The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), originally known for its campaigns against the tobacco industry, has held an international symposium in Boston to discuss potential policy initiatives to address online sports betting addiction.

At its “Online Gambling and Public Health Movement” symposium held at Northeastern University last week, PHAI announced that the organization is backing a wide-ranging online sports betting lawsuit over the growth of gambling addictions nationwide. 

According to that complaint (PDF), the NFL provided Genius Sports, DraftKings and FanDuel with data that allowed the sportsbooks to empower their algorithms to identify, target and victimize consumers who show signs of gambling addiction. The organization argues that this has made FanDuel and DraftKings, in particular, far more dangerous than other online sportsbooks.

Online Sportsbook Dangers

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that struck down a ban on federal sports betting, leaving it up to each state whether to allow the practice. The decision’s impacts have led to an explosion in online sports betting nationwide, which critics say has also led to increasing reports of sports betting addiction, financial losses and other societal damages.

The impact of online sportsbooks have hit young adults particularly hard, as they are often more comfortable using digital payment systems. In addition, many, such as those who have just left home to go to college, are managing their own personal finances for the first time, making them more vulnerable to the financial impact of compulsive gambling.

As a result, the PHAI-backed claim joins a growing number of individual and class action sports betting addiction lawsuits being brought against DraftKings, FanDuel and other online sportsbooks, alleging that the companies engage in malicious tactics designed to foster gambling addiction. The filings often indicate these companies use algorithms to target and exploit potential gambling problems. Many complaints also claim the sites violate multiple state laws and tend to try to operate in states where they are not legal.

Online Gambling Public Health Lawsuit

The PHAI-backed complaint was brought by Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas earlier this year. It names DraftKings, Inc., Crown PA Gaming Inc., Beftair Interactive US LLC, FanDuel Group Parent LLC, FanDuel PA LLC, FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment PLC, the National Football League, NFL Enterprises, Genius Sports Group Limited, Bryttani Morgan, Michael Sonbeek, Dyleisha Lewis, Peter Donahue and Shaun Gordon as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges the NFL and the gambling companies collaborated to transform sports betting into a highly addictive, always-available system, using personalized, fast-paced interfaces designed to intensify compulsive gambling behavior beyond anything previously offered to consumers. These offerings include “microbetting” options.

“With live feeds of officially-licensed game and player data supplied by the NFL and Genius Sports, DraftKings and FanDuel have weaponized advancements in mobile technology and artificial intelligence so that their Sportsbook Apps funnel more and more customers toward a brand new and highly addictive type of gambling: live in-game microbetting.”

– Christopher Sage et al v. DraftKings Inc. et al

Microbetting involves placing wagers as games are still in progress on a wide variety of factors that may occur as the game proceeds. Multiple bets can be made and the odds constantly change. According to the lawsuit, a majority of online wagers placed on online sportsbooks now consist of these microbets.

The lawsuit notes that this type of betting is only possible because of the NFL’s data and cooperation. According to the complaint, the NFL provides in-game data to Genius Sports, its long-term strategic partner and the exclusive distributor of officially licensed NFL game data, which is then licensed to FanDuel and DraftKings. 

Online Gambling Harm Allegations

Both plaintiffs, Sage and Thompson, are Pennsylvania residents who suffered large amounts of gambling losses due to the gambling addiction they say was purposefully fostered in them by the defendants’ actions. Sage indicates he suffered $40,000 in losses to DraftKings after the sportsbook assigned Lewis to be his “VIP host,” whose job was to encourage him to bet more and bet often.

Similarly, Sage was also appointed a VIP host while placing wagers on FanDuel, which he began using in July 2019. One of the hosts during his tenure was defendant Sonbeek. Sage estimates he suffered gambling losses in excess of $130,300 through FanDuel wagers.

Thompson had similar experiences, being assigned Morgan as his VIP host on FanDuel and Donahue as his VIP host on DraftKings. Thompson indicates he lost more than $1.5 million on FanDuel and $336,000 on DraftKings.

“Following in the footsteps of the tobacco industry, the online sports gambling industry has developed a highly addictive, difficult-to-resist product that bombards consumers with dozens of betting opportunities every minute of the day and that is leaving a trail of devastated victims.”

— Andrew Rainer, PHAI Litigation Director, press release

The men present claims of violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, design defect, failure to warn, design defect (negligence), negligent failure to warn, common law negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Online Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Sage and Thompson’s lawsuit, backed by PHAI, is one of an increasing number of similar gambling addiction lawsuits filed against sportsbooks nationwide by individuals who are now combating destructive gambling habits they say were caused by patronizing the sports betting apps.

Thousands of similar claims are expected in the coming months and years, and most are being filed by young, college-age men who say they were targeted and exploited by aggressive promotions and data-driven algorithms able to detect compulsive habits.

Plaintiffs argue that apps like FanDuel and DraftKings use advanced psychological triggers that the average consumer has little defense against, leading them to make higher, more frequent, and more personally and financially destructive wagers.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are investigating claims across the U.S., focusing on whether these websites intentionally foster compulsive behavior and profit from users’ escalating losses. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

To find out whether you qualify for a sports betting lawsuit, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless a settlement is obtained in your case.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Louisiana woman’s product liability lawsuit claims she developed a rare form of t-cell lymphoma due to the side effects of using the eczema treatment Dupixent.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Alicia Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 28. It names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation as defendants, alleging they developed, manufactured and sold a defective drug capable of causing users to develop cancer.

Dupixent Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. Its label was later expanded, allowing the manufacturers to market the drug for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammation-based respiratory tract and skin conditions.

The drug was marketed as safe and effective, becoming a blockbuster treatment in the U.S. However, Dupixent side effects have recently been linked to T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that impacts the body’s white blood cells, which are a key part of the immune system. These concerns have raised warnings that the medication may increase the risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Johnson’s claim joins a growing number of similar Dupixent lawsuits from other consumers. These filings all raise allegations that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, Dupixent was linked to the development of CTCL and PTCL, yet failed to adequately warn patients or the medical community about the potential life-long, devastating and sometimes fatal risks.

Dupixent CTCL Lawsuit

According to her lawsuit, Johnson began using Dupixent in October 2022 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. She continued to use the medication until May 2024.

In May 2025, doctors diagnosed Johnson with mycosis fungoides, the most common form of CTCL. Mycosis fungoides causes red scaly and itchy patches on the skin, often leading it to be confused for the skin problems that Dupixent is prescribed to treat. This may lead to a delayed diagnosis, making proper label warnings particularly important.

The cancer generally progresses slowly, and it rarely causes death when diagnosed early. However, the malignancy is incurable. If not caught until later stages, it can become far more dangerous by spreading to lymph nodes and other organs. At this point, the five-year survival rate plummets.

Since her mycosis fungoides diagnosis, Johnson has also been diagnosed with sézary syndrome, which is an aggressive leukemic form of CTCL. The lawsuit blames Johnson’s use of Dupixent for both CTCL diagnoses.

The filing also notes doctors have advised Johnson that she will require medical treatment and monitoring for CTCL “indefinitely.”

“As a result of Plaintiff’s CTCL diagnosis, she has required extensive treatments and the use of medications including topical medications, oral medications, and injected/infused medications. Additionally, Plaintiff, Alicia Johnson, is undergoing multiple rounds of chemotherapy.”

– Alicia Johnson v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Johnson presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

In February, a group of plaintiffs filed a petition for the creation of a Dupixent CTCL lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

On April 16, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) announced it will hear oral arguments on the potential consolidation at a hearing scheduled for May 28. If the panel decides to consolidate the claims, it would appoint a judge to oversee all federal Dupixent lawsuits. That judge is likely to order the parties to prepare a small group of representative cases to serve as potential bellwether trials.

These early test cases are designed to give the parties a chance to see how evidence, testimony and arguments affect actual jury decisions. While these outcomes are not binding on other cases, they are closely watched in expectation that similar juries will arrive at similar conclusions, often making bellwether trials a lynchpin in settlement negotiations.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit claims that a defective Medtronic Azure pacemaker failed to properly detect and record dangerous heart rhythm abnormalities, leaving a Pennsylvania woman to suffer worsening arrhythmias, repeated medical complications and emotional distress.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Susan Lloyd in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 27, naming Medtronic Inc. as the defendant.

Lloyd claims she previously relied on older Medtronic pacemakers that functioned properly, yet she began experiencing serious issues after her device was replaced with a Medtronic Azure pacemaker in July 2018. She indicates the newer device failed to record episodes of rapid arrhythmias, even when she experienced significant symptoms.

Pacemaker Risks

Pacemakers are implantable medical devices placed in the chest to regulate irregular heart rhythms by delivering electrical impulses that help maintain a steady heartbeat when it becomes too slow or erratic.

However, when these devices fail or are defectively designed, patients may face serious and potentially life-threatening complications. In recent years, this has led to a growing number of recalls and product liability lawsuits involving pacemakers.

Earlier this year, a Washington woman filed a Boston Scientific pacemaker lawsuit, alleging that a recalled device from that manufacturer malfunctioned more than a decade after implantation, causing a life-threatening emergency that required urgent surgery. 

A separate lawsuit filed a couple weeks earlier, claimed that a Medtronic Azure dual-chamber pacemaker caused abnormal electrical activity and dangerous heart rhythm issues for a Connecticut woman, ultimately requiring surgery to remove and replace the device.

Comparable product defect claims have also been raised in a number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against the same manufacturers, Medtronic and Boston Scientific. These devices, which also use electrical signals within the body, have been linked in complaints to alleged design or manufacturing problems that caused patients to experience unexpected shocks, burns and other complications.

Medtronic Pacemaker Malfunction Allegations

Lloyd’s lawsuit alleges that despite repeated complaints and ongoing symptoms, her Azure pacemaker did not properly record abnormal heart rhythms, including episodes of ventricular tachycardia and other rapid arrhythmias that should have been noted by the device.

To evaluate her condition, Lloyd indicates she wore multiple external heart monitors over the past several years, including devices from other manufacturers, which consistently detected frequent arrhythmias that her implanted pacemaker failed to capture.

According to the complaint, Lloyd experienced numerous episodes over short monitoring periods, sometimes more than a dozen arrhythmias within days. However, her pacemaker recorded none of them. The lawsuit claims the device should have been capable of detecting these events, particularly when heart rates exceeded thresholds typically used to identify abnormal rhythms.

Lloyd further alleges that even after physicians lowered the detection threshold the device settings did not increase in sensitivity, and the pacemaker still failed to record the arrhythmias, raising concerns that it was not functioning as designed.

The complaint suggests the failure may be linked to battery or manufacturing defects that interfered with the device’s ability to monitor cardiac activity. Lloyd claims Medtronic representatives acknowledged potential battery-related issues affecting the device’s performance, yet no effective fix was provided.

As a result, the lawsuit indicates Lloyd suffered repeated symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea and near-fainting episodes, as well as emotional distress and frustration over the lack of accurate monitoring. She also underwent additional testing and monitoring, including wearing long-term external devices, which led to skin irritation and increased medical costs.

“Lloyd has suffered actual injuries (delay of treatment of her cardiac arrhythmias, emotional distress at being told once again nothing showed up on Lloyd’s device despite Lloyd having presyncope and other severe symptoms, skin rashes after having to wear multiple monitors, a surgery to implant a recording device, a surgery sooner than should be required to replace Lloyd’s defective device).”

— Susan Lloyd v. Medtronic Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability, negligence and fraud, claiming the device was defectively designed and manufactured, and that Medtronic failed to disclose known risks. It seeks damages for physical injuries, emotional distress, medical expenses and other losses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal drug safety experts are warning that Truqap may expose prostate cancer patients to serious toxicity risks while offering limited treatment benefits.

Drug reviewers with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a briefing document ahead of an April 30 meeting of the agency’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The report comes as the committee prepares to weigh Truqap’s potential use in a new combination cancer treatment.

Truqap Approval

Truqap (capivasertib) was first approved by the FDA in 2023 as a breast cancer treatment, used in combination with fulvestrant for certain patients whose cancer has become metastatic, meaning it has spread to other parts of the body. AstraZeneca is now seeking FDA approval to expand use of the drug as a prostate cancer treatment, in combination with Johnson & Johnson’s Zytiga (abiraterone).

The request is being reviewed by an FDA advisory committee, which is made up of outside scientists, physicians and other health experts who evaluate drug approval questions and make recommendations to the agency. While the committee’s votes are not binding, the FDA often follows the advice of its advisory panels when deciding whether to approve new uses for medications.

Truqap Toxicity Risks

Before the meeting, FDA staffers submitted their own review of the drug, raising reservations about its safety and effectiveness as part of the prostate cancer treatment combo. The reviewers found the evidence of its effectiveness unconvincing, questioning the techniques researchers used during clinical trials to reach their conclusions.

One of the end goals of the clinical trials involved measuring the time between the end of treatment and the patient’s need for chemotherapy. However, reviewers noted that numerous factors which have nothing to do with the drug’s effectiveness could delay such treatments, including financial issues and chemotherapy drug availability.

The document points out that all similar prostate cancer medications showed signs of higher effectiveness before the agency approved them.

Additionally, the FDA raised concerns about Truqap’s level of toxicity, indicating that during a Truqap clinical trial patients took the drug for only 16.8 months, while those given placebos took them for 18.6 months. The researchers then compared the outcomes as if both groups had taken the medications for similar durations.

However, the reviewers noted that the reason the Truqap group had a shorter use duration overall was due to the large number of patients who discontinued the study due to adverse side effects. The drug’s application notes that these patients were generally able to continue taking Zytiga if they suffered adverse events from Truqap use.

“While the FDA agrees with the Applicant that treatment with capivasertib did not compromise exposure to abiraterone overall, the high discontinuation rate and shorter duration of exposure to capivasertib compared to placebo suggest that capivasertib was not well-tolerated.”

– Combined FDA and Applicant ODAC Briefing Document

In their summary, the FDA reviewers warned that the benefits of adding Truqap to Zytiga, which is an established and well-tolerated prostate cancer drug, could not be distinguished from the effects of Zytiga alone. 

Additionally, they warned that the risk of Truqap’s toxicity, which they say contributed to some patient deaths, needs to be considered in comparison to the seemingly small potential benefit.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal regulators have announced a recall for certain Thermos food jars and bottles, warning that pressure may build up inside the containers when perishable foods or drinks are stored, potentially causing the stopper to eject with force.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Thermos food jars and bottles recall on April 30, after receiving at least 27 reports of users being struck by stoppers that were forcefully ejected upon opening the containers, including three cases of permanent vision loss.

A thermos is an insulated container designed to keep drinks or food hot or cold for long periods of time. However, the recall warns that if perishable food or beverages are stored inside certain products for an extended period, pressure may build up, potentially causing the stopper to eject forcefully when opened. This could result in impact and laceration injuries for users.

Thermos Recall

The recall impacts approximately 8.2 million units, including 5.8 million Thermos Stainless King 3000 and 3020 food jars manufactured before July 2023, and 2.3 million Thermos Sportsman 3010 food and beverage bottles.

The containers were sold in a variety of colors and sizes, including:

• 16-ounce Thermos 3000 model
• 24-ounce thermos 3020 model
• 40-ounce Thermos 3010 model

Model numbers are printed on the bottom of the recalled containers, and the Thermos trademark is located on the side. Stoppers on the recalled jars and bottles do not have a pressure relief vent in the center.

The affected containers were manufactured in China and Malaysia. They were sold at Target, Walmart and other stores nationwide, as well as online through Amazon, Walmart, Target and Thermos, between March 2008 and July 2024 for about $30 each.

The CPSC is urging consumers to immediately stop using the recalled products and contact Thermos to receive a free replacement pressure relief stopper or a replacement bottle, depending on the model. 

For recalled 3000 and 3020 Food Jars, consumers will be instructed to dispose of the stopper and send a photo of the discarded stopper to Thermos. For recalled 3010 Bottles, consumers will be instructed to return the bottle to Thermos using a prepaid shipping label.

For more information, customers can contact Thermos by phone at 662-563-6822, Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT, or visit https://support.thermos.com or https://www.thermos.com and click “Contact Us” or “Recall Info.”

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

Certain Omnipod 5 insulin pump pods are being removed from use by the manufacturer, following a sharp increase in reports that the devices may fail to deliver insulin as intended.

According to a safety communication issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 29, Insulet Corporation is removing affected Omnipod 5 pods from use after identifying problems that could place users at risk of serious and life-threatening complications.

Omnipod 5 Injuries

The current action follows an Omnipod 5 insulin pump recall announced in March 2026, when regulators alerted the public to concerns involving pod malfunctions and insulin delivery interruptions. However, at the time, there were only 18 reported injuries. That number has since risen dramatically to 476.

Omnipod 5 systems are widely used by individuals with diabetes to provide automated insulin delivery through a wearable pod that communicates with a controller or smartphone. When functioning properly, the system continuously adjusts insulin levels based on glucose readings. However, when insulin delivery is disrupted, users may rapidly develop dangerously high blood sugar levels.

Following the recall, attorneys nationwide are investigating Omnipod 5 lawsuits involving allegations that pod failures caused severe hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and other complications requiring emergency medical treatment.

Omnipod 5 Failure Injury Risks

The updated Omnipod 5 recall affects specific lots of disposable pods distributed nationwide, with the unique device identifier (UDI): 10385083000527. Lot numbers can be checked on the Omnipod website.

Federal regulators warn that the affected devices may malfunction without warning, potentially stopping insulin delivery or causing users to receive less insulin than needed. Since the recall was first announced, the number of reported injuries has skyrocketed from 18 to more than 400, raising growing concerns about the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening complications.

Potential injuries linked to the Omnipod 5 pod failures may include:

• Severe hyperglycemia: If the pod stops delivering enough insulin, blood sugar levels may rise to dangerous levels before the user realizes there is a problem. The FDA indicates that users may not immediately recognize when insulin delivery has been interrupted, increasing the risk of delayed treatment.
• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA): DKA is a medical emergency that occurs when the body does not have enough insulin to use glucose for energy. The body begins breaking down fat instead, producing dangerous levels of ketones in the blood. Warning signs may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, rapid breathing and fruity-smelling breath. Without prompt treatment, DKA can lead to severe dehydration, organ damage or death.
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS): HHS is another serious complication caused by extremely high blood sugar levels, more commonly seen in individuals with Type 2 diabetes. Unlike DKA, it usually does not involve significant ketone buildup, but it can still cause severe dehydration, thickened blood, confusion, seizures, coma or death.
• Hospitalization and emergency treatment: Both DKA and HHS require immediate medical care, often involving IV fluids, insulin therapy and correction of electrolyte imbalances. Many patients require hospitalization, and treatment delays may increase the risk of long-term complications.
• Diabetic coma or death: In severe cases, interruptions in insulin delivery caused by defective devices may result in diabetic coma or fatal outcomes, particularly if users are unaware that the pod has stopped working properly.

Patients are being advised to stop using affected pods and switch to alternative insulin delivery methods. Health care providers are also being urged to closely monitor patients who may have been impacted by the recall.

U.S. customers who experience adverse events, product quality problems or have questions about the recall can contact Insulet at 1-800-641-2049 or use the live chat feature available on the company’s website. The FDA also recommends that adverse events or product quality issues be reported through MedWatch, the agency’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Omnipod 5 Lawsuits

Investigations into potential Omnipod 5 lawsuits are underway nationwide, with claims focusing on whether Insulet failed to properly warn patients and health care providers about the risk of insulin delivery failures despite growing reports of device problems.

Individuals who developed complications after using an Omnipod 5 pod may be able to seek compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and other losses, particularly in cases involving:

• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS)
• Hospitalization
• Diabetic coma
• Other severe complications

Those who believe they may qualify for an Omnipod 5 lawsuit can request a free case review, during which an attorney will evaluate the circumstances, explain available legal options and determine eligibility to pursue compensation.

Attorneys handling these cases typically work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only paid if a recovery is obtained.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Florida man is pursuing a personal injury lawsuit alleging he suffered severe injuries after swallowing a metal bristle that detached from a Weber grill brush, requiring him to undergo emergency bowel resection surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Steven Soule in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 28. It names Weber Inc. and Weber-Stephen Products LLC as defendants.

Soule claims that a metal bristle from a Weber grill brush detached during normal use, stuck to his grill and later became lodged in food he consumed. As a result of ingestion, the bristle perforated his intestines and caused sepsis that resulted in emergency surgery and hospitalization.

Weber Grill Brush Recall

Weber grill brushes contain metal wires attached to a plastic or wooden handle. They are used to clean barbecue grills and other cooking equipment. However, in recent years dozens of injuries have been linked to the brushes.

Both consumers and the manufacturer have pointed out that the bristles have a tendency to detach from the brush head during use and stick to the grill. When cooking, these detached bristles may transfer to food, putting individuals at risk of ingestion and internal injuries.

As a result, Weber issued a massive wire grill brush recall in February, affecting more than 3.2 million units. At the time of the recall, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) indicated it had received nearly 40 reports of injuries linked to the recalled grill brushes, with four people requiring emergency medical treatment.

Weber Grill Brush Injury Allegations

The new complaint indicates Soule used the Weber Grill Brush to clean his grill in mid-October 2025. According to the lawsuit, a metal bristle broke away from the brush head and remained on the grilling surface.

Soule alleges that he later cooked hamburgers on the same grill, causing the loose bristle to stick to his food. After he consumed the hamburger, the metal bristle allegedly punctured and perforated his intestines.

The lawsuit states that Soule later developed sepsis and went to the hospital with a 103-degree fever. He allegedly underwent emergency bowel resection surgery, during which doctors removed one foot of damaged and infected intestine. Soule spent several days in the intensive care unit and required months of recovery, causing him to miss four months of work.

The complaint alleges Weber concealed their knowledge of the grill brush design defect and should have known the bristles had a tendency to come loose. The brushes are designed to come into contact with grills and other cooking equipment, which the lawsuit argues poses a risk to consumers since the bristles can detach during regular, intended use.

Soule notes that consumers have complained to Weber, government safety agencies and retailers for years about the defective and dangerous design of the grill brushes. However, Weber continued to make multiple versions of the same metal-bristled brush.

“Defendants concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of Weber brushes and their unreasonably dangerous risks from Plaintiff, other consumers, and the appropriate safety and regulatory authorities. Specifically, Defendants failed to adequately inform consumers and the Plaintiff about the magnified risk of metal wires and fragments breaking off from the brush and coming into unwanted contact with users.”

— Steven Soule v. Weber Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of violation of the Florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act, negligent misrepresentation, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of express warranty. Soule is seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages and other damages.

Weber Grill Brush Lawsuits

Design defects and the unsafe nature of the wire brush products have led to a number of personal injury and Weber grill brush class action lawsuits. Complaints indicate consumers had a reasonable expectation the grill brushes would be safe when used under normal conditions.

One case, filed on behalf of an infant, alleges the child swallowed a metal bristle that had detached from the brush and become lodged in his food. The bristle then became stuck in the infant’s digestive tract, requiring medical intervention. According to the lawsuit, the incident has caused ongoing difficulty swallowing and the need for continued medical treatment.

A separate Weber personal injury lawsuit claims a metal bristle became lodged in a New Jersey man’s pancreas, requiring emergency medical treatment.

In both of those cases and others, plaintiffs allege Weber knew about the danger of bristles detaching from their brushes, yet failed to disclose the risk to consumers prior to the 2026 recall, resulting in these and additional injuries.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit alleges that an AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter became embedded in a Michigan woman’s jugular vein, leading to an embolism and other complications following implantation.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Cassandra Henderson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 20. It names AngioDynamics Inc. and its subsidiary, Navilyst Medical Inc., as defendants.

Henderson claims the AngioDynamics SmartPort port catheter was defectively designed and manufactured, particularly due to the inclusion of barium sulfate in its material, which may degrade over time and cause microfractures, infection risks and overall device failure.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Often referred to as totally implantable vascular access devices, or TIVADs, port catheters include a small reservoir placed beneath the skin that connects to a flexible tube, allowing medications to be delivered directly into a vein. These devices are intended to provide reliable, long-term access to the bloodstream, reducing the need for repeated needle insertions.

AngioDynamics produces several implantable port catheter systems, including the SmartPort, Vortex and Xcela, which are commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy.

However, both patients and healthcare providers have raised concerns in recent years about complications associated with these and related devices. Reported issues have included catheter fracture and migrations, as well as infections, prompting hundreds of lawsuits against AngioDynamics. Nearly identical claims have also been raised in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits.

AngioDynamics SmartPort Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Henderson received a SmartPort CT device in September 2017 at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, where it was implanted to facilitate chemotherapy treatments.

However, Henderson allegedly returned to the hospital just months later with complaints that the port was malfunctioning and malpositioned. Doctors determined that the catheter had become embedded along her right internal jugular vein, resulting in an embolism linked to the vascular access device.

The lawsuit claims the SmartPort catheter was defectively designed and manufactured, pointing to issues with the device’s polyurethane composition. According to the complaint, the inclusion of barium sulfate may weaken the catheter material over time, creating microfractures and increasing the risk of infection, biofilm buildup and device failure.

Henderson alleges that AngioDynamics failed to adequately test the SmartPort system before bringing it to market and did not properly monitor post-market safety data. The lawsuit further claims the manufacturers withheld critical safety information from physicians and patients, including known risks of catheter failure, infection and embolism.

The complaint also accuses the defendants of using the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) program to obscure the frequency and severity of adverse events associated with the devices, preventing doctors and patients from fully understanding the risks.

In addition, the lawsuit indicates that neither Henderson nor her healthcare providers were adequately warned about the risk that the catheter could become embedded in a vein or lead to serious vascular complications.

“Moreover, Defendants concealed—and continue to conceal—their knowledge of the SmartPort CT’s dangerous propensity to precipitate infection.”

— Cassandra Henderson v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al

The case raises allegations of negligence, strict products liability, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act. It seeks exemplary and general damages.

AngioDynamics Catheter Lawsuits

Henderson’s case is one of more than 300 similar AngioDynamics claims that have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of California, where coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings are underway before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta.

As part of the litigation, Judge Ohta has directed both sides to identify nine AngioDynamics port catheter cases each by June 5, to create a pool of 18 lawsuits that will be prepared for early “bellwether” trials. These initial trials are intended to gauge how juries may evaluate common evidence and testimony presented across the broader litigation.

Although the outcomes will not directly determine the result of other cases, they are expected to provide important insight into potential jury verdicts and damage awards, which may shape future settlement discussions.

If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, cases that remain unresolved will likely be sent back to their original courts for individual trial proceedings.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The findings of a new study indicate that exposure to opioid addiction treatments like Suboxone during pregnancy do not appear to negatively harm unborn children when compared to methadone.

The U.S. has been struggling with an opioid addiction epidemic for years. This has led to numerous treatments that require the patient to be slowly weaned off of the drugs to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms.

Buprenorphine and methadone are both prescribed to help opioid addicted patients fight their addiction. However, both medications are also classified as opioids, which has been linked to multiple complications for the unborn children of pregnant women.

A prior study published by Harvard researchers in 2024 found that prenatal exposure to methadone carries a higher risk than buprenorphine of newborns being born with cardiac malformations, septal defects and club foot, as well as central nervous system, urinary and limb malformations. In particular, data indicated that 60.6 out of 1,000 infants exposed to methadone during the first trimester of pregnancy were born with congenital malformations, compared to only 50.9 per 1,000 pregnancies involving buprenorphine exposure.

New findings published in The BMJ on April 15 add support to this data, leading researchers to conclude that buprenorphine, one of the active ingredients in Suboxone, is safe for use during pregnancy.

Suboxone Birth Defects Study

The new study was led by Sabine Friedrich, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School postdoctoral research fellow. Friedrich’s team looked at data on 2.5 million births from 2000 to 2018, finding 18,612 pregnancies involving exposure to buprenorphine or methadone.

According to the findings, 12,635 children were exposed to buprenorphine and 5,390 to methadone. The crude cumulative incidence of any neurodevelopmental disorders in the infants exposed to buprenorphine was 34%, compared to 33% with methadone exposure. However, when the researchers conducted an adjusted analysis, they found that buprenorphine like that used in Suboxone only carried 81% of the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders when compared to methadone exposure.

“The findings of this study suggest no increased risk of long term adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes among children with prenatal exposure to buprenorphine versus methadone, further supporting buprenorphine as a safe treatment option for opioid use disorder during pregnancy.”

– Sabine Friedrich, Prenatal exposure to buprenorphine or methadone and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes: population based cohort study

These results were also seen in relation to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits

Buprenorphine is most commonly known for its use in Suboxone film strips, which include naloxone as well. The medication was originally introduced in tablet form, but the manufacturer, Indivior, later reformulated it into a dissolvable film strip.

Despite the widespread use of the drug for its opioid addiction treatment purposes, users have filed thousands of Suboxone lawsuits claiming that the film strips caused tooth enamel erosion, a known characteristic of buprenorphine, which plaintiffs say led to tooth decay and dental damage.

Since February 2024, all federal Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits have been consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Judge Calabrese is charged with guiding the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings and has had the parties preparing to select a group of representative cases for early trial dates. These “bellwether” trials will give the parties a chance to see how juries weigh evidence, testimony and arguments that would arise throughout the litigation.

The judge has scheduled the first trial to begin sometime in March 2028.

Although not binding on other cases, the outcomes of these bellwether trials will be closely watched, as verdicts and payouts may have a significant impact on any Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit settlement agreement.

However, if no Suboxone settlement or other resolution is reached by the end of the bellwether trials and the pretrial proceedings, Judge Calabrese will likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Suboxone lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A newly filed class action lawsuit claims that certain Hyundai, Genesis and Kia vehicles contain defective Integrated Charging Control Units (ICCUs) that may cause sudden loss of power, dangerous driving conditions and substantial economic losses for owners.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Hayes Young and Roy A. Williams in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 21. It names Hyundai Kefico Inc. as the defendant.

The plaintiffs indicate that Hyundai Kefico knew about the affected vehicles’ ICCU defect, failed to fix it despite recalls and repairs, and misled consumers, resulting in the potential class members suffering economic losses. 

A vehicle ICCU is responsible for charging the auxiliary battery and powering low-voltage accessories. However, Young and Williams allege the device may fail in the affected vehicles due to fuse-related issues, potentially leading to sudden battery depletion and loss of motion while driving.

Hyundai ICCU Recall

The allegations come after Hyundai, Genesis and Kia electric vehicle owners previously faced recalls over similar ICCU problems, which federal regulators warned could interfere with the vehicles’ ability to keep the 12-volt battery charged.

In November 2024, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a recall involving certain Hyundai, Genesis and Kia electric vehicles, indicating that an ICCU defect could cause the 12-volt battery to stop charging. If that occurs, drivers may experience warning lights, reduced power or a sudden loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash.

Young and Williams indicate that the class action lawsuit involves the same model years, makes and vehicles identified in the recall. However, they allege the recall and related repairs failed to fully address the underlying ICCU defect, leaving owners with cars that may still be unsafe and worth less than they otherwise would be.

The affected models include approximately 180,000 Hyundai, Genesis and Kia electric vehicles, including:

• 2022-2024 KIA EV 6 
• 2022-2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5 
• 2023-2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 
• 2023-2025 Genesis GV 60 
• 2023-2025 Genesis GV 70 “Electrified” 
• 2023-2024 Genesis GV 80 “Electrified”

Hyundai ICCU Lawsuit

The lawsuit indicates Young purchased a 2023 Hyundai IONIQ 5 with a defective ICCU that affected the vehicle’s performance. It goes on to say that Williams’ 2025 Kia EV6 eventually entered “limp” mode on the highway, which was accompanied by a loud explosive sound. At the time of the incident, the vehicle only had approximately 3,000 miles on its odometer. The filing indicates this occurrence was also the result of a defective ICCU.

According to the complaint, Hyundai first investigated ICCU warranty returns and traced the issue back to the ICCU device itself in October 2022. Since then, there have been at least two recalls, in March 2024 and November 2024. These followed the identification of ongoing failures with the vehicle ICCUs. 

Plaintiffs allege Hyundai failed to resolve the issue through software updates and instead replaced or attempted to repair the ICCUs without fixing the underlying defect.

“As a proximate cause of Defendant’s design defect, misrepresentations, omissions and warranty breaches detailed in this complaint, Plaintiffs and sub-class members purchased Defective Cars and were damaged.”

— Hayes Young et al v. Hyundai Kefico Inc.

The lawsuit further alleges that Hyundai Kefico engaged in deceptive, unfair and misleading marketing of defective ICCUs, failing to disclose issues and instead marketing the devices as an upgrade from existing onboard charging. It also claims consumers would have paid less or not purchased the vehicles had they known of the alleged defects.

The plaintiffs raise allegations of breach of express and implied warranties, as well as violations of various New Jersey and Kentucky state statutes, claiming the company financially benefited from its deceptive conduct and misrepresentations.

They seek certification of the filing for class action status, damages and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Florida woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific, alleging that spinal cord stimulator (SCS) devices implanted in her body were fundamentally altered after initial FDA approval, resulting in device failures that caused permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Barbara Jarrett in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on April 22. It names Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Jarrett claims the manufacturers used hundreds of pre-market approval (PMA) supplements to change key aspects of their SCS devices, including battery systems, firmware and stimulation features, without undergoing new clinical testing or safety review.

As a result, she indicates that she experienced worsening pain, electrical shocks and multiple device malfunctions, ultimately requiring surgical removal of the implants. She goes on to say that fragments of the devices’ leads remain embedded in her body, preventing her from undergoing necessary MRI scans and contributing to long-term health complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are Class III medical devices designed to deliver electrical impulses to the spine to mask chronic pain signals. Because of their high-risk classification, they are subject to the FDA’s most stringent approval process, requiring manufacturers to demonstrate safety and effectiveness before marketing the products.

However, Jarrett alleges that after receiving initial PMA approval, both Abbott and Boston Scientific made sweeping changes to their SCS systems through more than 200 supplemental filings. These filings altered core features like waveform delivery, wireless programming and battery performance, which never required further FDA review.

Her case joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in recent months. Many of the claims allege that Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific and other manufacturers introduced design modifications to their SCS devices without adequate testing or proper regulatory review, increasing the likelihood of failures. Complaints state that these changes have been associated with problems similar to those Jarrett suffered, such as lead migration or breakage, unexpected shocks, diminished pain relief and other neurological complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Jarrett first received a Boston Scientific SCS implant in 2013, followed by additional surgeries due to complications such as lead migration. She later had an Abbott device implanted in 2021, yet alleges it also failed, causing burning sensations, ineffective pain relief and repeated malfunctions before it was ultimately removed.

During removal, doctors reportedly discovered fractured leads embedded in her spine and pelvis, leaving her unable to undergo MRI imaging needed to monitor her multiple sclerosis.

Jarrett claims the devices’ cumulative modifications significantly changed how they functioned and introduced new risks, yet the modified systems were never subjected to new clinical trials or publicly disclosed safety evaluations. As a result, she contends patients and physicians were misled into believing the implants were equivalent to the originally approved versions.

The complaint also points to a series of recalls, including multiple Class I recalls issued in 2023 for Abbott’s Proclaim SCS systems, which were linked to reports of painful shocks, sudden shutdowns and loss of therapy.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defective and misrepresented nature of the devices, Plaintiff suffered physical injury, worsening pain, emotional distress, and economic damages including medical expenses and loss of quality of life.”

— Barbara Jarrett v. Abbott Laboratories et al

Jarrett raises allegations of strict products liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, federal regulatory violations, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection laws and unauthorized practice of medicine. 

She is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, alleging that the companies’ actions caused permanent physical injuries, emotional distress and significant medical expenses.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Jarrett’s lawsuit joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator claims being filed nationwide against several major medical device manufacturers.

In recent weeks, a group of plaintiffs pursuing cases against Abbott and Boston Scientific asked to have all federal SCS lawsuits involving those manufacturers consolidated before one judge in the Northern District of Illinois. They are seeking to establish a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to coordinate discovery and other pretrial proceedings in the litigation.

Both Abbott and Boston Scientific have pushed back against the proposal, maintaining that the cases involve different devices and do not center on a single, shared defect that would justify consolidation. They also argue that many lawsuits are already well into the litigation process and that centralization would offer little efficiency. Boston Scientific has further indicated that certain claims may be barred under federal preemption.

On April 16, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) announced it would hear arguments in late May over whether the Abbott and Boston Scientific SCS lawsuits should be consolidated.

Across the litigation, plaintiffs commonly allege that design and manufacturing flaws have left certain SCS systems prone to a range of complications, including devices failing to alleviate symptoms, while contributing to worsening pain, repeat surgeries and lasting health problems.

As more cases are filed, spinal cord stimulator injury lawyers continue to evaluate potential claims for individuals who experienced complications following implantation of these devices.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

According to a new study, recent concerns over the increasing recreational use of nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, are not limited to the U.S.

In the April issue of the Irish Medical Journal (IML), researchers warn that nitrous oxide related hospitalizations in Ireland have increased fourfold in recent years.

Nitrous Oxide Risks

Traditionally used in medical and dental procedures, as well as food preparation, nitrous oxide is increasingly being abused as a recreational drug, inhaled for a short-lived euphoric high. However, that brief high can carry serious health risks, including addiction, vitamin B12 deficiency, paralysis, hallucinations, neurological and cognitive problems, and death.

The growing abuse has been fueled in part by the sale of large nitrous oxide canisters that appear too large for ordinary medical or culinary use. These products are often sold online and in vape shops, packaged in bright colors and sweet or fruity flavors, and paired with devices designed to make inhalation easier. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that misuse of nitrous oxide can cause severe spinal cord and neurological damage.

As reports of injuries continue to mount, manufacturers and distributors now face a growing number of nitrous oxide lawsuits. Plaintiffs allege the companies illegally marketed and sold the products for recreational use, while failing to warn consumers about the risk of serious physical harm and potential legal consequences.

Nitrous Oxide Abuse Study

For the new study, researchers from Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Ireland conducted a retrospective observational study using data on Dublin patients from 2020 to 2024. Led by Shahzad Bakhshi, the team looked for patient discharges coded for nitrous oxide (NO) misuse or toxicity.

During that time period, Dublin, which has a population of about 1.5 million, saw 63 nitrous oxide-related discharges from hospitals. This represented a four-fold increase from the first quarter of 2020 to the last quarter of 2023. The mean age of the victims was just under 20 years old, with males accounting for nearly 70% of those hospitalized.

“In conclusion, admissions to Irish hospitals with neurological consequences of inhaled NO misuse have greatly increased over the last four years, and this issue is predominantly affecting very young adults. A multi-targeted harm-reduction strategy is needed to reduce preventable harm and to lessen the burden on acute care services.”

-Shahzad Bakhshi, Recreational Nitrous Oxide Use: A Growing Trend with Unintended Consequences

The researchers found that the mean hospital stay was about eight days, and 52 of the patients, or about 82%, suffered from vitamin B12 deficiency. Patients frequently require physiotherapy, occupational therapy and social work, they noted.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

In the U.S., the increase in recreational NO abuse has led to a number of nitrous oxide lawsuits being filed by those who have suffered severe, and often permanent injuries from recreational use against manufacturers, including Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad, Cosmic Gas and Miami Magic. Many also include Amazon as a defendant due to its role as a third-party seller.

These individuals say the manufacturers and Amazon failed to provide proper safety warnings and flaunted the law in a conscious decision to place profits over consumer safety.

Nitrous oxide attorneys are currently offering free consultations to individuals and families who may be eligible for compensation through a nitrous oxide lawsuit.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive nitrous oxide lawsuit updates delivered directly to your inbox.

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective Technogym upper body ergometer exercise machine caused her to suffer severe and permanent injuries when the seat unexpectedly gave way during use.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Juana Gonzalez in the New York Supreme Court for Bronx County on August 20, 2025, naming Technogym USA Corp. as the defendant. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 23.

The Technogym upper body ergometer is a kind of fitness machine designed to provide cardiovascular exercise through arm-powered pedaling motions. They are often used in gyms, rehabilitation settings and physical therapy programs.

Although most exercise equipment is safe when used properly, a recent wave of lawsuits alleges that some products were defectively designed or improperly maintained by gym owners, resulting in serious injuries.

Technogym Upper Body Ergometer Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Gonzalez was using the Technogym upper body ergometer in a seated position on August 22, 2022, when the machine’s seat suddenly disengaged from its base and tilted backward, causing her to be thrown violently to the ground. Gonzalez claims the incident occurred without any misuse or negligence on her part.

As a result of the incident, Gonzalez indicates she suffered serious physical injuries, along with ongoing pain, mental anguish and limitations that may be permanent. The lawsuit states she has required medical treatment and may need additional care in the future.

Gonzalez claims the company failed to properly design the machine to prevent the seat from detaching, and did not provide adequate warnings or instructions about potential hazards associated with the equipment. The complaint further alleges Technogym knew or should have known about the risks but continued to market the product as safe.

“The Defendant was negligent in its design, manufacturing, warnings and instructions given concerning the Technogym upper body ergometer exercise equipment, including but not limited to its failure to properly design Technogym upper body ergometer exercise equipment so as to prevent Plaintiffs injuries and also in its failure to properly instruct on its use and adequately warn of the danger associated with its use.”

— Juana Gonzalez vs. Technogym USA Corp.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation and violations of federal consumer product safety reporting requirements. It also claims the company failed to notify regulators about the alleged defect in a timely manner.

Gonzalez is seeking damages for her injuries, which the lawsuit indicates exceed the jurisdictional limits of lower courts, as well as compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal investigators say the autoimmune disease drug Tavneos, recently linked to life-threatening liver injury risks, should never have been approved because key clinical trial data was allegedly manipulated to overstate its effectiveness.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent the current owner of the drug, Amgen, a letter on April 27 announcing it was proposing to withdraw Tavneos from the market, due to both its ineffectiveness and “untrue statements of material fact in the application.”

First developed by ChemCentryx and approved by the FDA in October 2021, Tavneos (avacopan) is prescribed to adults with severe active anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, a rare autoimmune disease that causes inflammation in small blood vessels and can lead to organ damage, particularly affecting the kidneys and lungs.

Tavneos was supposed to work by blocking the complement 5a receptor, responsible for much of the inflammation linked to the disease. It was marketed as a targeted alternative to long-term steroid use. Since Tavneos was approved in 2021, it has been used by more than 7,000 patients, but an estimated 200 million to 400 million people worldwide are believed to suffer the affliction.

Tavneos Risks

In February, the FDA issued a drug safety communication, warning that side effects of Tavneos appeared to be linked to drug-induced liver damage. This followed reports of elevated liver enzymes and signs of acute liver damage in certain users of the medication. At least 74 cases involved serious liver complications, with 54 hospitalizations and eight deaths.

The agency reportedly asked Amgen to remove the drug from the market, but the manufacturer refused.

However, this recent letter indicates that the FDA is ready to force a Tavneos recall and remove the drug from the market permanently, revoking its approval. The letter, sent by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), was addressed to Dr. Nicole Cheung, Amgen’s manager of Global Regulatory Affairs.

“CDER proposes to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS (avacopan), NDA 214487, because of new information, which was withheld from FDA and did not become known to FDA until more than three years after approval, indicating that there is a lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness for the drug, and the application contains untrue statements of material facts.”

– U.S. Food and Drug Administration Proposal to Withdraw Marketing Approval

The letter indicates that the FDA received new information that study personnel manipulated the data in ChemCentryx’s original New Drug Application. According to the agency, this manipulation was done because the real results showed Tavneos’s benefits were not statistically significant, meaning it did not work.

That clinical trial was the only data the FDA used to approve the drug for use on the market. However, the agency’s letter states that if it had been given accurate data, Tavneos would have been rejected.

Tavneos and VBDS

The FDA also notes that liver toxicity was one of the agency’s original concerns about the drug. Now, post-marketing data linking the drugs to liver injuries and patient deaths suggest Tavneos may be associated with vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS). This is a severe form of liver injury where the intrahepatic bile ducts are destroyed and disappear over time. It can lead to blocked bile flow (chronic cholestasis), severe liver functioning problems, and cause death within one to three years if not treated. VBDS patients often require a liver transplant.

The letter gives ChemoCentryx, an Amgen subsidiary, 30 days to notify the FDA that it seeks a hearing, and would have to provide the agency with data, information and analyses showing there is a “genuine and substantial issue of fact” with the FDA’s findings and call to have Tavneos withdrawn.

Patients currently taking Tavneos are urged to consult their healthcare providers before making any changes to treatment and seek immediate medical attention if symptoms of liver injury occur. Adverse events should be reported to the FDA through the MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program, either online, by regular mail or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal officials are warning that certain thoracic stent grafts from Bolton Medical may not be able to unclasp from their delivery systems when inserted into blood vessels.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Bolton Medical thoracic stent graft warning on April 28, updating use instructions and advising customers to consider using alternative stent-graft options until a solution is in place.

Thoracic Stent Graft Risks

A thoracic stent graft is a minimally invasive device used to repair weakened areas of the aorta, such as those caused by aneurysms, dissections or tears. Implanted within the thoracic aorta, a major blood vessel that runs from the heart’s left ventricle through the chest, the device helps restore stability to the artery.

Once in place, the stent expands to reinforce the vessel walls and maintain proper blood flow, often avoiding the need for open surgery. The graft component, typically made of synthetic fabric, lines the interior of the artery and creates a new pathway for blood to flow safely.

However, the FDA warns that in certain Bolton Medical stents, the graft may not be able to unclasp from the delivery system, which is usually a catheter that has been inserted through the femoral artery. A lack of resistance when sliding the stent graft’s holder back along with a failure to release may indicate the malfunction. Once this occurs, the implant cannot be recaptured. As a result, the failure cannot be detected until it occurs during a procedure.

This may delay treatment, cause device displacement, or prevent use of the stent graft altogether. As a result, medical professionals may have to resort to open surgery to release the clasp, which could result in severe injury or death.

Bolton Medical Thoracic Stent Graft Recall

Bolton Medical has reported at least three deaths associated with the stent graft issue, including one aortic perforation and two cases requiring conversion to open surgery that resulted in patient deaths due to stroke.

Affected customers were sent a letter on April 23, recommending that medical personnel consider alternative stent-graft options prior to using the impacted Bolton Medical Relay Pro Thoracic Stent Graft Systems, N4 non-bare stent configuration (32 mm and above).

If there is difficulty releasing the stent and no resistance is felt when sliding the device holder back, users should first attempt solutions listed in the Instructions for Use (IFU). If unsuccessful, no additional methods are available, and clinical judgment should guide the provider’s next steps, including possible conversion to open surgery.

All users of the Relay Pro should be informed of additional guidance for managing cases in which the stent graft cannot be released from the delivery system. Copies of the Urgent Medical Device Recall notice along with the IFU should be posted where devices are stored.

If the stent grafts have been transferred to another facility, a copy of the notification should be provided, as well as instructions to follow the outlined actions.

For more information, customers may contact Terumo Aortic, Bolton Medical’s parent company, at Market_Actions-TMC@terumomedical.com.

Health care providers and consumers can also report adverse events or product quality issues related to these devices through MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Minnesota woman has filed a lawsuit saying she suffered intense headaches, vision problems and required surgery to remove an intracranial meningioma allegedly caused by the use of Depo-Provera.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lennie M. Theis and her husband, Clarence, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 21. It names Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co LLC, and Pharmacia LLC as defendants.

Theis claims that Depo-Provera birth control injections caused her to develop an intracranial meningioma after using the shots in the early 1990s. This diagnosis led to severe headaches, vision loss and neurological problems that ultimately required brain surgery, leaving her with permanent injuries and a need for lifelong monitoring

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Risks

Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA) is a long-acting birth control injection given to women four times a year. Originally introduced in the U.S. in 1992, these “Depo shots” have been given to tens of millions of women worldwide.

In 2024, studies began to emerge linking Depo-Provera side effects to meningioma risks. The research warned women that receiving the Depo shot made them five times as likely to develop brain tumors compared to women who either did not take birth control or used something else. These kinds of tumors can cause serious, potentially life-threatening complications, often requiring brain surgery and life-long medical monitoring.

In light of these findings, Pfizer and generic manufacturers of the injections face nearly 3,500 Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits very similar to the one filed by Theis. Each alleges that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the risks of intracranial meningioma development, yet failed to warn women or the medical community.

Depo Shot Meningioma Allegations

According to the complaint, Theis received Depo-Provera injections for about one year, beginning in 1993.

She later developed severe headaches, neurological symptoms and vision loss, which ultimately led to an MRI confirming the presence of an intracranial meningioma.

The lawsuit states that Theis suffered significant harm from both the tumor and the surgery required to remove it, and will likely require ongoing medical monitoring for the rest of her life.

It further alleges that Pfizer knew or should have known, even before bringing Depo-Provera to market, that the drug’s hormonal components could promote the growth of brain tumors.

“Since at least 1983, the medical and scientific communities have been aware of the high number of progesterone receptors on meningioma cells, especially relative to estrogen receptors.”

– Lennie Theis et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al

Additional studies published in 1989, 2015 and in subsequent years have reported similar findings, raising concerns about a potential link between DMPA and meningioma development. However, Theis alleges Pfizer has not updated the drug’s warning label to reflect these risks. 

Her lawsuit alleges the manufacturer has chosen profits over women’s health. It presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium. Theis seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Depo-Provera Intracranial Meningioma Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar federal claims in the Northern District of Florida as part of a Depo-Provera intracranial meningioma lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL). The litigation has been centralized before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Early in the litigation, Judge Rodgers selected five “pilot” cases to serve as early test trials, which will give the parties the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be a factor throughout the litigation.

Before those cases, however, the parties will focus on general causation issues, which determine whether plaintiffs can present reliable scientific evidence linking Depo-Provera to brain tumor development. These general causation hearings will be held from June 24 through June 26, 2026.

If plaintiffs show the judge their science and evidence is reliable, the parties will continue to prepare the pilot cases for early bellwether test trials, which, while not binding on other cases, could have a significant impact on potential Depo-Provera settlement negotiations.

The first bellwether trials are currently scheduled to begin in December 2026.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Depo-Provera lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Despite the preliminary approval of a $7.25 billion Roundup lawsuit settlement agreement last month, some law firms are reportedly fighting against the proposed deal, saying it defines who should be included too broadly, and that it is unnecessarily burdensome for litigants to opt out.

Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have faced more than 120,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits filed in both federal and state courts over the last several years. This followed a report in March 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), warning that the active ingredient in the weed killer, glyphosate, was a likely human carcinogen. 

Each claim involves similar allegations that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Roundup exposure increased the risk of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and that Monsanto hid that information from consumers to keep profits high at the expense of public health.

Since the litigation began, several trials over allegations that Roundup can cause cancer have been held nationwide in both state and federal courts. Many of these trials have resulted in multimillion, and sometimes multibillion dollar verdicts for plaintiffs. Some of the larger rewards have been reduced by judges, despite being upheld.

The first Roundup cancer trial was presented in California state court in August 2018, ending in a $289 million verdict for a school groundskeeper. This payout was later reduced to $78 million. The first Roundup case to go before a federal jury was held in 2019, ending in an $80 million verdict. Later that year, another California state trial led to a $2 billion verdict for a couple who both developed cancer after working with Roundup for years. That award was later reduced to $87 million.

Roundup Settlement

Over the last several years, plaintiffs and Bayer have tried to work out a settlement agreement. After several failed attempts, a Missouri state judge granted preliminary approval in early March to a $7.25 billion deal, detailing that the terms seemed fair.

However, two law firms filed a motion (PDF) in the Northern District of California on April 8, seeking injunctive relief for plaintiffs whose claims were filed or transferred to a federal Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria. Created in 2016, the federal MDL was designed to coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings for the federal cases. Judge Chhabria also ushered the parties to the first federal bellwether trial.

According to the motion, the Missouri state judge’s approval should not impact the MDL plaintiffs, saying the state judge overstepped his authority in approving the deal class-wide. They also argue that the process for opting out was made intentionally complicated to dissuade plaintiffs who were unhappy about the deal from doing so easily.

Monsanto and firms representing the majority of claims filed a joint brief (PDF) in response to the motion on April 21, calling for it to be rejected and saying the Northern District of California has no jurisdiction to even accept the motion, let alone overturn the Roundup settlement agreement.

“The proposed Settlement is not before this Court. Nonetheless, Movants ask this Court to assume plenary authority over the Settlement, to issue orders changing its terms, and to dictate to the Missouri Court how to implement and review it. The requested injunctive and declaratory relief—e.g., to exclude certain members from the class, and to change the opt out process—would effect a rewrite of the Settlement and would interfere with the authority of the Missouri Court.”

– Joint Brief in Opposition to Motion for Injunctive or Declaratory Relief

The plaintiffs supporting the settlement claim they represent more than 60% of all Roundup lawsuit plaintiffs and allege that the firms calling for the injunctive relief represent less than 1% of plaintiffs. In their opposition brief, they indicate that there are only 250 Roundup cancer lawsuits remaining in the federal MDL, with the vast majority of claims now under the purview of the Missouri state court.

Judge Chhabria has scheduled a motion hearing for Thursday, April 30, in San Francisco.

Bayer Seeks Bailout by Supreme Court

Despite the proposed settlement, Bayer has continued its efforts to avoid liability from future lawsuits not covered by the agreement, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that failure to warn claims cannot be brought over pesticides that have received federal approval.

The Supreme Court announced it has agreed to hear the case in January, and is likely to return an opinion by the end of its term in June. Numerous parties, including the federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general have filed briefs in support of Bayer’s call for immunity, following an intense, multi-state lobbying campaign.

Previously, Bayer indicated it would remove glyphosate from Roundup products sold in the U.S. However, in February the White House announced plans to encourage ramped up production, claiming the need for the herbicide was a matter of national security.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A wrongful death lawsuit claims a 62-year-old woman died in a house fire caused by a defective Frigidaire stovetop range that allegedly turned on unintentionally.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Charles Doherty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 22. It was filed on behalf of his sister, Jacqueline Doherty, who died from thermal injuries and smoke inhalation after an allegedly defective Electrolux-manufactured range ignited a fire in her kitchen.

The filing names Electrolux AB, Electrolux North America Inc., and Electrolux Consumer Products Inc. as defendants.

Charles Doherty is serving as the personal representative of his sister’s estate, seeking damages for wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and other losses. According to the complaint, the fire originated at the stove after a burner was turned on unintentionally, even though no one was using the appliance at the time.

Frigidaire Range Fire Allegations

On September 7, 2023, Jacqueline Doherty and her longtime roommate reportedly noticed smoke coming from their kitchen and discovered a fire near the stove. According to the complaint, Jacqueline was later found unresponsive and engulfed in flames on the porch of the home.

The lawsuit alleges Electrolux designed and sold Frigidaire ranges with front-mounted burner knobs that can turn on with minimal force, allowing the appliance to ignite without the user’s knowledge.

The complaint indicates that the control knobs can be activated through a single, slight motion, rather than requiring a deliberate push-and-turn action, making them susceptible to accidental contact from users, pets or nearby objects.

The design allegedly lacks safeguards to prevent unintended activation, increasing the risk of fires or the release of dangerous gases when burners are turned on without awareness.

The filing alleges Electrolux had prior knowledge of the defect based on consumer complaints submitted to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and product reviews on its own website dating back to at least 2015.

Despite these reports, the lawsuit claims the company failed to provide adequate warnings or implement effective fixes, and continued selling the ranges nationwide.

“Jacqueline Doherty was killed by a fire caused by a known defect in a Frigidaire stovetop range manufactured, marketed, and sold by Electrolux.”

— Charles Doherty v. Electrolux AB et al

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under the Massachusetts Wrongful Death Act, alleging the manufacturers acted negligently and with reckless disregard for consumer safety by failing to correct a known defect that ultimately led to Jacqueline Doherty’s death.

Range Fire Lawsuits

This is not the first time this kind of incident has resulted in a dangerous blaze. A separate Samsung range fire lawsuit was filed earlier this month, alleging the appliance manufacturer took no action to fix its electric range knobs despite hundreds of reports of them accidentally turning on, resulting in dozens of fires and injuries.

In addition, more than 150,000 Frigidaire gas ranges were recalled earlier this year, after at least 30 reported burn injuries were attributed to the appliances.

A separate Frigidaire and Kenmore electric range recall was issued by Electrolux in 2024, after the manufacturer received at least 212 reports of the ranges turning on without being switched on, failing to turn off and heating to different temperatures than selected.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A federal judge has ruled that General Motors (GM), OnStar and some data firms must face a federal wiretapping class action lawsuit, alleging the companies illegally used and stored personal data collected by the GPS tracking system without the vehicle owners’ consent.

OnStar is a subsidiary of GM that provides in-vehicle services such as roadside assistance, navigation, automatic accident response, and can track stolen vehicles. The system has been integrated into GM vehicles since 2016.

Allegations arose in early 2024 that GM and OnStar were collecting data many considered to be private, such as vehicle location data, acceleration and hard braking events. This data was then allegedly sold to insurance companies, who then used the information to justify raising drivers’ premiums.

As GM vehicle owners learned this news, they began to file GM OnStar class action lawsuits, each raising similar allegations that their personal driving data was collected without their knowledge or consent, to be used against them by insurance companies.

GM OnStar Lawsuits

In June 2024, all federal GM OnStar lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Georgia before U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The cases are now undergoing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, while plaintiffs filed a master consolidated class action complaint in December 2024.

Last summer, GM, OnStar, and the data firms LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. and Verisk Analytics Inc. filed motions calling for the dismissal of the class action lawsuit. The defendants claimed plaintiffs had filed a “shotgun pleading,” which is an attempt to bring an array of complaints against a defendant in the hopes that something sticks.

Shotgun pleadings are not allowed under federal law and can be dismissed on that basis alone. However, after hearings in early September on the motion, Judge Thrash issued an opinion and order (PDF) on April 22, trimming some of the plaintiffs’ charges, yet rejecting the defendants’ efforts to dismiss the entire litigation.

The judge pared down the 65-count lawsuit significantly but left the core claims of violation of Federal wiretapping laws intact, allowing the litigation to proceed.

“The Amended Complaint does not have conclusory, vague, or immaterial facts, instead properly detailing the factual background for the Plaintiffs’ claims. Each cause of action or claim for relief is separated into separate counts and specifically lists which defendant is liable for each count.”

– U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

The decision means that fact discovery for the cases will likely continue throughout most of the year, which will be followed by a trial or GM OnStar lawsuit settlement agreement.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A New Jersey woman has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man under her care, alleging a defective Segway scooter suddenly locked and threw him violently from the device, causing a life-threatening head injury.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cecilia G. Santos, as legal guardian for Ian T. Isaac, in the Superior Court of New Jersey last year, naming Segway Inc. as the defendant. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 20. 

Santos’s complaint alleges the scooter was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that Segway failed to properly inspect, maintain or repair the device during refurbishment, in addition to failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions.

Segway Electric Scooter Risks

A Segway is a two wheeled motorized electric scooter, where the rider uses a platform to balance their body on the device between two large wheels. The scooter is powered by a lithium-ion battery and uses gyroscope technology to turn and move. They are commonly used during tours, security patrols and for commuting.

In recent years, motorized devices like scooters and Segways have been linked to a growing number of serious injuries and deaths. Some of these cases have even resulted in severe and permanent disabilities, which have led to dozens of lawsuits being brought against various manufacturers.

Segway Injury Allegations

Santos’s lawsuit indicates that Isaac purchased a refurbished Ninebot KickScooter F35 directly from Segway in January 2024. That August, Isaac was riding the scooter in Jersey City, New Jersey, when the wheel abruptly locked without warning. He was violently thrown from the device onto the street and sustained a head trauma that led to permanent physical and emotional injuries.

The complaint alleges the scooter crash was caused by a design defect that made the device unreasonably dangerous to operate, and claims Segway should have identified the issue during refurbishment.

Santos further contends the company had a duty to properly inspect, maintain and repair the scooter before reselling it, but failed to take those necessary steps.

The lawsuit also indicates Segway failed to offer sufficient warnings or instructions for use. As a result, Isaac requires extensive life-long medical care.

“The Product was defective at the time it left the possession and control of the Defendants. The defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous for its intended and reasonably foreseeable use. While being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, the Product malfunctioned directly causing plaintiff to suffer serious personal injuries.”

– Cecilia G. Santos et al v. Segway Inc.

Santos presents claims of product liability, negligence and loss of consortium. The lawsuit seeks compensation for physical and emotional injuries, punitive damages, court costs, interest costs, and reimbursement for attorney’s fees.

Electric Scooter Injury Lawsuits

A similar product liability lawsuit was filed against Segway earlier this year. That case alleged a Ninebot scooter suddenly shut down without warning, violently throwing the rider to the pavement. As a result, the rider suffered multiple fractures to his arm and underwent surgery to implant titanium plates and screws.

Another lawsuit was brought against Segway in 2025 due to defective handlebars on the Ninebot scooters. The complaint stems from a recall issued by Segway in early 2025, affecting more than 220,000 scooters. The recall was announced following 68 reports of handlebars collapsing, causing more than 20 injuries, including broken bones and lacerations.

That complaint alleged the fix for the recall was not sufficient to protect riders and left consumers unsafe on Segway devices that are prone to sudden collapse. Instead of a repair or refund, Segway offered a do-it-yourself maintenance kit for the handlebars. The lawsuit claims this placed an undue burden on consumers.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits indicates that thousands of individuals who brought their claims as part of a consolidated filing in June 2024, known as “Schedule A” lawsuits, must now either refile their case individually or drop their claim, marking a turning point in the massive litigation.

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) is a prescription drug used by those recovering from opioid addiction, helping reduce cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms. While it was initially approved in tablet form in 2002, it was later reformulated into a dissolvable film placed under the tongue.

The litigation emerged after reports began to surface linking the sublingual film to severe tooth decay and dental damage, including tooth loss, disfigurement and the need for extensive dental work. By June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a Suboxone tooth decay warning after receiving hundreds of complaints, which was followed by a wave of personal injury claims.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in cases filed across the country, the federal judiciary consolidated the claims into a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in February 2024, assigning them to U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese in the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Many of the claims were brought as the two year anniversary of the warning label approached in June 2024, with Judge Calabrese authorizing thousands of plaintiffs to submit abbreviated complaints that lacked key details, such as injury information, medical records and product use history. These filings were grouped into what became known as “Schedule A,” to satisfy requirements of state statute of limitations lawsuits while lawyers continued to secure supporting documentation for potential claims.

Now, two years later, the Court indicates that plaintiffs have had sufficient time to complete an investigation of their claims, and must either move forward with filing fully developed individual Suboxone lawsuits or face dismissal of their claims.

Suboxone “Schedule A” Tooth Decay Lawsuits

Last week, lawyers met with Judge Calabrese for an in-person case management conference on April 22, to discuss the status of the Suboxone litigation and management of nearly ten thousand claims.

During the conference, the parties reviewed where the discovery process currently stands, deposition schedules and other key processes in preparing the first cases for eventual bellwether early test trials. These will give the parties a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the claims as they move forward.

However, in minutes and a court order (PDF) issued the next day, the judge also indicated it was time to complete and merge the cases in Schedule A into the rest of the litigation.

“The Court again raised with counsel the process and timeline for closing out Schedule A. The Court articulated that, in its view, the time for doing has passed and that Plaintiffs should either be dismissed or file individual cases.”

– U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese

When the list was first compiled, it contained more than 9,600 Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits that were not fully fleshed out. Recent updates from the court have indicated that number has declined to about 5,000 in the last two years. However, thousands of other claims have already been brought individually.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit Status

Over the past year, Judge Calabrese has directed the parties to prepare a group of representative cases for bellwether trials.

Originally designating 500 Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits as part of a Records Collection Pool in May 2025, that pool was then whittled down to 100 claims. Last month, the judge called for parties and the court to select 20 random cases from the list for core discovery by June 10. The parties will then select 15 claims to serve as bellwether trials by July 13, 2026.

That group will again be narrowed down to four final bellwether trial selections by June 11, 2027. The first trial is not expected to go before a jury until March 2028.

Although the outcomes of these trials will not be binding, the juries’ decisions and awards to plaintiffs could help the parties form a basis for a Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit settlement agreement. If that fails, Judge Calabrese will likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts to be prepared for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for more Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit updates to be sent directly to your inbox.

A group of men pursuing a gambling addiction lawsuit against DraftKings and other online sportsbooks have filed an appeal in the Third Circuit, seeking to restore their case after it was dismissed late last month by a U.S. District Court Judge.

The DraftKings lawsuit was originally filed in July 2025 by Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea and Robert Walker, who are all residents of Pennsylvania. They allege the site targeted them with advanced algorithms that intentionally analyzed consumers for potential gambling problems, and then exploited them, resulting in gambling addiction and huge financial and personal losses.

The plaintiffs sought class action status for Pennsylvania users and individuals nationwide who participated in DraftKings or Golden Nugget casino promotions, including deposit match offers and “risk-free” or “no sweat” bets. They alleged these promotions were misleading. The proposed class also included users who developed gambling addictions while using the platforms.

Similar gambling addiction lawsuits have been brought against other platforms as well, such as FanDuel and BetMGM. Each of the complaints raise similar allegations, arguing that instead of offering support or safeguards, these online gambling sites target inexperienced users with personalized promotions, loyalty perks and psychological triggers that normalize betting larger and larger amounts over time. The plaintiffs allege this has led to an explosion of gambling addiction nationwide.

Pennsylvania DraftKings Lawsuit

Last month, U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson, Jr., in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted a motion to dismiss the case filed by defendants. The gambling sites argued that they had no “duty of care to players who may be at risk of developing a gambling addiction,” noting that no such duty has been recognized by Pennsylvania courts.

The judge predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was very unlikely to impose such a duty on casinos or sportsbooks to protect gamblers from their own actions, and that his court could not expand on those existing duties outside the boundaries of established state law.

“No Pennsylvania state court, nor any federal court applying Pennsylvania law, has found that casinos (or online sportsbooks) owe a duty of care to compulsive gamblers. However, in analyzing the casino-gambler relationship, a case from this District reasoned that, under Pennsylvania law, a casino did not owe a duty of care for the emotional wellbeing of a gambler.”

– U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson, Jr.

The plaintiffs immediately filed a notice of appeal (PDF) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April 17, seeking to have the ruling overturned. However, they have yet to file an actual appeal brief, which would outline the basis for why the judgment should be changed, and how they believe Judge Leeson erred in his decision.

While the ruling will not have any direct impact on other lawsuits against DraftKings, FanDuel and other online sportsbooks, the questions of law raised in this complaint are likely to be repeated throughout cases brought in various different states nationwide in the coming months.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Most sports betting addiction lawsuits have been filed by individuals who say the platforms targeted them once they were identified as potentially vulnerable to addiction. The sites then flooded them with personalized promotions, loyalty rewards and other psychological tactics designed to normalize betting and downplaying the financial risks.

Gambling addiction lawyers anticipate hundreds of such claims, or more, will be filed in the coming weeks and months, and say investigations into potential cases are ongoing nationwide. 

To find out whether you qualify for a sports betting lawsuit, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless a settlement is obtained.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Federal safety officials are warning consumers to immediately stop using certain 32 Degrees heated socks sold at Costco, following reports that the battery-powered foot warmers may overheat.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the 32 Degrees heated socks recall on April 23, indicating the products have been associated with at least 14 overheating incidents and 13 burn injuries, including reports of second-degree burns.

As a result of these actions, product liability lawsuits are expected to be filed in the coming months over burn injuries linked to the devices.

Battery-Powered Foot Warmer Risks

Battery-powered foot warmers, such as heated socks, are marketed to keep feet warm during outdoor activities like hiking, camping and working in cold environments. These products rely on rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs, which can malfunction and generate excessive heat, posing a serious risk of burns.

Following a number of incidents in recent years, attorneys indicate the latest recall is likely to prompt additional Costco heated socks lawsuits, particularly for individuals who suffered injuries while using the products as intended.

A series of heated insole and foot warmer lawsuits have already been filed nationwide, with plaintiffs alleging defective designs and inadequate safety features caused severe burns, nerve damage and, in some cases, the need for surgical treatment. Many of these complaints also name Amazon as a distributor, seeking to hold the company liable for selling the allegedly dangerous products.

Costco Heated Socks Recall

The 32 Degrees recall involves approximately 207,806 pairs of heated socks sold nationwide at Costco stores and online in recent months for between $30 and $46. According to the CPSC, the battery packs may overheat during certain high-intensity activities. This could lead to dangerous temperature buildup during normal use.

The affected products are black heated socks available in medium, large and extra-large sizes. The logo “32° HEAT” is displayed on the battery pack, its packaging, the instruction manual and the outer retail box.

Consumers are being instructed to stop using the heated socks immediately and return them to Costco for a full refund.

Questions about the recall can be directed to the manufacturer by phone at 833-997-2452 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, by email at recall@32degrees.com, or online at www.32degrees.com/recall or www.32degrees.com, by clicking “Sock Recall” at the bottom of the page under “Support.”

Foot Warmer Lawsuits

The latest recall is expected to spur a new wave of Costco heated socks lawsuits, adding to broader safety concerns surrounding battery-powered foot warmers sold through major retailers, including Costco and Amazon.

Claims are likely to center on consumers who suffered burns or related injuries, with allegations that the products were defectively designed, lacked adequate temperature controls or automatic shutoff features, and were sold without sufficient warnings about the risk of overheating.

These lawsuits build on similar litigation filed in recent months involving other heated foot products. Earlier this year, an iHeat heated insole lawsuit followed a CPSC warning urging consumers to stop using certain products sold on Amazon after reports of fires, explosions and overheating incidents. At least eight burn injuries were reported, including cases involving second- and third-degree burns.

Around the same time, a Tajarly heated insoles lawsuit was filed after another federal safety alert linked the products to ignition incidents and burn injuries, with some requiring extended hospitalization. 

As a result of these occurrences and others, attorneys have been actively reviewing foot warmer lawsuits in recent months. The Costco heated socks recall is expected to add to the growing litigation, as more consumers come forward alleging the products malfunctioned during normal use and caused serious injuries.

Heated insole injury lawyers are evaluating cases nationwide, focusing on incidents where battery-powered foot warming devices allegedly malfunctioned during normal use and caused severe harm, including:

• Burns to the feet or toes
• Overheating or fires
• Emergency medical treatment or hospitalization
• Surgical procedures such as skin grafts and lasting pain
• Scarring or reduced mobility

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

While newer diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro and Wegovy have been linked to numerous health benefits, multiple studies have also connected them to unexpected side effects, including research that suggests there may be a link between use of the popular medications and the development of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia or other conditions involving loss of cognition.

In new findings recently released, researchers from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the New York Medical College in Valhalla report that Type 2 diabetic adults taking this class of medications, known as GLP-1s, face an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment after a decade of use. Results were compared with those who do not take the drugs. 

However, the researchers also warn this could be the result of a longer lifespan among GLP-1 patients, particularly women. The findings were presented last week at the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting in Chicago.

GLP-1 medications are a newer class of diabetes and weight loss drugs. While some, like Victoza, have been on the market for years, the injectable Type 2 diabetes drug Ozempic was the breakthrough for this class, particularly after it was linked to significant weight loss benefits. Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer, then created a weight-loss specific formulation of the same active ingredient in Ozempic (semaglutide) and named it Wegovy.

Competitor Eli Lilly has also fielded the GLP-1 drugs Mounjaro for Type 2 diabetics and Zepbound for weight loss. Both Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly are rolling out tablet and pill versions of the usually injectable medications, which may increase their popularity and accessibility. The drug class also includes Saxenda, Trulicity and Rybelsus.

GLP-1 Side Effects

Although the medications have been rapidly adopted by medical providers and consumers nationwide, GLP-1 drugs have been linked to a growing number of seemingly unanticipated and serious health risks.

In recent years, the class has been shown to have increased risks of gastrointestinal problems, including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) and bowel obstruction. This has resulted in thousands of Ozempic lawsuits, Wegovy lawsuits, Mounjaro lawsuits and other GLP-1 stomach paralysis complaints being filed nationwide.

Additionally, Ozempic and Wegovy specifically have been linked to GLP-1 vision loss side effects due to a rare condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). In this condition, the optic nerve suffers from insufficient blood flow, leading to sudden and often irreversible vision loss. Over the past year, as more studies have appeared to confirm the association, a growing number of former users have filed Ozempic and Wegovy NAION lawsuits.

Regardless of the injuries, plaintiffs universally allege that the manufacturers either failed to properly test GLP-1 medications before they were put on the market, failed to provide patients and their doctors with adequate warnings about the health risks, or failed to do both.

GLP-1 Alzheimer’s, Dementia Risks

The new research was undertaken by Isaac Thorman, ScM and a team of analysts who looked at data on nearly 65,000 patients. They compared those who used GLP-1 medications with those who did not, while looking for signs of both cognitive impairment and mortality.

According to the findings, Ozempic and similar medications were linked to a higher risk of developing cognitive impairment, including Alzheimer’s and dementia.

However, researchers say that may be a good thing, because they also found that GLP-1 recipients live longer than diabetics who do not take the drug. As a result, they interpreted the findings as being that GLP-1 users live long enough into old age to begin to lose cognition.

The researchers noted that this signal is strongest in women. Diabetic men included in the study generally did not live long enough to see the cognitive decline. In addition, no protective benefits were seen in patients over the age of 80 taking the drugs.

Despite their conclusions, the researchers warned that their findings should be interpreted with caution, and stressed that they have not proven a causal connection between GLP-1s, mortality or cognition. They also called for additional long-term surveillance and randomized standard trials to improve data and create a clearer picture of the medications’ side effects on mortality and mental decline.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

Plaintiffs nationwide are pursuing more than 3,300 GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly in federal courts nationwide, indicating they suffered severe and sometimes permanent injuries and disabilities due to the gastroparesis side effects of the medications.

All of these federal claims have been consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania into a GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuit multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston.

Judge Marston is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for the growing litigation, and is working with the parties to choose a small group of cases representative of the lawsuits as a whole for bellwether trials. These early test cases will allow the parties and court to see how juries weigh the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ arguments and evidence.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

The same judge has also been assigned to oversee dozens of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits filed in recent months in the same district. The two litigations are running on parallel, yet separate, tracks.

NAION causes rapid onset of blurred or reduced vision, including blindness, and often results in nerve damage. The effects can occur suddenly and may be permanent.

More than 50 GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits have already been filed and Judge Marston is expected to have some of these cases prepared for bellwether trials as well.

While the outcome of these early test trials will not be binding on other stomach paralysis or vision loss lawsuits, they will be closely watched to see what kinds of payouts are awarded to plaintiffs, which could have a significant impact on settlement negotiations. If no such agreement or other resolution is reached by the time the bellwether trials are concluded, Judge Marston is likely to begin remanding the claims back to their originating districts to be prepared for individual trials.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for GLP-1 lawsuit updates to be delivered directly to your inbox.

Federal officials are warning that defective Merit Medical Splittable Sheath Introducers included in certain Arrow International dialysis catheter kits may not split as intended when introduced into the patient’s vein, posing a risk of serious and potentially life-threatening injuries.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the Arrow International dialysis catheter recall on April 24, warning that a design defect in the sheath introducers has been linked to at least two serious injuries.

A dialysis catheter kit is a sterile set of tools used to place a catheter into a vein so patients can receive hemodialysis when their kidneys are not working properly. The sheath introducer helps guide the catheter into the bloodstream and is designed to split during removal, allowing the catheter to remain in the vein while the guide sleeve is taken out.

However, if the introducer fails to split, removal can become difficult and increase the risk of complications such as hemorrhage, retained foreign material, procedural delays, embolism, impaired catheter function and loss of future vascular access sites.

The warning comes amid a growing number of port catheter lawsuits being filed against Bard and AngioDynamics, with each of the claims raising similar allegations that design flaws may allow the catheters to fracture or move within the body, increasing the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening complications such as infections, blood clots and other adverse outcomes.

Arrow International Dialysis Catheter Recall

The FDA is advising individuals not to use Merit Medical 16F Dual-Valved Splittable Sheath Introducers in the following Arrow International dialysis catheter kits and sets:

• Arrow Edge Hemodialysis Catheterization Product
• Arrow-Clark VectorFlow Antegrade Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter
• Arrow-Clark VectorFlow Retrograde Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter
• Cannon II Plus Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter
• NextStep Antegrade Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter
• NextStep Retrograde Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter

All affected customers were notified by letter in April and advised to immediately stop using or distributing the impacted kits and return them to Arrow International. 

Consumers in the U.S. who have experienced adverse reactions, quality issues, or have questions about the recall can contact Teleflex customer service, the parent company of Arrow International, at Recalls@teleflex.com or by calling 1-866-396-2111.

Health care professionals and patients can also submit reports of adverse events or product quality issues involving these devices through MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Catheter Device Failure Lawsuits

Beyond the Arrow International dialysis catheter recall, similar allegations have been raised in ongoing litigation involving other implantable port catheter devices.

More than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits have been filed nationwide, with plaintiffs alleging the catheters may deteriorate or fracture inside the body. Many of the claims focus on the use of barium sulfate within the catheter material, which is intended to make the device visible under imaging but is alleged to weaken the structure over time. According to the lawsuits, this can lead to cracking, fissures, and eventual fracture, increasing the risk of infection, blood clots, and the migration of broken fragments through the bloodstream, sometimes requiring emergency medical care.

Plaintiffs further allege that these microscopic cracks can harbor bacteria, contributing to persistent infections that may not be easily treated without removing the device.

Similar claims have also been brought in hundreds of cases involving AngioDynamics port catheters, where plaintiffs allege certain models contain design or manufacturing defects that can lead to device failure, often requiring corrective procedures or surgical removal.

Due to overlapping issues of fact and law, both groups of claims have been centralized into separate federal multidistrict litigations, or MDLs, by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), with each assigned to its own judge to oversee coordinated pretrial proceedings. 

As part of the MDL process, courts are moving forward with a series of “bellwether” trials, which involve a small number of representative cases selected to gauge how juries may respond to key evidence and arguments. While the outcomes are not binding on other claims, they often influence the direction of the litigation and potential settlement discussions.

If no global resolution is reached, individual cases may eventually be returned to their original courts for separate trials.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A panel of federal judges will hear arguments late next month over whether a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits should be consolidated before a single judge, who would move them collectively through their pretrial phase.

The decision on whether to centralize the claims follows the filing of 14 spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving Boston Scientific and Abbott that are currently pending across five federal jurisdictions. These include seven cases in the Central District of California, five in the Northern District of Illinois, and one each in the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi. 

The lawsuits raise similar allegations, claiming the devices differ materially from their originally approved versions due to insufficiently tested modifications, resulting in dangerous performance issues. Plaintiffs allege these problems have caused complications such as electric shocks, ineffective pain relief and worsening symptoms. They also contend that federal regulators should have required more rigorous review before allowing the devices to remain on the market.

Hundreds of other individuals have reportedly retained counsel and are having their cases reviewed by spinal cord stimulator lawyers. As a result, the litigation could continue to increase in size for months or years.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical devices surgically implanted into a patient’s back. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. The device uses small electrical pulses to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain, and they are often marketed to individuals suffering persistent lower back pain, nerve damage or other long-term injuries after other pain treatments have failed.

Over the last several months, individuals have begun filing product liability claims indicating that their SCS systems either stopped working altogether, began delivering painful and unexpected shocks, worsened their underlying pain, or experienced lead migration that in some cases punctured the skin. Many of these complications have required surgical removal of the devices, despite being intended for long-term implantation.

According to the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, Abbott, Boston Scientific and other manufacturers have continued to introduce new versions of the devices through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process, which allows approval based on similarity to existing products rather than extensive clinical testing. Plaintiffs allege this pathway allowed increasingly different devices to reach the market without sufficient safety evaluation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

A group of plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in February. The motion calls for all current and future federal Abbott and Boston Scientific SCS claims to be consolidated into one spinal cord stimulator multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois. If the motion is approved, the cases would be centralized before one U.S. District Judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs say that consolidation would eliminate the risk of contradictory rulings by different judges while avoiding duplication of discovery and other efforts, particularly since federal regulatory issues may be a factor cutting across the litigation. Placing all of the lawsuits in one centralized location would also serve the convenience of the court system, parties on both sides and witnesses.

On April 16, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) indicating it would hear oral arguments on consolidating these spinal cord stimulator lawsuits on May 28, in the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Milwaukee.

If consolidated, it is likely that the presiding judge would have the parties select several cases seen as representative of the litigation as a whole to be prepared for early test trials. These “bellwether” trials would give the parties the opportunity to see how juries weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their evidence and testimony. That information could be vital to negotiating a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreement.

However, if the cases are combined and the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end with the cases unresolved, the presiding judge would then likely begin remanding the cases back to the federal court where they originated for individual trial dates.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Louisiana woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) malfunctioned, causing her to delay treatment and suffer a diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Sheila Connoly in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on April 21. It names Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, the device manufacturers, as defendants.

Connoly claims she relied on a Freestyle Libre 2 device to manage her Type 1 diabetes, yet in December 2025 it failed to reflect her actual condition, which hospital testing later revealed involved blood sugar levels near 700 mg/dL. 

Freestyle Libre CGM Risks

Freestyle Libre CGMs are small medical devices that track a person’s blood sugar levels in real time throughout the day and night. Like most CGMs, Freestyle Libre systems use a tiny sensor inserted just under the skin, usually on the upper arm or abdomen, to measure glucose levels in the fluid between cells. The sensor sends readings wirelessly to a receiver, smartphone app or insulin pump, typically updating every few minutes.

Despite these and similar devices being used by millions of people, a number of recent Freestyle Libre lawsuits claim that malfunctions in these systems have led individuals to suffer a range of diabetic side effects, including hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and DKA.

Diabetic ketoacidosis is a serious, potentially life-threatening complication of diabetes that occurs when the body does not have enough insulin to use glucose for energy. Without insulin, the body begins breaking down fat for fuel, which produces acids called ketones. When ketones build up in the bloodstream, they make the blood too acidic, disrupting normal organ function, which can lead to severe dehydration, loss of consciousness and even death.

Freestyle Libre 2 DKA Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Connoly began using a Freestyle Libre 2 system in 2022. She says that she routinely depended on the device to monitor her blood sugar levels and guide insulin use throughout the day.

However, on December 15, 2025, the lawsuit states she received what appeared to be a moderately elevated reading of about 190 mg/dL, prompting her to administer insulin, after which her glucose levels appeared to return to normal.

The following day, Connoly began feeling ill and again relied on the CGM, which reported a normal reading of about 167 mg/dL. Despite those readings, her condition rapidly deteriorated, and she was taken to a hospital, where medical testing revealed her actual blood glucose level was approximately 700 mg/dL and she was suffering from DKA.

The complaint alleges the device provided falsely low or normal readings during a critical period when her blood sugar was dangerously elevated, delaying appropriate treatment and nearly resulting in her death.

Following the incident, Connoly says she was hospitalized in an intensive care unit for several days and experienced ongoing symptoms including weakness, disorientation and illness, as well as missed time from work.

The lawsuit claims the Freestyle Libre 2 and related CGM systems are defectively designed or manufactured, causing them to report inaccurate glucose readings that can mislead users making real-time treatment decisions.

According to the allegations, these inaccuracies pose significant safety risks because patients rely on the devices to determine insulin dosing and other critical interventions, meaning false readings can result in delayed care or inappropriate treatment decisions.

Connoly maintains she did not contribute to the incident and that the device malfunction was the direct cause of her injuries, including the development of DKA and associated complications.

“Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Freestyle Libre 2 and/or Freestyle Libre 2 Plus CGM, which was manufactured, designed, constructed, and/or produced by Defendants, was defective due to a design and/or manufacturing flaw which caused the sensor to report falsely low glucose readings, even when users’ actual blood glucose levels are normal or elevated.”

— Sheila Connoly v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al

The complaint raises allegations under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, claiming the manufacturers failed to design a safe product, breached warranties regarding accuracy, and failed to adequately warn users about the risk of inaccurate readings.

In addition to individual claims, the lawsuit seeks to represent a broader class of individuals who experienced similar issues with Freestyle Libre 2 devices. It is pursuing damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other losses.

Freestyle Libre CGM Lawsuits

As reports of adverse events tied to glucose monitors continue to increase, attorneys nationwide are reviewing potential FreeStyle Libre 2 and Libre 3 claims for individuals who allege they suffered serious injuries after relying on inaccurate sensor data.

Many individuals may qualify to pursue a claim if they or a loved one used a recalled FreeStyle Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus device and experienced complications such as:

• Wrongful death
• Severe hypoglycemia
• Seizures
• Confusion or altered mental state
• Loss of consciousness
• Diabetic ketoacidosis
• Other acute metabolic emergencies
• Hospitalization

Attorneys are offering free case reviews to evaluate whether an Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 lawsuit may be appropriate. They are also helping individuals understand their legal options and determine if they may be eligible to seek compensation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit filed by a Florida mother alleges that her premature infant developed a life-threatening intestinal disease after being fed Mead Johnson’s Enfamil cow’s milk-based fortifier while hospitalized.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Angel Bailey on behalf of her minor child, S.J., in Illinois Circuit Court on February 27, naming Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company as the defendants. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on April 9, and transferred (PDF) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 20.

The lawsuit alleges that Bailey’s child developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as a direct result of ingesting the cow’s milk-based product. This diagnosis led to intensive medical treatment, including antibiotics and procedures to address complications, as well as ongoing digestive problems expected to last for life.

Newborn NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis occurs when harmful bacteria invade a newborn’s intestinal wall, triggering severe inflammation and tissue death that often requires emergency surgical intervention. The diagnosis can be fatal. Premature infants face the greatest risk due to their underdeveloped digestive systems, and those who survive frequently experience lasting medical complications and chronic health issues.

In recent years, concerns about the causes of necrotizing enterocolitis have intensified, particularly regarding the role of infant feeding practices in neonatal care. A growing body of evidence suggests that cow’s milk-based formulas may significantly increase the risk of the condition in preterm infants compared to diets based on human milk and human milk-derived fortifiers.

These findings have led to a surge of infant formula NEC lawsuits filed in courts nationwide. The cases generally allege that Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil, and Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures Similac, failed to adequately warn parents and healthcare providers about these risks, while continuing to market their products as safe and appropriate for premature infants.

Enfamil NEC Allegations

In the lawsuit, Bailey claims her daughter was born prematurely at about 29 weeks gestation in 2021 at Tampa General Hospital, weighing approximately 1,360 grams, and was given Enfamil Standard Human Milk Fortifier shortly after birth. Within a short time, the infant was diagnosed with NEC, which the complaint indicates is one of the most dangerous conditions affecting premature infants.

According to Bailey, multiple studies have found that premature infants fed cow’s milk-based products face dramatically higher rates of NEC, with some research suggesting the condition is several times more common than in infants fed exclusively human milk. The complaint also cites guidance from pediatric authorities recommending that preterm infants receive breast milk or donor milk due to lower risks of complications.

Despite this evidence, the filing alleges that Mead Johnson continued to market its products as safe and nutritionally comparable to breast milk, while failing to provide adequate warnings about the increased risk of NEC. Bailey claims the company promoted its Enfamil products directly to hospitals and parents, emphasizing benefits while omitting known dangers.

The complaint further accuses Mead Johnson of using misleading branding, including the term “human milk fortifier,” which Bailey says may lead consumers to believe the product is derived from breast milk when it is actually cow’s milk-based.

Bailey contends that safer alternatives were available, including fortifiers derived from human breast milk, which allegedly do not carry the same risk of NEC. However, the lawsuit claims Mead Johnson failed to adopt those alternatives or reformulate its products, despite knowledge of the risks.

“Mead has aggressively marketed their milk-based products as medically endorsed and nutritionally equivalent alternatives to breast milk, including prior to Baby S.J.’s birth.”

— Angel Bailey v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC et al

The case raises allegations of strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, misrepresentation and breach of warranties, arguing that the products were defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous for premature infants.

It seeks compensatory damages for the child’s medical care, pain and suffering, and long-term health complications, as well as damages for the emotional distress and financial losses experienced by the family.

Enfamil and Similac NEC Lawsuits

Nearly 800 Enfamil NEC lawsuits and Similac NEC lawsuits are currently pending in the federal court system, where Bailey’s and other nationwide cases have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

As part of the coordinated proceedings, the court has directed the parties to prepare a pool of cases for early “bellwether” trials, which are intended to test how juries may respond to common evidence and testimony expected to be presented across the litigation.

An initial trial was previously scheduled for last April, but Judge Pallmeyer dismissed that group of cases due to insufficient supporting evidence and replaced them with a new set of claims, with the first trial now expected to begin in August.

Three Similac lawsuits have already gone to trial at the state level. The first, tried in Missouri state court in the summer of 2024, resulted in a verdict of nearly $500 million. A second trial in the same court that November ended in a defense win, which was later overturned after a judge found Abbott improperly presented inadmissible evidence, leading to a new trial order. The third case resulted in $70 million in damages to four mothers who brought their case in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court.

A separate Mead Johnson Enfamil claim led to a $60 million damages award in 2024 following a prior trial in Cook County court.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive baby formula NEC lawsuit information sent directly to your inbox.

A West Virginia woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that her use of Ritalin led to compulsive behavior, including a gambling problem that resulted in her facing embezzlement charges and losing her job.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christine Wilcox, her husband Phinneaus and her sister, Jennifer Wilcox McGinley, in West Virginia Circuit Court on April 16. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia by the defendant, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc., that same day.

Wilcox alleges that she developed compulsive behaviors, including gambling and shopping, after being prescribed generic Ritalin for ADHD in 2023.

Ritalin Compulsive Behavior Side Effects

Ritalin (methylphenidate) was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1955 as a treatment for narcolepsy and depression. It was later granted approval in 1962 for the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

However, several studies throughout the years have linked Ritalin use to compulsive behavior, yet since the incidents have been rare, the findings have not been considered conclusive.

One study published in 2016 by Indian researchers linked Ritalin side effects to obsessive-compulsive behavior in a 14-year-old boy. The side effects appeared within 10 days of him being prescribed the medication. Once treatment was stopped, the effects faded in about two weeks.

Reviewing more scientific literature, the researchers found other similar cases, which tended to subside after one to two months of being taken off Ritalin treatment.

An estimated four million people ages 12 and older in the U.S. used Ritalin as of 2022. However, due to its use as a recreational drug, more than half a million of those report misusing it.

Ritalin Side Effects Lawsuit

According to Wilcox’s lawsuit, she was diagnosed with ADHD in January 2023. After trying several different medications, and due to a worldwide shortage of other drugs at the time, she was prescribed generic Ritalin in May 2023. At the time, she was not made aware of any of the drug’s potential obsessive compulsive side effects.

Wilcox says she stopped taking Ritalin in March 2024, after realizing she had developed a problem with compulsive gambling and shopping.

“After going to her boss, she was fired from her job for embezzlement because she used a company credit card in unauthorized manners. She had this credit card for 2 years before taking this medication with absolutely zero issues of unauthorized usage.”

– Christine Wilcox et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc.

She was charged with felony embezzlement in August 2024, “effectively ruining her career,” the lawsuit states.

However, Wilcox’s sister, Jennifer, recognized the behavior as extremely unusual, the lawsuit indicates. Having extensive research experience, she found multiple studies linking Ritalin to compulsive behavior and informed her sister.

According to the complaint, Novartis knew or should have known about the risk of compulsive behavior for years but failed to provide adequate warnings to patients or the medical community.

Wilcox presents claims of reckless disregard, negligence and failure to warn. She is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Highway safety officials are implementing a new initiative to address the high number of fatalities on U.S. roads by targeting their leading causes.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced its Pathways to Safer Streets (P2SS) initiative on April 21, aiming to prevent driver impairment, speeding, distraction and lack of seat belt use.

U.S. Traffic Fatalities

Although overall traffic fatalities in the U.S. have modestly declined in recent years, significant risks remain for drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

Hit and run crashes have made up a growing share of traffic incidents, accounting for 10% of all injuries and 7% of crash related deaths in 2023, the highest percentages ever recorded.

In addition, increased cell phone use has made distracted driving a major risk for roadway users. Survey data indicates that roughly one-third of drivers engage in texting or social media use while behind the wheel, contributing to a significant number of traffic fatalities nationwide.

Pathways to Safer Streets Initiative

NHTSA’s new National Traffic Safety Action Plan contains eight strategies to improve roadway safety, focusing on:

• Stronger law enforcement
• Excessive speed
• Data-driven approaches
• Targeted efforts against impaired and distracted driving
• Post-crash care
• Stronger partnerships
• Increased occupant protection
• Development of AI platforms

The initiative calls for renewed law enforcement engagement, including high-visibility enforcement efforts aimed at deterring and disrupting dangerous and illegal driving behaviors. It also emphasizes expanded grant funding and partnerships, along with enhanced training for prosecutors and judges to strengthen traffic safety enforcement.

To support these efforts, NHTSA is promoting the use of automated enforcement technologies in high-risk areas, particularly to address excessive speeding, which accounts for roughly 30% of all roadway fatalities each year.

Seat belt use remains another critical factor in fatal crashes. In 2023, more than half of those killed in traffic accidents were not wearing a seat belt. In response, NHTSA is funding targeted nighttime enforcement, when seat belt use tends to decline, and is supporting states in adopting stronger seat belt laws and child passenger safety requirements.

The initiative also targets impaired driving, which contributes to more than one-third of roadway deaths annually. It includes additional support for innovative enforcement and prosecution strategies, expanded legal resources, and the promotion of technologies designed to reduce repeat offenses.

“At NHTSA, we’re leaning in to support new and enhanced steps to target and reduce dangerous driving behaviors that lead to serious crashes, such as speeding, impaired driving, failure to wear seat belts, and distracted driving,”

— Jonathan Morrison, NHTSA Administrator

Beyond prevention efforts, 43% of those killed in crashes between 2019 and 2023 were alive when first responders arrived at the scene, suggesting they may have survived with access to prehospital blood transfusions. As such, the initiative calls for expanded funding of these programs.

State highway safety offices (SHSOs) will be supported through an AI powered State Program Hub that provides access to real time data insights to help prioritize safety issues and tailor countermeasures. 

Officials also plan to strengthen partnerships at the federal, state and local levels to expand outreach and reinforce public safety messaging. At the same time, they will prioritize research into new methods for identifying distracted driving and examine how in-vehicle and emerging technologies can be used to prevent it.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

Over the past year, dozens of personal injury and product liability lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers and distributors of small tabletop fire pits, alleging the devices can cause flames to flash back into fuel containers, leading to explosions, severe burns, and in at least one case, death.

Marketed as decorative indoor and outdoor accessories, these small, portable fire pits are typically fueled by liquid or gel-based substances, often alcohol-based. As their popularity has grown, so have reports that the products may be defectively designed and lack adequate safety features.

Numerous reports indicate that many of these devices lack a clear way for users to tell whether the flame is still lit, which can be difficult to see in certain conditions. This may lead consumers to attempt to refuel or relight the unit while it is still burning. Without flame arrestors in the fuel containers, flammable vapors can ignite unexpectedly and travel back into the bottle, creating a dangerous “flame jet” effect that can cause explosions and spray burning fuel onto nearby individuals.

Many instances have resulted in severe burn injuries for those nearby, which have led to dozens of tabletop fire pit lawsuits filed nationwide. The lawsuits indicate the devices are defectively designed, should recommend or provide fuel containers with flame arrestors, and should include an indicator that makes it easy to tell the fire is still going.

Rozato Tabletop Fire Pit Warning

According to a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warning, explosions involving these devices can do more than cause severe injuries. They have also resulted in at least one death.

The CPSC issued the Rozato Tabletop Fire Pits warning earlier this month, linking the devices to uncontrolled fires caused by fuel pooling on their surfaces. This has led to at least one death and multiple other burn injuries, in addition to flashback and flame jetting problems, the commission reports.

“The Rozato Tabletop Fire Pits are rectangular or round containers that require consumers to pour liquid fuel into the container and then ignite the pooled liquid in the same location it was poured.  Isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol, ethanol/bioethanol, and similar liquid fuels can burn with flame temperatures over 1,600°F and can cause third degree burns in less than one second.  Igniting a pool of alcohol or other liquid fuel in the fire pit’s open container can result in an uncontrolled pool fire, which can suddenly produce larger, hotter flames that can spread beyond the fire pit product. “

– U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

The fire pits were sold in a set that included a bamboo serving board, roasting forks, cheese forks and a cheese knife. They come in either rectangular or round designs and have been sold through Rozato.store, Amazon.com, StoreDune.com, StovesDirect.com, RetailMarket.net and other online sellers since 2022 for $15 to $70.

The report indicates Rozato has not yet agreed to issue a recall.

The CPSC urges consumers to stop using Rozato tabletop fire pits immediately and dispose of them. Any injuries or other product incidents should be reported to the CPSC at www.SaferProducts.gov.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

Due to numerous similar recalls and injury reports, attorneys nationwide continue to investigate potential tabletop firepit lawsuits for those who were injured or lost loved ones to incidents caused by flame jetting, flashbacks or sudden explosions.

Injuries linked to tabletop fire pits include:

• Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical treatment
• Permanent scarring, nerve damage or limited mobility
• Inhalation injuries caused by sudden bursts of flame
• Burns affecting children or nearby individuals
• Incidents occurring during refueling that trigger flare-ups
• Fatal injuries linked to fire pit explosions
• Lost income due to time away from work
• Ongoing medical care, including hospitalization and rehabilitation
• Lasting disfigurement or emotional and psychological trauma

Individuals who have suffered burn injuries and believe they have a claim can receive a free case evaluation, during which a tabletop fire pit attorney may help identify the product involved, assess whether it was defective or subject to recall, and explain potential legal options.

All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorneys are only paid if compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal Roblox child exploitation lawsuits is likely to soon appoint a special master to help the parties try to negotiate a settlement agreement to end the growing litigation.

Roblox Corporation faces nearly 150 product liability lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. Many of these claims indicate the company’s popular Roblox gaming platform, which allows users to create their own custom games and is heavily marketed toward children, failed to protect minors from sexually predatory adults, who often posed as children to get their victims to chat with them. 

Lawsuits claim this has led to grooming, coercion, trading of sexually explicit images of minors, blackmail, and in some cases actual rapes, kidnapping and child trafficking, plaintiffs allege.

The gaming platform was first launched in 2006 and has millions of visitors per day, which consist mostly of children and teens. For years, critics have pointed out that Roblox had become a nexus for child sex predators while the site did little to prevent it, placing profits above children’s safety.

It was not until last year, as lawsuits began to be filed and public outrage peaked, that Roblox began deploying facial recognition software it says will help identify the age of users and prevent adults from contacting minors without their parents’ permission. However, critics still say the changes come too late and fall short of what is needed.

Roblox Child Exploitation Lawsuits

In December, all Roblox child exploitation lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, where they are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who is guiding the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge is expected to deploy a “bellwether” trial plan, ordering the parties to select and prepare a group of cases largely representative of the lawsuits as a whole to serve as bellwether test cases. These early trials will give the parties the chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The outcomes of these cases often form the basis for negotiating a settlement agreement, but it could take years before they go before an actual jury. Instead, the plaintiffs asked Judge Seeborg in late February to appoint a special master to assist in potentially helping the parties reach a settlement before such trials were necessary.

Roblox attorneys rejected the calls for a settlement master, saying that it is too early in the litigation and that none of the required conditions have yet been met to justify an appointment.

On April 15, Judge Seeborg issued a notice (PDF) indicating his intent to appoint a special master for settlement negotiations as plaintiffs advised. He has selected former U.S. Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli for the position.

“Mr. Perrelli is highly qualified to earn the parties’ trust and to facilitate discussions effectively that may lead to fair and efficient resolution of some or all of these matters. Mr. Perrelli will not adjudicate, or assist the Court with adjudicating, any issues in these proceedings. His role will be to use his experience and judgment solely to mediate settlement discussions among the various parties.”

– U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg

Judge Seeborg gave the parties until April 22 to respond to his suggestion but indicated it is his intention to appoint Perrelli as the cases’ special settlement master.

If neither the negotiations nor the bellwether trials result in a Roblox settlement agreement or other resolution to the claims, the judge may begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Missouri man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Werner extension ladder suddenly collapsed while he was working on his home, causing him to fall from near the roofline.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Kevin A. Borst in Missouri Circuit Court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 17. It names Werner Co. as the defendant.

Werner Ladder Collapse Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Borst purchased a Werner 24-foot aluminum extension ladder from an Ace Hardware store in Thayer, Missouri, in March 2021. The ladder was later used in October 2023 while he was inspecting and preparing to perform maintenance work on his roof.

The complaint indicates Borst properly positioned the ladder on stable ground, extended it, and climbed to within a few rungs of the top while carrying only light tools. While standing on the ladder, the device allegedly failed without warning, causing a portion of the ladder structure to give way, sending him falling to the ground below.

Borst claims the ladder’s I-beam side rails buckled and bent during ordinary use, alleging the product lacked adequate reinforcement, used substandard materials, and did not include safety features that could have prevented a catastrophic failure.

As a result of the fall, he says he suffered severe injuries, including a displaced fracture of his right wrist that required surgery, along with ongoing pain and disability.

The lawsuit alleges the ladder was defectively designed and manufactured, making it unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. According to the complaint, the aluminum rails and support structure were not strong enough to withstand foreseeable loads, increasing the risk of sudden collapse.

In addition, the filing claims Werner failed to properly test the ladder or warn users about the potential risk. Borst maintains the ladder was being used as intended and had not been altered, indicating the alleged defects were present when it was sold.

“As a direct and proximate result of the malfunction of the above referenced extension ladder, Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries as described herein.”

— Kevin A. Borst v. Werner Co.

The complaint raises claims of strict product liability, negligent failure to warn, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty. It is seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and permanent impairment.

Ladder Collapse Lawsuits

In recent years, a growing number of ladder-related injury lawsuits have been brought nationwide, with plaintiffs commonly alleging that design or manufacturing defects caused unexpected collapses and serious falls.

Earlier this month, a Massachusetts man filed a product liability lawsuit claiming a 15-foot ladder manufactured by Louisville Ladder and sold through Home Depot suddenly gave way, leaving him with severe spinal injuries and nerve damage.

A separate lawsuit involving a Little Giant Ladder was brought in September 2025. That case focused on the ladder’s locking pin system, which is designed to secure adjustable sections during use but may fail if the mechanism malfunctions.

According to the complaint, the Little Giant ladder contained a defect that prevented internal springs from properly engaging the locking bolts, allowing the structure to give way. As a result, the plaintiff alleges he suffered significant injuries, including a skull fracture, brain bleeding and other trauma.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Oregon cosmetologist has filed a lawsuit against several cosmetics companies, alleging she developed bladder cancer after years of working with their products in hair salons.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Frances Loscar in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on April 14, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York the same day. The lawsuit names Kao USA Inc., L’Oreal USA Inc. L’Oreal USA Products Inc., Henkel, KGaA, Joico and Pravana as defendants.

Loscar, who has been a cosmetologist for more than 30 years, points to research dating back to the 1970s indicating many hair dyes contained mutagenic compounds linked to cancer. She alleges manufacturers misled the public about reformulations while continuing to sell unsafe products.

Hair Dye Cancer Risks

Despite being widely used worldwide for decades, recent research has raised concerns over the potential cancer risks of long-term exposure to hair dye chemicals.

One large meta-analysis, involving data from dozens of occupational studies, found that hair dressers and salon workers faced a 30% higher overall risk of bladder cancer, which increased to 70% higher for hairdressers who have worked in the field for a decade or more.

As a result of these findings, Loscar joins others in her profession who are pursuing hair dye bladder cancer lawsuits against various manufacturers, indicating the companies knew or should have known that long-term exposure to their products increased the salon workers’ possibility of developing cancer. However, the filings claim that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions on how to effectively mitigate those risks.

Cosmetologist Bladder Cancer Allegations

In the complaint, Loscar indicates she became a licensed cosmetologist in 1992, and worked throughout her career at numerous salons, both independent and franchises, including Russell’s Red Carpet Salon, Apollo Salon and A Cut Above Salon.

During her tenure, Loscar claims she has handled hair dye brands including Goldwell, L’Oreal, Redken, Matrix, Pravana and Joico among others. All of those products omitted important risk information from their labels, she claims.

The lawsuit notes that scientific research published as early as 1975, 17 years before Loscar became a cosmetologist, found that nearly 90% of hair dyes were mutagenic, meaning they could cause damage to DNA that could result in cancer development. At that time, manufacturers claimed they would change their formulations. However, researchers found that little had changed in a 1994 study. Since that time, numerous other researchers have continued to find an association between hair dye exposure and bladder cancer diagnoses.

“Carcinogenic aromatic amines supposedly removed by manufacturers at this time were 4-aminobiphenyl, o-toluidine, benzidine, and 2-naphthylamine, among many others. However, it is now conclusively proven that manufacturers knowingly, deliberately and recklessly failed to remove carcinogenic aromatic amines from their hair dye products.”

– Frances Loscar v. Kao USA Inc. et al

Loscar’s own bladder cancer diagnosis came in August 2023, after 31 years in the industry. She blames her condition on regular and prolonged exposure to hair dye chemicals, which she claims the defendants developed, tested and manufactured incorrectly and recklessly, leading to her illness.

Her lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the New York Consumer Protection Statute. Loscar seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hair Dye Bladder Cancer Lawsuits

Hair dye bladder cancer lawyers are currently reviewing similar claims nationwide for individuals who were routinely exposed to chemicals in permanent hair dyes while working in salons or other professional settings, particularly among those working as:

• Hairdressers
• Cosmetologists
• Hair stylists
• Hair colorists
• Hair technicians
• Other salon professionals who regularly handle hair dye products

Individuals diagnosed with bladder cancer after years of occupational exposure to permanent hair dye chemicals may be eligible to pursue financial compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and other damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal health officials warn that software malfunctions in the Tandem Mobi insulin pump may disrupt insulin delivery, increasing the risk of hyperglycemia and other serious health complications.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Tandem Mobi insulin pump device correction on April 22, classifying the action as a Class I recall. This indicates the problems could put patients at risk of serious injury or death.

Tandem Mobi Insulin Pump Recall

Insulin pumps are small, battery-powered wearable devices used to manage diabetes and deliver insulin to users around the clock. The pump monitors a patient’s insulin levels through a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and delivers insulin through a small catheter attached under the skin.

However, reports indicate the Tandem Mobi insulin pump’s software can issue a false “Malfunction 12” warning. This occurs when the pump incorrectly detects a motor issue in the device. The motor is used to vibrate, alerting the user of “out of range” levels during monitoring.

If the Malfunction 12 alert is triggered, insulin delivery will stop and the pump will cease functioning. It will also stop communication between the pump and CGM devices, as well as between the pump and the Mobi app. If insulin delivery stops, a user could suffer from hyperglycemia and may require medical treatment or hospitalization. To date, four serious injuries have been reported.

Tandem first issued an Urgent Medical Device Correction notice to users in October 2025. However, because the manufacturer’s notice was a device correction, which involves updating or correcting affected devices, the pumps are not being removed from the market.

The recall affects the Tandem Mobi, Control IQ devices with catalog numbers:

• 1010750
• 1012719
• 1013501
• 1013655
• 1013656
• 1013700

It also affects Tandem Mobi starter packs with catalog number 1014081.

Federal health officials recommend updating the insulin pump’s software to version 7.9.0.2 as soon as possible, and they are urging users to be prepared with a backup method of insulin delivery. Users should regularly check their blood sugar to ensure they are not having unexpectedly high or low readings.

Individuals who have not had a Malfunction 12 alert should continue using their Tandem insulin pumps with added precautions, since the Malfunction 12 can occur at any time.

The software can be downloaded remotely from within the Tandem Mobi Mobile App. Users can contact Tandem at 877-801-6901 with questions about the software malfunction.

Insulin Pump Problems

Other insulin pumps and diabetes monitoring devices have suffered issues in recent months that have led to injuries, numerous recalls and product liability lawsuits.

The FDA announced an Insulet Omnipod 5 insulin pump recall in March, due to damaged internal components that could cause both under-delivery and over-delivery of insulin. At the time of the recall, federal regulators had confirmed at least 18 reports of serious injuries tied to defective pods for the devices.

As a result, Omnipod injury lawyers are now investigating potential lawsuits against the manufacturer for failing to properly design, test or warn about the risk of insulin delivery failures associated with the pods.

In addition, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against Abbott Laboratories for malfunctions connected to defective sensors in the Freestyle Libre 3 CGM.

These defects may cause false hyperglycemic readings which have led to more than 700 user injuries, as well as multiple deaths. Lawyers are also investigating Freestyle Libre 3 lawsuits for those who have suffered injuries due to the product’s defect.  

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Minnesota woman claims she was violently assaulted during a Lyft ride, alleging the company failed to protect passengers from known risks and allowed unfit drivers to operate on its platform.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by a woman identified only as J.H. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8. It names Lyft Inc. and various unidentified entities as the defendants.

In her lawsuit, J.H. argues that the company ignored known risks and prior incidents involving drivers, ultimately leading to her own physical injuries, emotional trauma and ongoing medical needs.

Lyft Driver Assault Lawsuits

Rideshare services like Lyft market themselves as safe and reliable transportation options. However, a growing number of sexual assault lawsuits have raised concerns that the company’s screening processes may fail to identify individuals who pose a risk to passengers.

Lyft currently faces more than 30 rideshare driver sexual assault lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, each alleging that passengers were sexually harassed, assaulted, raped and even kidnapped due to a lack of basic safety features, which the service has refused to implement.

Former passengers say Lyft does not equip vehicles with surveillance cameras, fails to require sexual harassment training for drivers and only does bare minimum background checks. The plaintiffs, nearly all women, also argue that Lyft has deflated or hidden actual numbers of sexual assaults by their drivers for years.

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

According to the complaint, J.H. requested a Lyft ride and was picked up by a driver who was allegedly unfit to safely transport passengers. During the ride, the driver is accused of committing a violent assault, causing physical injuries and emotional trauma.

The lawsuit claims Lyft failed to properly vet the driver prior to approving him to operate on the platform. It further alleges the company did not implement adequate safeguards or monitoring systems to protect passengers from foreseeable risks.

J.H. indicates the attack has resulted in lasting physical and psychological harm, requiring medical treatment and ongoing care. The complaint also suggests Lyft’s response to the incident was insufficient and failed to adequately address the safety concerns raised by the assault.

“In short, Lyft fails to follow reasonable safety procedures and intentionally induces passengers to use Lyft’s services while in a vulnerable state. As a result, Plaintiff, and women like her, are attacked, sexually harassed, assaulted, and raped by Lyft’s drivers.”

— J.H. v. Lyft Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, negligent hiring and retention, failure to warn, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, strict product liability, as well as vicarious liability for driver’s torts and sexual battery. It seeks damages for physical pain, mental anguish, anxiety, medical expenses and lost earnings.

Rideshare Safety Concerns

J.H.’s case was filed in the Northern District of California, where all federal Lyft sexual assault claims have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Rita Lin to coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Similar claims involving more than 3,300 Uber sexual assault lawsuits have also been consolidated in the same district, but those claims are being overseen by a different judge and are further advanced. Multiple trials have already been completed in the Uber litigation.

One of the first Uber cases to go to trial occurred in California state court in September 2025. In that instance, jurors determined the company did not do enough to protect riders, but ultimately declined to hold Uber legally responsible or award damages.

Following that decision, a federal jury in Arizona awarded $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean in January, over allegations that she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2023. While jurors found Uber was not negligent in its safety features, they concluded the driver was acting as an agent of the company, resulting in liability for Dean’s injuries.

Judge Lin is anticipated to establish a similar “bellwether” process for Lyft cases, selecting representative claims for early trials to evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and arguments.

Although the outcomes of those trials would not directly affect other claims, they are often used to guide settlement negotiations. If no global resolution is reached, individual lawsuits may ultimately be returned to their original courts for separate trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuit by an Alabama woman argues she and millions of other recipients of the birth control injections should have been warned that the shots carried an increased risk of intracranial meningioma development.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Christine McCree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on April 13, alleging that Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC failed to design a reasonably safe product, and failed to warn women about the potential risk of brain tumors.

Depo-Provera was first introduced in the U.S. in 1992 as a long-acting hormonal contraceptive requiring quarterly injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic progestin designed to prevent pregnancy. Over the last several decades, the “Depo shot,” as it is commonly known, has been given to tens of millions of women worldwide.

However, despite the manufacturers’ claims that the injections are safe and effective, concerns emerged in 2024 following studies linking Depo-Provera side effects to meningioma risks. The data indicates women on the receiving end of Depo-Provera injections face more than a five-fold risk of developing intracranial meningioma when compared to women who did not receive the injections. These brain tumors can cause serious, potentially life-threatening complications, often requiring brain surgery and life-long medical monitoring.

McCree’s complaint joins nearly 3,500 similar Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits filed by women nationwide, each alleging that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential intracranial meningioma risks associated with the injections.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Allegations

According to the lawsuit, McCree began receiving Depo-Provera injections in 2007 and continued using the contraceptive through 2025. She was diagnosed with an intracranial meningioma in 2020, but the complaint indicates that neither she nor her doctor knew the brain tumor could be linked to Depo-Provera because the drug’s label did not provide adequate warnings.

McCree alleges that Pfizer ignored scientific evidence suggesting the hormone used in Depo-Provera can interact with meningioma tumor receptors, potentially fueling the growth of an existing tumor or contributing to the development of a new one. Despite that evidence, the complaint claims the manufacturer failed to add adequate warnings to the drug’s label.

“The association between progesterone and meningioma has been known or knowable for decades to, sophisticated pharmaceutical corporations like Defendants engaging in FDA-required post-market surveillance of their products for potential safety issues, but withheld this information from the public and the medical community including, in particular, medical providers prescribing Depo-Provera.”

– Christine McCree v. Pfizer Inc. et al

The lawsuit notes that while McCree only learned of the connection between Depo-Provera and intracranial meningioma development recently, Pfizer had data at its disposal warning of the relationship since at least 1983.

She presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits

McCree’s case will now move forward as part of the coordinated federal Depo-Provera proceedings in the Northern District of Florida, where U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is overseeing discovery and other pretrial matters involving claims filed by women across the country.

The consolidation is intended to make the litigation more efficient by allowing the parties to focus on common issues, including the scientific evidence surrounding intracranial meningioma risks, the history of Depo-Provera’s warning label, and what the manufacturers knew about the potential connection between the birth control shot and brain tumors.

One of the next major steps in the litigation will center on general causation, meaning whether plaintiffs can present reliable scientific evidence showing that Depo-Provera is capable of causing intracranial meningioma brain tumors. Judge Rodgers is scheduled to hold hearings on that issue from June 24 through 26, 2026, after rescheduling the proceedings from late May due to a conflict in the court’s calendar.

Those hearings are expected to play a critical role in shaping the course of the litigation, since plaintiffs must clear that threshold before juries can hear the core expert testimony linking the birth control shot to meningioma development. If that evidence is allowed, the litigation will move toward the first bellwether trials, which are currently scheduled to begin in December 2026.

The early trials will involve a small group of representative cases selected to help both sides gauge how juries may respond to the scientific evidence, warning label history, and other recurring issues likely to arise throughout the litigation. While any bellwether verdicts will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they could have a major influence on settlement negotiations and the future direction of the Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Depo-Provera lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A New York woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that unsafe conditions inside a Planet Fitness gym caused her to suffer serious injuries while working out.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Leslie Kosal in New York Supreme Court on February 19, naming Planet Fitness (Lake Ronkonkoma, New York) and Planet Fitness Inc. as defendants. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 20.

According to the lawsuit, Kosal was a paying member of the gym and was lawfully on the workout floor on January 31, 2026, when she was allegedly injured by dangerous conditions involving gym equipment and power sources inside the facility.

The filing claims the equipment and related power connections were placed or maintained in an unsafe manner, creating a hazard for members using the gym.

Planet Fitness Injury Allegations

According to Kosal’s complaint, the incident occurred while she was using the Planet Fitness gym in Lake Ronkonkoma, New York, where she allegedly encountered a dangerous condition on the workout floor involving gym equipment and power sources. 

While the filing does not detail exactly how the incident happened, it claims the gym failed to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and did not adequately inspect, repair, correct or warn members about the hazard before Kosal was hurt.

Kosal alleges Planet Fitness knew or should have known about the dangerous condition but failed to take appropriate steps to protect customers. The lawsuit claims that failure led to serious injuries, leaving her “sick, sore, lame and disabled,” with injuries to her body and limbs that required medical treatment and caused ongoing physical pain and suffering. However, the complaint does not identify a specific diagnosis or explain whether the incident involved a fall, an electrical issue, or direct contact with equipment.

“The injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Leslie Kosal were caused by Defendants’ negligence, carelessness, and recklessness in their ownership, operation, maintenance, management, control, and upkeep of the premises including the gym equipment, and power sources located inside, without any negligence on the part of Plaintiff, Leslie Kosal, contributing thereto.”

— Leslie Kosal v. Planet Fitness et al

The lawsuit raises claims of negligence against the defendants. It seeks compensation for damages.

Fitness Center Injury Lawsuits

Kosal’s complaint comes amid growing concerns about safety practices at fitness centers, including scrutiny of equipment layout and whether facilities are properly adhering to manufacturer recommendations designed to reduce the risk of serious injuries.

In a separate Planet Fitness lawsuit filed in October 2025, a Pennsylvania couple alleged that improper placement of gym equipment at one of the company’s locations contributed to the husband’s severe injuries. In that case, the cable on an upright rowing machine suddenly snapped, propelling him backward into nearby machines positioned too closely together. He reportedly suffered a broken rib, a fractured vertebra and a collapsed lung.

Later that same year, a New Jersey woman brought a lawsuit against Lifetime Fitness, claiming she was hurt as a result of the facility’s alleged failure to properly maintain its spin bikes and other equipment.

In addition, a California woman filed a 24 Hour Fitness lawsuit earlier this year, alleging that poor placement of a treadmill and inadequate safety measures at one of its facilities led to her husband suffering a traumatic brain injury, leaving him permanently disabled and requiring constant care.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A New York man is pursuing a product liability lawsuit against Amazon for selling nitrous oxide for recreational use, which he says led to addiction and permanent injuries.

Felix Krouse filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 14, against the massive delivery service, Happy Supply LLC (d.b.a. “Cream N2O”), Galaxy Gas LLC and Xuzhou Basic Industry Co. Ltd.

According to the complaint, the defendants should have recognized Krouse’s repeated purchases were not for legitimate culinary use and failed to intervene or provide adequate warnings. These factors resulted in conditions for Krouse that included vitamin B12 deficiency, tremors, impaired balance, memory loss and nerve-related pain.

Nitrous Oxide Inhalation Dangers

Nitrous oxide is a gas commonly used as an anesthetic in medical and dental settings, and in food preparation. In recent years, it has also become increasingly associated with recreational inhalation, which can produce a short-lived euphoric high.

Products aimed at recreational users are often sold in vape shops and online, where they may be packaged in bright colors and sweet flavors. They are also frequently offered in canisters that appear larger than what would typically be needed for ordinary culinary use.

Excessive exposure to nitrous oxide can lead to addiction and serious health complications, including brain damage, paralysis, hallucinations and death. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety warning about nitrous oxide misuse, cautioning that it may cause severe spinal cord and neurological damage.

As concerns have grown, manufacturers and distributors have faced a rising number of nitrous oxide lawsuits from individuals who allege the companies marketed and sold these products for inhalation use while failing to adequately warn consumers about the risk of serious harm.

Amazon Nitrous Oxide Lawsuit

Krouse indicates he began inhaling nitrous oxide, also known as “whippits,” in March 2022. He became addicted and used nitrous oxide canisters he bought off of Amazon from various sellers until January 2025.

According to the lawsuit, Krouse was not aware of the health risks of nitrous oxide recreational use or the risk of addiction. He indicates neither the canisters nor the websites gave any indication that there were serious health risks, making the products appear to be safe and legal.

The complaint notes that his purchasing habits should have made it clear to Amazon he was not using the products for any culinary purposes, and that he was probably suffering from an addiction. However, the service made no effort to warn him, limit his purchases or take any action to intervene.

As a result, the lawsuit states that Krouse suffered a vitamin B12 deficiency, tremors, imbalance, an abnormal gait, occipital neuralgia and memory loss.

“At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that there was a substantial likelihood that consumers who purchased their products, like Plaintiff, would use those products recreationally by inhaling nitrous oxide and that doing so would put them at significant risk of suffering injuries such as those detailed above.”

– Felix Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al

The lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, design defect, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

Krouse’s complaint joins a growing number of other nitrous oxide injury lawsuits filed nationwide against manufacturers like Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad, Cosmic Gas, Miami Magic, as well as against Amazon for being a third-party seller.

Many of the former users have suffered life-long injuries and addiction, like Krouse. Former users and family members seek to hold Amazon and the manufacturers accountable for the injuries caused by their decision to place profits over consumer safety.

Nitrous oxide attorneys are currently offering free consultations to individuals and families who may be eligible for compensation through a nitrous oxide lawsuit.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive nitrous oxide lawsuit updates delivered directly to your inbox.

A Minnesota-based insurance company is pursuing a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging a stove with defective burner knobs accidentally ignited and caused a fire in the Iowa home of a policyholder, leading to significant property damage.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by North Star Mutual Insurance Company on behalf of their policyholder Zach Boelkes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on April 17. It names Samsung Electronics America Inc. as the defendant.

The insurer claims Samsung knew for years about defects with its electric range knobs, citing hundreds of reports of unintended activation, fires, injuries and pet deaths. However, the company failed to implement safety measures or issue a timely recall until August 2024, more than one year after the fire at Boelkes’s home.

Samsung Electric Range Fire Lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that a knob defect affecting certain Samsung ranges led to a 2023 fire, which caused significant damage to Boelkes’s home. North Star insured the property in Iowa and paid out on the damages linked to the claim.

According to the lawsuit, the Samsung range had front-mounted control knobs that could be turned on accidentally, sometimes without the user realizing it. Boelkes alleges Samsung knew about the problem as early as 2013, pointing to the recall report, which states the company had received more than 300 reports of accidental activation, along with 250 fires, 40 injuries, and seven pet deaths linked to the ranges.

In August 2024, Samsung finally issued an electric range recall, yet that was only after Boelkes’s home caught fire as an alleged result of the defective range knobs.

International standards require that the stove knobs feature a two-step push and turn activation to ignite the stove burners. However, the Samsung stoves were easily “activated unintentionally if sufficient force is applied, by either a person or pet in the household,”  the lawsuit states. Samsung also did not include a knob stopper or knob cap to prevent accidental ignition.

The insurer’s lawsuit indicates Boelkes turned off the electric stove and went grocery shopping. Later, he placed the groceries near the range before going to bed. At some point the knob was bumped, accidentally igniting the heating element. He awoke to find a fire that caused extensive damage and destruction to the home and contents. Boelkes filed a claim on his policy and North Star paid out in excess of $75,000.

“Despite Samsung’s prior awareness of the many hazardous incidents of inadvertent range-top heating element activation resulting in fires, Samsung took no action to address the issue until August 8, 2024, when it issued a recall of the Subject Model Range and other ranges having range-top heating element controls that were identical or substantially similar to the controls on the Subject Range, and offered corrective measures to alleviate the known hazards posed by the defective controls.”

– North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence and strict product liability. North Star is seeking compensation for damages, punitive damages, and reimbursement for legal expenses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A panel of federal judges will hear oral arguments in May regarding whether to consolidate all Dupixent cancer lawsuits before one judge for pretrial proceedings and potential early test trials.

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis drug used to treat atopic dermatitis, eczema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammatory conditions, primarily those that affect respiration and the skin.

However, the two manufacturers have been the target of a growing number of Dupixent cancer lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system. These have been brought after recent studies indicate that the drug carries a risk of developing rare forms of T-cell lymphoma, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The findings have raised concerns that the medication may cause or accelerate the development of these types of cancer and make the body more vulnerable to other forms of cancer, particularly other lymphomas and skin cancer.

Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential Dupixent cancer side effects but failed to warn users or the medical community, which can lead to life-changing health complications.

Dupixent Cancer MDL

In February, plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting that all Dupixent cancer lawsuits brought in federal courts nationwide be consolidated before one judge in the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A month later, the manufacturers responded supporting the plaintiffs’ request. They agreed that consolidation would prevent contradictory rulings between different judges, lessen duplication of discovery efforts and serve the convenience of common parties, witnesses and the courts. However, the parties disagree on where to consolidate the cases. Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis are calling for the multidistrict litigation (MDL) to be created in the Southern District of New York, where the two companies are headquartered.

In a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) issued on April 16, the JPML announced that it will hear oral arguments on consolidation of the cases on May 28 in the U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Milwaukee. The notice indicates there are currently 15 Dupixent cancer lawsuits filed in 12 different U.S. District Courts nationwide. The Northern District of Georgia is the only one with more than one case filed there.

After the hearing, where both sides will present their reasoning for consolidation, the panel will decide if a Dupixent lawsuit MDL is necessary and helpful to resolving the litigation. If they decide to centralize the cases, a federal judge will be appointed to handle the discovery processes, pretrial motions, and would likely call on the parties to prepare several representative claims for early test trials.

These “bellwether” trials would test the parties’ arguments, testimony and evidence before a real jury, which could help form the basis of a Dupixent cancer lawsuit settlement agreement. If the cases are consolidated but have not reached a resolution once the pretrial proceedings and potential bellwether trials are completed, the judge would likely remand the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, indicating that she and other patients have experienced an array of ProGrip hernia mesh complications, leading to the product’s failure and the need for additional medical treatment.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Octaviana Remigio in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of the Trial Court on April 17. It names Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp. as defendants.

Remigio states that the ProGrip hernia mesh she was implanted with was defectively designed, despite the manufacturers’ claims that it was safe and effective.

Covidien ProGrip Hernia Mesh Complications

Covidien’s ProGrip mesh is designed to treat open inguinal hernia repair, using a self-fixating design that employs a surface covered with polylactic acid microgrips and polyester microfilaments to fix the device in place. In this way, the device is intended to work in a manner similar to Velcro.

However, Remigio’s complaint joins thousands of similar hernia mesh lawsuits over the past decade, claiming the manufacturers have failed to warn patients and the medical community about the possible risks of ProGrip mesh complications. The lawsuits allege these problems may lead to chronic pain, infections, adhesions, a return of the hernias the device was intended to repair, and additional surgery to remove the implant after it fails.

ProGrip Hernia Mesh Allegations

In the lawsuit, Remigio states that she was implanted with a ProGrip mesh to address her inguinal hernia. However, she argues that the defective design led to the device’s eventual failure and a variety of ProGrip mesh complications.

In addition, Remigio indicates she is just one of thousands of patients who were implanted with the mesh only to have problems arise. However, once those patients and their doctors decide to remove the device, they often discover that there are no directions on how to remove the implant properly and safely.

According to her complaint, the ProGrip mesh label warns of complications that are “typically associated with surgically implantable materials,” which falls very short of what the warnings should include.

“Defendants’ claim their PLA Microgrip Devices provide a reduced foreign material reaction and improved biocompatibility compared to other materials. Defendants’ claim is false, or at very least highly misleading, as their PLA Microgrip Devices induce a severe foreign material reaction and are not biocompatible, which results in severe complications, injuries, and device degradation.”

– Octaviana Remigio v. Covidien LP et al

The lawsuit links ProGrip mesh complications to injuries that include:

Remigio presents claims of design defect, failure to warn and negligence. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

While Remigio’s lawsuit was brought in state court, more than 2,200 similar hernia mesh lawsuits are currently filed against both Covidien and Medtronic, its parent company, with all federal claims centralized in the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Pattie B. Saris for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The parties are currently working on preparing a series of bellwether trials meant to provide them with an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. These early test cases can help the parties determine how juries are likely to decide future, similar claims, which could help form the basis of a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement agreement.

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026. However, if the bellwether process does not result in a global settlement or broader resolution, the court may eventually begin sending individual cases back to federal courts across the country for separate trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An insurance company has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming a Frigidaire dehumidifier sold through Walmart malfunctioned and caused a devastating fire at a New Jersey home.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by MIC General Insurance Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 7. It names Midea America Corporation, Midea America Corp., Midea USA Inc. and Walmart Inc. as defendants.

The insurer indicates that the dehumidifier malfunctioned during normal use and caused a house fire that resulted in more than $2.3 million in property damage.

A dehumidifier is a common household appliance used to reduce moisture levels in the air, helping maintain a dry and comfortable indoor environment. While typically safe when functioning as intended, defects in electrical components have been known to cause the units to overheat, emit smoke or ignite.

According to the lawsuit, the insurance provider brought the claim after paying substantial losses on behalf of homeowners Kevin Liau and Jessica Park, whose property was severely damaged in the fire. The insurer now seeks to recover those costs through subrogation, alleging the fire was caused by the defective dehumidifier.

Frigidaire Dehumidifier Fire Allegations

The complaint indicates the Frigidaire dehumidifier was designed, manufactured and sold by the defendants for ordinary consumer use, and had been operating without issue prior to the incident.

However, on or about September 15, 2024, the device allegedly malfunctioned while being used in a normal and foreseeable manner, sparking a fire that caused extensive damage to the home and required significant cleanup, repairs and other expenses.

According to the lawsuit, investigators determined the fire originated from a defect or malfunction in the dehumidifier. The complaint further alleges the product had not been altered or misused prior to the incident, and was being used as intended at the time of the fire.

As a result of the fire, the homeowners sustained substantial property damage and related losses. The insurer indicates it paid more than $2.3 million under the homeowners’ policy, and is now pursuing recovery from the companies involved in the design, manufacture and sale of the product.

“Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, inspected, marketed, distributed, and placed into the stream of commerce the aforesaid dehumidifier, including its component parts, in a dangerous defective condition, which catastrophically failed due to a defect and/or malfunction.”

— MIC General Insurance Corporation v. Midea America Corporation et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of products liability under various New Jersey statutes in addition to strict liability for breaches and violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks damages in excess of $2,338,340.70.

Dehumidifier Safety Concerns

Dehumidifiers have been the subject of numerous safety concerns in recent years. A Pennsylvania couple brought a product liability lawsuit earlier this month, alleging a Kenmore-branded dehumidifier suddenly malfunctioned and sparked a fire, which caused extensive damage to their home.

In February, an insurance provider filed a claim alleging a recalled Frigidaire dehumidifier contained defects that caused it to overheat and ignite, resulting in a residential fire and substantial property damage.

Similar safety concerns were highlighted in a series of U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalls involving Gree dehumidifiers, which were linked to hundreds of fire incidents reported across the country.

The CPSC also issued a large-scale recall affecting dehumidifiers sold under brands such as Haier, Amana and Honeywell, warning that certain units may overheat, smoke or catch fire, leading to the removal of millions of products from the market.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Uber has lost its second federal bellwether trial after a North Carolina jury ordered the rideshare service to pay a woman $5,000 for being allegedly sexually assaulted by a driver.

The verdict was handed down on Monday, marking another case in which a jury found Uber at least partially responsible for the actions of its drivers. The lawsuit was filed by Brianna Mensing, who is one of more than 3,300 former passengers pursuing Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits against the rideshare company.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

Mensing’s case is one of a mounting number of Uber sexual assault claims filed by former passengers, nearly all of them women, who allege the rideshare company failed to take reasonable steps to protect rider safety. The lawsuits claim Uber did not implement adequate safeguards, including stronger background checks, in-vehicle surveillance cameras, sexual harassment training for drivers, or options that would allow passengers to request a driver of the same gender.

As the number of cases continued to grow, the federal litigation was consolidated in October 2023 in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. Although the coordinated proceedings are based there, Breyer conducted this latest trial in federal court in North Carolina, where Mensing is from.

For some time now, the parties have been preparing a series of six representative cases to serve as bellwether trials. These test cases are designed to give plaintiffs, defendants and the court a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be presented throughout the litigation. They also help reveal legal issues that need to be ruled on before future cases can be resolved.

In February, the first Uber sexual assault lawsuit to go to trial, brought by Jaylynn Dean, ended with an $8.5 million verdict. The jury found the company responsible for the actions of the driver, who Dean testified raped her in November 2023, determining that he was serving as an agent of the company under common carrier laws.

Uber has repeatedly tried to avoid the common carrier label by arguing that it is just an intermediate app linking passengers with independent drivers. However, during the first trial, and in this one, Judge Breyer shot down those arguments.

Second Uber Bellwether Trial Verdict

The trial over Mensing’s claims began just last week and lasted only four days, with the jury deliberating a mere three hours before determining Uber should be ordered to pay her $5,000. In her lawsuit, Mensing indicates she was groped by the driver in 2019.

While not saying it would appeal the verdict, Uber officials have stated they believe the company has strong grounds to appeal whether it should be held liable for the incident. The driver has claimed the incident, where he allegedly groped Mensing’s leg, was a misunderstanding. Uber attorneys tried to characterize her testimony as untrustworthy because she had once struggled with substance abuse, claiming the lawsuit was only for the money.

Mensing never stated a dollar amount for damages, and testified during trial that she wanted an apology from Uber more than she wanted money.

A similar trial is currently underway in California state court.

While the outcome of these trials are not binding on other claims, they are being closely watched to see how juries rule and what kinds of payouts they are awarding to plaintiffs. These outcomes could have a significant impact on ongoing settlement negotiations, and some cases have already reportedly been settled.

Following the bellwether trials, if the parties have not settled or otherwise resolved the majority of the litigation, Judge Breyer will likely begin remanding claims back to their original federal courts for individual trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Federal regulators have announced a recall impacting more than 1.3 million Ford pickup trucks, due to a transmission defect that may cause the vehicles to unexpectedly downshift into second gear.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the Ford F-150 recall on April 14, indicating the issue involves a part of the transmission system that may stop sending the right signal to the truck’s computer. Over time, heat and vibration can wear down those connections, increasing the chance of a problem.

If that happens, the truck may unexpectedly drop into a lower gear, which can cause it to slow down abruptly. In some cases, the rear tires may briefly slide before the vehicle regains traction. Drivers may also see a warning light or wrench light on the dashboard before the problem occurs.

Officials warn that this sudden loss of speed could make the truck harder to control and increase the risk of a crash or injury.

Ford F-150 Transmission Signal Defect

According to the recall notice, the current issue impacts 1,392,935 Ford F-150 vehicles from model years 2015 through 2017.

Ford says it is aware of at least 444 warranty claims, 121 field reports, 105 customer service reports and 316 vehicle owner questionnaires potentially related to the issue. The automaker has also said it is aware of two injuries and one crash that may be linked to the defect.

The NHTSA recall report indicates regulators began looking into the issue after receiving vehicle owner complaints in late 2024, and later elevated the investigation to an engineering analysis in January of this year.

To address the problem, Ford is instructing dealers to update the powertrain control module software at no cost. The automaker also says that if an affected truck previously showed certain diagnostic trouble codes tied to the condition before the software update, dealers will replace the lead frame under a corresponding extended warranty program.

Dealer notification was expected to begin on April 15. Interim owner letters are scheduled to be mailed starting April 27, and final letters are expected to go out in July 2026.

Ford has identified the recall as 26S28, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists it as campaign number 26V237. Owners can find out whether their truck is included by entering their VIN in the recall lookup tool on the NHTSA website or by contacting Ford customer service directly.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit has been filed alleging that unlicensed representatives for Abbott Laboratories contributed to a Texas woman’s spinal cord stimulator (SCS) injuries by improperly participating in modifications of the system.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Stephanie Stookey in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 14, naming Abbott Laboratories and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

Stookey indicates she received an Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator implant as a treatment for chronic pain. However, instead of providing relief, the device allegedly caused worsening pain, loss of function and neurologic complications that ultimately required additional surgical intervention and left her with permanent injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable devices designed to deliver electrical pulses to the spinal cord to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. They are most often used in patients suffering from chronic back, leg or nerve pain when other treatment options have proven ineffective.

These systems generally include a small, battery-powered pulse generator implanted beneath the skin, along with thin leads placed near the spinal cord and a handheld controller that allows stimulation levels to be adjusted. Once implanted, the device is intended to remain in the body on a long-term basis.

Stookey’s claim is one of a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in recent months, which allege that unlicensed Abbott Laboratories representatives improperly took part in both the implantation procedure and subsequent adjustments to these SCS devices, resulting in serious injuries.

In addition, many plaintiffs claim that recent design changes were neither adequately tested nor properly approved, increasing the risk of device malfunction. According to the complaints, these alterations have been linked to complications such as lead breakage or migration, unexpected electrical shocks, reduced effectiveness in managing pain and other neurological issues.

SCS Improper Programming Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Stookey first underwent a temporary, external trial implantation of an SCS device before receiving a permanent Abbott Proclaim system.

The complaint indicates the trial system was intended to demonstrate the device’s safety and effectiveness before permanent implantation. However, it failed to accurately predict the complications Stookey later experienced. In fact, she alleges the device never provided meaningful pain relief and instead contributed to increased discomfort and functional limitations.

The lawsuit claims that while the SCS device was implanted, Abbott representatives, who were allegedly not licensed to practice medicine, played an ongoing and active role in configuring and repeatedly adjusting the device. These representatives are accused of participating in programming decisions, interpreting Stookey’s responses to stimulation and making real-time changes to the system’s settings.

Stookey argues these actions went beyond permissible technical support and constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine, directly influencing how the device interacted with her body. The complaint indicates the system was ultimately removed after failing to provide relief, which required additional surgery and left her with ongoing complications.

In addition to the conduct of company representatives, the lawsuit alleges Abbott’s spinal cord stimulator systems were approved and modified through a regulatory process that failed to adequately evaluate safety. The complaint claims the device line was repeatedly altered through supplemental approvals without new clinical testing, resulting in a product that differed significantly from what was originally reviewed.

“Plaintiff and her healthcare providers reasonably relied on Abbott’s representations and omissions in deciding to proceed with implantation of the SCS devices. Had they been adequately warned of the known risks and benefits of the SCS device, the device would not have been implanted, or alternative treatments would have been pursued.”

— Stephanie Stookey v. Abbott Laboratories et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unauthorized practice of medicine, and violations of various state and federal regulatory policies.

It seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for Stookey’s injuries, as well as injunctive relief related to oversight of the approval process.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Stookey’s claim adds to a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued nationwide against many major medical device manufacturers.

Last month, a group of plaintiffs with allegations against Abbott and Boston Scientific sought to consolidate all federal SCS claims against those companies before a single judge in the Northern District of Illinois, requesting the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline pretrial proceedings.

Abbott and Boston Scientific have opposed the consolidation, arguing the lawsuits involve different products and do not share a common defect warranting federal coordination. The companies also assert that many of the cases are already far along and that combining them would provide limited efficiency. Boston Scientific has also raised arguments that some claims may be preempted by federal law. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has not yet issued a decision on whether the cases will be centralized.

Across these lawsuits, plaintiffs frequently claim that design and manufacturing issues have made certain SCS systems susceptible to complications, including:

• Ineffective pain management
• Lead migration or fracture
• Unintended electrical stimulation
• Neurological side effects

Many complaints indicate that, rather than improving symptoms, the devices allegedly led to worsening pain, additional surgeries and long-term health complications.

As filings continue to increase, spinal cord stimulator injury attorneys are reviewing potential claims for individuals who experienced adverse outcomes following implantation of these pain management devices.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The number of Cartiva lawsuits brought in federal courts over problems with the recalled big toe implant has tripled in recent weeks, as more patients learn their complications may reflect broader, allegedly undisclosed failure rates.

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) is a big toe implant designed for those suffering from hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, which are forms of degenerative arthritis. It is constructed of polyvinyl alcohol-based gel, and meant to be used as an alternative to having the big toe permanently fused into place. The fusion technique includes significant loss of mobility, which the Cartiva SCI is supposed to preserve.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a Cartiva toe implant recall in October 2024 after the manufacturer revealed that real-world failure rates for the implants were significantly higher than previously indicated.

Since then, as more individuals have learned about the recall and recognized their complications were not isolated, the number of Cartiva SCI lawsuits filed nationwide has grown. The complaints raise similar allegations, claiming the implants were defectively designed and that those risks were concealed from both consumers and the medical community.

Cartiva Toe Implant MDL

In February, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all Cartiva real-world failure rate lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The combined complaints will now be ushered through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings, and, if necessary, a series of early test cases known as bellwether trials.

These trials are designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of evidence, testimony and arguments that would likely be used in most, if not all, Cartiva toe lawsuits. Though not binding on any other cases, bellwether trials are usually closely watched for jury trends and commonalities, which could help the parties reach a Cartiva settlement agreement some time in the future.

In one of the more recent claims brought by Daniel Catanese on March 6, he indicates that his Cartiva implant migrated out of position and ground down nearby joints. These factors caused his situation to worsen rather than improve. He was eventually required to undergo permanent fusion of his big toe, the event the Cartiva implant was supposed to help him avoid.

In a transfer order (PDF) issued on April 16, Catanese’s lawsuit was moved from the U.S. District of Northern Illinois, where it was originally filed, to the Eastern District of Arkansas. According to the order, there were originally only five Cartiva lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, while now there are at least 14.

That number is expected to continue to rise as more implant recipients discover that Cartiva real-world failure rates were much higher than advertised, and that their injuries may be due more to design and manufacturing problems than bad luck.

Following the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings, if there are no Cartiva settlements or other resolutions reached, the judge is likely to begin remanding claims back to their original district courts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Cartiva toe implant lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Louisiana woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Barton pressure cooker suddenly exploded during normal use, splashing boiling water onto her body and causing severe third- and fourth-degree burns.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Shana Stewart in Louisiana District Court on April 25, 2025, naming Stark Group LLC, doing business as Stark USA and Stark Tools USA, as the defendant. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on April 13.

Stewart alleges her Barton pressure cooker was being used in a manner reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer when it suddenly and without warning exploded. The lawsuit claims Stark Group designed, manufactured, sold and placed into the stream of commerce a defective and unreasonably dangerous product.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

Pressure cookers are commonly used kitchen appliances that prepare food rapidly by sealing in steam and increasing internal pressure. When functioning as intended, integrated safety mechanisms are meant to keep the lid locked until the pressure has been safely released.

However, when a pressure cooker is defectively designed or manufactured, the buildup of heat and pressure can create a risk of sudden explosion and the release of scalding contents.

As concerns over these kinds of defects mount, an increasing number of pressure cooker lawsuits have been filed in recent years, claiming faulty safety features in certain devices may allow the lids to be released while pressure remains inside. These product defects can result in hot food and liquid being violently ejected onto users, causing serious burn injuries.

Barton Pressure Cooker Explosion Allegations

According to the complaint, Stewart purchased a Model 99901-H2 Barton 8 Quart Aluminum Stovetop Pressure Cooker through the Walmart app in March 2024. After using the device twice, she alleges the pressure cooker exploded on April 26, 2024, about 30 to 40 minutes into its third use. The explosion caused boiling hot water to splash onto Stewart’s arms, chest, stomach and underarms.

Stewart says she suffered third and fourth degree burns across many of the areas where the scalding contents landed. These injuries required medical, surgical and rehabilitative treatment. The lawsuit indicates she continues to undergo burn scraping and other treatments and has been left with permanent scarring and disfigurement.

The complaint claims that the pressure cooker was defective in its construction or composition, or alternatively in its design, warnings and warranties. It also claims the device lacked features necessary to make it safe for its intended use and was not adequately tested before being marketed and sold.

“Plaintiff shows that STARK USA designed and/or manufactured a product or products as described above and that it/they were defective and unreasonably dangerous in design, construction, composition/manufacture and inadequate in its instructions and/or warnings thereby rendering Defendant liable under the Louisiana Products Liability Act and other applicable provisions of Louisiana Law.”

— Shana Stewart v. Stark Group LLC

The lawsuit is seeking damages for medical expenses, physical injury, pain and suffering, scarring, disfigurement, embarrassment, disability, mental injury, mental anguish and distress, loss of enjoyment of life and other losses.

Electric Pressure Cooker Explosion Lawsuits

Stewart’s claim adds to a growing number of pressure cooker explosion lawsuits filed in recent years against a variety of manufacturers and brands, including Instant Pot, SharkNinja, Crock-Pot and Farberware. Many of these cases raise similar concerns that modern, electric pressure cookers may suffer from certain safety failures that allow the lid to be opened while dangerous pressure remains inside the device.

Unlike with older, stovetop models like that at the center of Stewart’s complaint, these plaintiffs frequently allege the products were marketed as incorporating advanced safety systems intended to prevent such incidents. However, they indicate those safeguards did not function as promised during normal use.

Regulatory agencies have also responded to similar issues. In recent years, recalls have affected more than one million Best Buy Insignia pressure cookers and approximately 900,000 Sensio pressure cooker units due to lid defects that could permit hot contents to escape, creating a serious burn hazard.

Consumers involved in these incidents often report severe injuries, including second- and third-degree burns, permanent scarring and lasting physical and emotional effects.

In response, pressure cooker injury attorneys continue to review potential claims for individuals injured in pressure cooker explosions or malfunctions. Lawyers are currently examining whether manufacturers and sellers failed to properly design, test or warn about the risks associated with these appliances.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Oklahoma man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a defective jack stand sold by Harbor Freight collapsed, pinning him underneath a vehicle and causing serious injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Robert Feezor in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 13. It names Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc., Pittsburgh Automotive, and Jiaxing Golden ROC Tools Co. Ltd as defendants.

Feezor alleges the jack stand was defectively designed, claiming its latch mechanism did not reliably engage and lacked safeguards to prevent a collapse. He also contends Harbor Freight failed to issue timely warnings about earlier recalls involving similar problems. The complaint further states that even replacement units provided during the recall were later determined to be defective.

Jack Stand Collapse Defects

Jack stands are metal support pieces that are placed underneath a car after a jack has raised the vehicle up. The stands keep the vehicle in a propped-up position while the user works on the car. However, jack stands may pose a danger to consumers if they collapse from manufacturing defects, overloading, improper use or being placed on uneven surfaces.

In June 2020, Harbor Freight issued a Pittsburgh Automotive jack stand recall, affecting about 2 million units. The recall was issued after reports of manufacturing defects that allowed the stands to collapse while in use. It followed a May 28, 2020 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety advisory for the Pittsburgh Automotive 3-ton and 6-ton heavy duty steel jack stands, warning that products posed a risk to consumers.

Harbor Freight issued another recall for the jack stands offered as a replacement for the first recall on July 8, 2020. The company said the new jack stands, provided as a safer alternative, could also fail during use and injure consumers.

Harbor Freight Jack Stand Collapse Lawsuit

The complaint indicates Feezor was using the jack stand in a typical way in July 2025 when the stand, without outside force, suddenly collapsed. The vehicle fell and pinned him underneath, causing serious injuries.

Feezor alleges the jack stand contained a design defect that prevented the locking mechanism from fully engaging, undermining its ability to keep the stand secure. He also claims the product lacked adequate safety features to protect users if a collapse occurred. As a result, Feezor says the failure left him with permanent, disabling injuries.

He also alleges Harbor Freight failed to warn consumers about the recall for the jack stand in a timely manner, only to replace it with yet another defective product that was also unsafe for consumers.

“That the jack stand and its parts were supplied by Defendants in a defective condition which rendered the jack stand unreasonably dangerous and further that the defective conditions were a proximate cause of the injuries and damages to the Plaintiff has hereinafter alleged. The jack stand as originally designed was defective.”

– Robert Feezor v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. et al

The complaint presents claims of product liability, failure to warn of the defect and negligence. Feezor is seeking compensation for physical pain, suffering, mental anguish, past and future medical expenses, physical impairment, physical disfigurement and permanent disability.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A new study warns that while the number of long-term opioid prescriptions has dropped over the past 20 years, gabapentin and opioid co-prescribing has increased, raising concerns about overuse and respiratory depression risks.

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on April 8, the study found long-term opioid prescriptions declined by 24%, while co-prescribing of opioids and gabapentin rose to nearly 60%.

Gabapentin Risks

Gabapentinoids, including gabapentin and pregabalin, are anticonvulsant drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nerve pain and seizures. They are sold under brand names Neurontin and Lyrica.

Doctors often prescribe these medications “off-label” for anxiety, alcohol withdrawal, fibromyalgia, sciatica, shingles and hot flashes. However, there are widespread concerns about overuse and abuse, which may cause serious side effects.

Previous research has warned that gabapentin use is rising across the U.S., while a European study found that drugs like Lyrica and Neurontin may be contributing to a growing abuse epidemic. Experts suggest this trend may be partly driven by some states allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe gabapentin.

Gabapentin Co-Prescribing Study

For the new study, researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, analyzed data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database from 2015 through 2023. Led by Dr. Thuy D. Nguyen, the team looked at data from 92% of prescriptions from U.S. retail pharmacies.

The study found signs of progress in addressing the opioid epidemic, with long-term prescriptions for narcotic painkillers, defined as 90 days or more, declining from 5.6 million in 2015 to 4.2 million in 2023, a 24% decrease. However, the findings also show a concerning trend, as co-prescribing of opioids and gabapentin increased from 47% in 2015 to 59% in 2023.

The team identified this trend as disturbing, given recent warnings linking concurrent opioid and gabapentin use to an increased risk of respiratory depression. Also known as hypoventilation, the condition occurs when the body has excess carbon dioxide and low oxygen levels, which can lead to fatigue, confusion and death.

Long-term opioid prescriptions are typically given to patients dealing with chronic pain, but also carry the risk of misuse, overdose and addiction. Those are similar concerns researchers have regarding gabapentin use.

Researchers called for improved guidelines for managing chronic pain to ensure patients can safely take gabapentin when needed, without increasing their risk of abuse and addiction.

Sign up for more health and legal news that could affect you or your family.