiffs’ leverage in settlement negotiations. This can encourage the defendant, in this case, Novo Nordisk, to settle to avoid the risk of facing a potentially large, cumulative judgment across many individual cases. Settlements in an MDL can offer compensation to claimants more quickly than individual lawsuits, which might take years to resolve. Ozempic settlement amounts are unlikely to be one-size-fits-all. If these claims are successful, Ozempic settlement payouts will vary depending on the severity of the side effects and the evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

Our lawyers sometimes refer to the Ozempic MDL (multidistrict litigation) as a class action lawsuit because that is what people call it (and, frankly, how they search it), but it is important to understand that these two legal mechanisms are distinct.

A class action lawsuit involves a group of plaintiffs who have suffered similar harm from the same defendant, and their cases are combined into a single lawsuit. This allows the group to be represented collectively by a member of the class, and any judgment or settlement applies to all class members. In a class action, the court must certify the class, establishing that the claims are sufficiently similar and that the representative parties will protect the interests of the class. You might see some classic Ozempic class actions filed in this litigation that include consumer claims for people who may not be injured.

On the other hand, an MDL consolidates individual Ozempic lawsuits with similar claims into a single court for pretrial proceedings, streamlining the process and making it more efficient. Each plaintiff in an MDL maintains their individual lawsuit, and their case is transferred back to its original court for trial if it does not settle during the MDL process. The primary goal of an MDL is to handle complex cases involving many plaintiffs and common factual issues more efficiently.

In the context of the Ozempic MDL, multiple individual cases related to the drug are consolidated for pretrial procedures. This allows for coordinated discovery and judicial efficiency but retains the individuality of each plaintiff’s claim. Unlike a class action, the outcomes in an MDL can vary for each plaintiff based on the specifics of their case.

What Patients Need to Know

If you developed gastroparesis or vision loss after taking Ozempic, Wegovy, or another GLP-1 drug, you may qualify for compensation. Lawsuits are already consolidated in federal and state courts, and deadlines may apply. 

Estimated Settlement Amounts for an Ozempic Lawsuit

Estimating the potential settlement value of new product liability cases like this is almost impossible to do with any real accuracy. That is particularly true with the Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuits because they are very new. At this point, we don’t know how the scientific evidence behind these cases will hold up in court. That is a major variable in any defective drug case.

Still, victims want to know how much the Ozempic lawsuit will pay out. So what our lawyers can do, however, is provide an educated guess as to the possible settlement compensation payout range of Ozempic cases based on various assumptions about the causation evidence. Based on these significant assumptions, our attorneys believe that a successful Ozempic lawsuit could have a settlement value range of $200,000 to $500,000. This is the settlement value estimate for the “top tier” Ozempic cases, which would be those in which the plaintiff suffered severe gastroparesis or death.

But that is the best cases. The average Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuit will likely be much lower. Many cases may involve temporary injuries, hospital stays, or less severe complications. Those types of claims may be valued at $50,000 to $150,000, depending on the duration and impact of the condition. Of course, this assumes the MDL judge allows the gastroparesis cases to go forward.  The reality is that a lot of lawyers have their doubts about this.

Some involve injuries that these drugs cause heal relatively quickly, and those cases will likely not see settlement payouts close to the larger figures. However, cases involving severe and permanent injuries may have significant value.

NAION Settlements Could Be Very High

The most serious potential cases are the NAION lawsuits. In these cases, we are talking about sudden and permanent vision loss. Blindness in one or both eyes dramatically affects every aspect of life and usually leads to high settlement amounts when you can prove the defendant is responsible.  Based on comparable drug injury cases, NAION-related Ozempic claims could reach $500,000 to $1 million or more, with bilateral blindness probably exceeding those figures.

While no outcome is guaranteed, the tiered structure is clear. Lesser injuries will see modest payouts. Severe gastroparesis could reach the mid six figures. Permanent vision loss from NAION, however, is the type of catastrophic injury that commands the largest settlements in litigation of this kind.

Practical Reasons That May Drive Settlement

The financial dynamics of the pharmaceutical market suggest significant potential payouts in the Ozempic-related litigation. These defendants are getting ridiculous profits from Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, Trulicity, and Mounjaro. These companies  are in a position to handle extensive settlement costs without crippling their financial standing.

Drug companies typically like to prolong litigation as long as possible.  They also do not care as much as you would think about besmirching the name of the company with adverse publicity of big verdicts against them. But this is different – they are worried about the drug’s reputation and their ability to sell more of it.

It is the profits these drugs are bringing in that may change the calculus.  It may make it more likely that these companies will prefer settling claims out of court more quickly to protect their profits and avoid the public relations disaster of a verdict and the additional scrutiny that adverse verdicts on these drugs could bring.

The thinking is that these defendants might opt to offer substantial settlement payouts to quickly resolve the litigation and mitigate any negative publicity that could arise during a trial. Such a strategy not only helps maintain the brand’s market position but also potentially avoids the exposure of additional harmful evidence that could lead to even higher compensation claims or punitive damages.

So the expectation hope is that defendants will issue significant compensation to claimants sooner rather than later to circumvent the reputational damage and financial unpredictability associated with jury verdicts.

Weight Loss Lawsuits May Have Higher Values than for Diabetes

We think injury lawsuits for patients taking Ozempic and related drugs for diabetes will receive real compensation if the claims are viable.  Still, settlement amounts for Ozempic in weight loss cases may be higher than those for diabetes claims due to several factors.
First, the use of Ozempic for weight loss can involve a different patient demographic, potentially including younger individuals who may experience longer-term or more severe impacts from side effects, thereby increasing the perceived damages. Younger patients generally get higher settlement payouts than older patients in mass tort lawsuits.
Secondly, the expectations and marketing surrounding weight loss medications can create a higher perceived duty of care from pharmaceutical companies to disclose potential risks, which, if not adequately communicated, could lead to greater liability and thus higher settlements. The thinking is that weight loss is far more optional than diabetes, so failure to warn those patients is somehow worse. Jurors may view the failure to warn of side effects in a medication used for lifestyle or cosmetic reasons as more egregious than one used for managing a chronic health condition like diabetes, potentially leading to not only a greater chance of winning a failure to warn claim, but also a large punitive damages award.
Additionally, weight loss patients may not have the same underlying health issues as those with diabetes, making it easier to attribute certain side effects directly to the medication rather than pre-existing conditions.  Defense lawyers in this litigation know that juries look for reasons to blame the patient.  Good lawyering can solve most of this problem.  But it is still a thing, and this perceived clearer causation can strengthen claims and influence settlement outcomes.

When Will the Ozempic Lawsuit Be Settled?

The timeline for when the Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuit for NAION claims will be settled remains uncertain. It is still in the early innings of the litigation.  We have not begun case-specific discovery.  The Ozempic MDL is now progressing through pretrial proceedings, with a focus on establishing general causation of the severe gastrointestinal risks associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists.  We do not think you will see any early Ozempic settlements, much less a large-scale resolution, for years.  That is not the news you want to hear, but we can give it to you straight.

So, for those wondering, when will the Ozempic lawsuit be settled? The reality is that mass tort litigation is unpredictable.  As the Ozempic class action lawsuit progresses, factors like bellwether trials—early test cases that gauge jury reactions—will shape potential settlement payouts. But we are still, again, years away from that. For now, those affected should stay updated as more lawsuits against Ozempic continue to be filed and hope that our legal strategies continue to evolve so that we can hold manufacturers accountable.

Hiring an Ozempic Lawyer

If you have an Ozempic gastroparesis lawsuit, call our Ozempic lawsuit lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us online for a free consultation.

]]> 17243 NEC Baby Formula Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/nec-baby-formula-lawsuits.html Thu, 14 May 2026 20:07:44 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=10353 Our lawyers are handling Similac and Enfamil infant formula lawsuits for families whose premature babies suffered or died from necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after taking one of these formulas.  Our law firm is reviewing NEC lawsuits in all 50 states.

Medical research links cow milk-based infant formulas such as Similac and Enfamil to a dangerous neonatal medical condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis.  These newborn NEC formula lawsuits make many allegations.  But at their core, they allege that the makers of these formulas knew of the risk of NEC and did nothing to warn families and give them a choice.

If your premature baby was diagnosed with NEC after being given Similac or Enfamil formula, you may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the formula companies and receive financial compensation for the harm that was done to your child.

Continue reading
]]> 10353 Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/spinal-cord-stimulator-lawsuit.html Wed, 13 May 2026 17:54:28 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=29758 A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device used to manage chronic pain, most often involving the back or spine. These systems are marketed as a way to reduce pain by interrupting nerve signals before they reach the brain. But for a growing number of patients, the device fails to help. It introduces new and sometimes permanent problems, including electrical shocks, burning pain, infections, lead migration, hardware failure, and repeat surgeries to reposition or remove equipment that was supposed to improve quality of life.

This page explains spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and why they are being filed nationwide. It focuses on what patients are alleging, how these devices have failed in real-world use, and why many of these cases go beyond ordinary medical malpractice claims. The most serious lawsuits do not center on a single surgical mistake. They examine how modern spinal cord stimulators were designed, tested, and approved, and whether patients were ever adequately warned about the risks that now recur repeatedly in medical records and FDA reports.

Many people arrive here with a practical question in mind: what do spinal cord stimulator settlement amounts look like, and how does compensation get calculated when a device causes lasting harm? That question cannot be answered in isolation. Settlement amounts and payouts are driven by the full medical timeline, including the cost of repeat surgeries, explantation, permanent loss of function, and the downstream consequences when a pain-management device leaves someone worse off than before it was implanted.

Continue reading
]]> 29758 Hair Relaxer Lawsuit https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/hair-relaxer-lawsuit.html Tue, 12 May 2026 17:59:21 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=14207 Our lawyers are actively reviewing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits across all 50 states. This page provides:

  1. Detailed news and updates on the chemical hair relaxer litigation,
  2. Insights from our hair relaxer attorneys on how these lawsuits may unfold,
Continue reading
]]> 14207 Camp Lejeune Lawsuit News and Updates https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/camp-lejeune-water-lawsuit.html Tue, 12 May 2026 15:55:43 +0000 https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/?p=12473 This page provides updates on Camp Lejeune lawsuits. Our lawyers are still working to give the latest update on the litigation, even though we are no longer taking new cases. Why? Because there is little information out there, and we are staying with victims, including those we do not represent, until the end.

We have also recently reopened the comments below to answer any questions you may have or simply give you a chance to share your thoughts.

Latest Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Updates for 2026

Continue reading
]]> 12473