An Illinois man has filed a lawsuit alleging that the use of a defective material known as Chronoflex led to a Bard PowerPort port catheter infection, which resulted in the medical implant being removed after less than a year.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Dana Anthony Slater in Illinois circuit court on September 29, naming C.R. Bard Inc., Bard Access Systems Inc and Becton, Dickinson and Company as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 29.

Slater claims he was implanted with a Bard PowerPort device that failed because of the design of the catheter tube. He indicates the tube fractured and allowed bacteria into the implant site.

Bard PowerPort Failures

Bard’s PowerPort is an implanted catheter system designed to provide repeated access to a patient’s bloodstream for administering medications, fluids and other treatments. The device consists of a small port placed beneath the skin and a catheter threaded into a vein, allowing healthcare providers to deliver treatments without inserting a new IV line each time.

However, in recent years, Bard PowerPort devices and several similar port catheters manufactured by AngioDynamics have been linked to reports of device failures, infections, catheter migration, fractures, organ perforation and pulmonary embolisms. Many of these complications have been associated with the catheter material deteriorating, cracking or breaking apart, potentially allowing bacteria to accumulate or fragments to enter the bloodstream and travel to the heart or lungs.

A growing number of individuals are now pursuing Bard PowerPort lawsuits, alleging that defects in the catheter’s design and materials made the devices prone to premature failure. The lawsuits claim that the manufacturer knew, or should have known, about these risks but failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers of the potential for serious complications.

Much of the Bard PowerPort litigation has focused on the use of a material known as Chronoflex, a blend of polyurethane and barium sulfate. The barium sulfate is supposed to make the catheter more visible in x-ray images.

However, independent researchers have warned that the catheter hose may contain too much barium sulfate, which could cause the polyurethane to crack and fail. Court filings claim C.R. Bard has known this for years, yet refuses to change the formulation in order to save money.

Bard PowerPort Infection Allegations

According to the complaint, Slater was implanted with a Bard PowerPort in late July 2024. After the procedure, he began to experience symptoms of infection.

Doctors decided to remove the implant and discovered the root of his infection in December 2024, determining it was caused by the failure of the Chronoflex material.

“At all times complained, there were reasonable safety features and warnings available at the time the product was designed, manufactured, and placed into the stream of commerce that would have reduced or avoided the risk of injury without impairing the product’s utility.”

– Dana Anthony Slater v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al.

Slater raises allegations of strict product liability and negligence. He seeks compensatory damages.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with more than 4,000 similar federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona, where they are undergoing pretrial proceedings, coordinated discovery and a series of early test “bellwether” trials.

Three PowerPort lawsuit trials have already concluded, resulting in a defense verdict in the first trial, currently under appeal and a $40 million jury verdict in the second trial. Another defense verdict was issued at the end of October in the third bellwether trial, which involved claims by May Lattanzio of Florida. A fourth bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2027.

The hope is that the results of the trials, although not binding on other claims, will help attorneys negotiate a global settlement to resolve all or most Bard PowerPort lawsuits.

Similar litigation, involving hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where the complaints are also going through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Eventually, Judge Ohta is expected to formulate a separate bellwether trial program. It is anticipated that the outcomes and rulings of the PowerPort lawsuits will have a significant effect on the AngioDynamics litigation.

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

A new study has detected evidence of chlorpyrifos and other potentially neurotoxic pesticide exposure in infants who died unexpectedly, raising questions about the effects of these chemicals on the developing nervous system.

According to findings published in the European Journal of Pediatrics on October 24, French researchers identified pesticide residues and exposure markers in hair, blood serum and cerebrospinal fluid samples collected from infants who died unexpectedly.

Although the study did not establish that pesticide exposure contributed to the deaths, researchers warned that detecting certain chemicals in the fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord warrants further investigation into potential neurotoxicity.

Chlorpyrifos Pesticide Risks

Previous research has linked prolonged chlorpyrifos exposure to an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, including at levels once considered safe. A 2025 study published in Molecular Neurodegeneration found that individuals with long-term chlorpyrifos exposure faced a 2.5 times greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with those who were not exposed.

Animal experiments also identified a mechanism by which chlorpyrifos may progressively damage dopamine-producing neurons, producing changes similar to those associated with Parkinson’s disease.

As a result, attorneys have begun investigating potential chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits involving Gulf War veterans, farmworkers, landscapers, pest control professionals and others who developed the neurological disorder after repeated or substantial exposure to insecticides marketed under brand names such as Dursban, Lorsban, Raid, Ortho and other products.

Chlorpyrifos Infant Exposure Study

For the new study, a team of French researchers looked at data on 168 infants in France who died unexpectedly between 2020 and 2024. Led by Emmanuel Bourdet, the researchers examined 98 blood serum samples, 97 cerebrospinal fluid samples and 57 hair samples. The infants had a median age of four months at death, and researchers tested the samples for dozens of pesticides and their breakdown products to identify patterns of exposure.

Bourdet’s team detected TCPy, a biomarker associated with chlorpyrifos exposure, in 56.1% of hair samples, along with the pesticides fipronil sulfone in 57.9% and cypermethrin in 56.1%. They also identified several banned but persistent pesticides, including p,p′-DDE, a DDT breakdown product found in every blood serum sample tested.

The DDT breakdown product was also detected in 15.5% of cerebrospinal fluid samples, while another persistent pesticide, β-HCH, was found in 12.4%. These findings suggest certain environmental chemicals can reach the fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord, raising questions about their potential effects on neurological development.

Researchers noted that pesticides can interfere with neurotransmitters involved in the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breathing, heart rate and other involuntary functions. They also found that breastfeeding was associated with higher detection of persistent pesticides in blood serum and cerebrospinal fluid, while younger infants were more likely to have detectable residues in cerebrospinal fluid.

“The detection of pesticides in the cerebrospinal fluid of very young infants warrants further investigation of potential neurotoxicity.”

— Emmanuel Bourdet, Pesticide detection in postmortem serum, hair, and cerebrospinal fluid from cases of sudden unexpected death in infancy: a registry-based study

Because the study lacked a comparison group of unaffected infants, the researchers cautioned that their findings do not establish a connection between pesticide exposure and sudden unexpected infant deaths. They recommended larger comparative studies and expanded testing for other potentially neurotoxic chemicals.

Chlorpyrifos Exposure Lawsuits

As concerns over chlorpyrifos side effects continue to mount, attorneys nationwide are evaluating potential chlorpyrifos injury lawsuits involving individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease following repeated or direct exposure to the pesticide. Potential claims may involve individuals who:

• Mixed, handled or sprayed chlorpyrifos-based insecticides on five or more occasions.
• Lived in or spent time inside homes treated with chlorpyrifos for termites or other pests.
• Were repeatedly exposed to pesticide drift while living or working near agricultural operations.
• Worked at construction sites where chlorpyrifos was applied to soil, foundations or building perimeters.
• Regularly encountered chlorpyrifos while maintaining golf courses, landscaped properties or other treated areas.
• Served in the military during the First Gulf War from 1990 to 1992, when chlorpyrifos was used to control insects at military camps and installations.

A chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawyer can examine the products used, how often and how long exposure occurred, where the pesticide was encountered and the individual’s medical history to assess whether a claim may qualify for compensation through a lawsuit or settlement.

Individuals considering a chlorpyrifos lawsuit can obtain a free case evaluation, with legal fees paid only if compensation is recovered.

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

A joint lawsuit filed against Medtronic indicates two women suffered injuries and emergency medical treatment after the retainer rings holding drug cartridges in place in their MiniMed insulin pumps failed due to problems that later led to a major recall.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Linda Dorn, of Wisconsin, and Brooke Vasquez, of New York, in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County on October 19, naming Medtronic MiniMed Inc., Medtronic Inc. and MiniMed Group Inc. as defendants.

Dorn and Vasquez say the pumps’ retainer rings were defectively designed and improperly manufactured, leading to chipping and breaking. These flaws resulted in a failure to receive the insulin they need as diabetics to regulate their glucose levels. The lawsuit notes that federal regulators found Medtronic failed to turn over adverse event reports detailing retainer ring failures in violation of the law.

Medtronic MiniMed Pump Problems

MiniMed insulin pumps provide diabetics with a steady, continuous flow of insulin throughout the day, providing extra doses when necessary. First introduced in 2006 with the MiniMed Paradigm, Medtronic has since marketed numerous variants and versions.

The pumps consist of a small, computerized device that clips to the belt or is taped to the skin. Using wireless transmissions, this monitors the body’s glucose levels, delivering insulin through a catheter tube when necessary.

Plagued with problems over the years, Medtronic issued a MiniMed 600 series recall in February 2020 due to failures with the retainer rings that could lead to over or under-delivery of insulin. The announcement affected more than 300,000 units, and was linked to more than 26,000 MiniMed pump complaints, including at least 2,175 injuries and one death. The recall was later expanded in October 2021 to include half a million devices.

In light of these concerns, patients are filing Medtronic insulin pump lawsuits over MiniMed failures, accusing the manufacturer of knowing about the problem long before the recalls, and deciding to prioritize profits over patient safety.

Medtronic Insulin Pump Malfunction Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Dorn’s MiniMed insulin pump malfunctioned in March 2017 as the result of a defective retainer ring that caused the device to fail to deliver the proper dose of insulin. The incident led to emergency hospitalization and was one of multiple times the pump failed before a recall was announced.

Dorn claims she has required ongoing medical attention and has paid for much of her treatment out-of-pocket, after Medtronic refused to do so. The problems have allegedly caused her to suffer mental stress, anxiety, worry, humiliation, fear and other personal and financial hardships.

Vasquez states that her MiniMed Model 630G also had a defective retaining ring, which caused the pump to malfunction on January 11, 2021, also requiring hospitalization and emergency treatment. She suffered diabetic ketoacidosis, seizures and other injuries.

Medtronic also refused to pay for medical expenses caused when Vasquez’s device failed, leaving her to pay for treatments out-of-pocket as well. She says she did not learn her device had been the subject of a recall until 2022.

The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to Medtronic, claiming the manufacturer failed to establish proper quality control and corrective action procedures. Inspectors also said the company failed to properly report MiniMed incidents to the agency as required by federal regulations.

The women allege Medtronic knew about the problems with the MiniMed since at least 2016 but left the devices on the market.

“After the FDA conducted an inspection of Medtronic on or around June 7 through July 7, 2021, the FDA issued a warning letter to Medtronic on or around December 9, 2021. The FDA concluded that Medtronic failed to comply with medical device quality system requirements, including by failing to adequately report adverse events, assess risk, and initiate corrective and preventative action.”

– Linda Dorn et al. v. Medtronic MiniMed Inc. et al.

Dorn and Vasquez present claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraud and negligent misrepresentation and concealment. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Medtronic Insulin Pump Lawsuits

The 2021 and 2022 Medtronic recalls were only two of several product removals and corrections involving MiniMed pumps since the devices were first put on the market. These problems have included insulin dosing errors, device malfunctions and cybersecurity weaknesses, resulting in Medtronic insulin pump lawsuits being filed for a variety of reasons over the years.

Of the potential problems, one of the most serious is diabetic ketoacidosis, which occurs when the body lacks enough insulin to break down glucose. This creates dangerous ketone levels that can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, rapid breathing and fruity-smelling breath. It can result in dehydration, organ failure and death without immediate medical care.

Medtronic MiniMed devices are also troubled by cybersecurity vulnerabilities that the FDA warned in 2022 could possibly allow someone to hijack the device through the wireless system and interfere with dosing. The agency warns that when the devices are networked to other wireless systems, such as glucose monitors, the vulnerability increases.

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging he suffered painful injuries and permanent scarring while preparing a family meal with a Sunbeam and Newell Brands MultiCooker electric pressure cooker.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Thomas J. McCree in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 26, naming Sunbeam Products Inc. and Newell Brands Inc. as defendants.

McCree claims the manufacturers failed to warn consumers about known dangers of their electric pressure cooker devices.

Electric Pressure Cooker Risks

Modern pressure cookers are electric kitchen appliances that cook food rapidly by trapping steam inside a sealed chamber, creating high temperatures and pressure. Because the contents can reach dangerously high temperatures, the appliances typically feature safety mechanisms designed to prevent the lid from opening until the internal pressure has been released.

However, a number of pressure cooker lawsuits claim faulty safety features may allow the lids to be unlocked or removed while dangerous pressure remains inside the appliances.

When these mechanisms fail, built-up pressure can force scalding food, liquid and steam out of the cooker, potentially striking anyone nearby. Such incidents can result in severe burns to the face, chest, arms and hands, sometimes requiring hospitalization, skin grafts and prolonged medical treatment.

Sunbeam Multicooker Allegations

According to the complaint, McCree was using a Sunbeam Multicooker electric pressure cooker on May 18, 2025, when it exploded under pressure. He experienced excruciating pain and permanent scarring, suffered severe burns to his left forearm, left wrist and abdomen, and required medical treatment.

McCree maintains that he was using the appliance as intended to prepare food for himself and his family, and had not misused or modified the pressure cooker before the incident.

The lawsuit alleges the Sunbeam Multicooker was defectively designed and manufactured, claiming the device allows users to open the lid while the pressure cooker is still under pressure, or when the device appears to have released pressure, but has not.

As a result, McCree argues the product is unreasonably dangerous for users, and that representations about its safety are misleading, putting users at risk of serious bodily injury.

Moreover, the complaint indicates there were other designs available that were safer, and that Sunbeam failed to test the product or warn consumers of the defects and the danger the device posed to users.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional concealment of such defects, failure to warn consumers of such defects, their negligent representation, failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce and their negligent design of such products, Plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous multicooker, which resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries.”

— Thomas J. McCree v. Sunbeam Products Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks compensation for damages, including serious bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life.

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

A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit accusing a medical device manufacturer’s sales representatives of preventing him from receiving proper medical treatment when his spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant failed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Homer Bailey in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois on October 27. Abbott Laboratories Inc., the manufacturer of the Proclaim Spinal Cord Stimulator System, is named as the defendant.

Bailey, along with numerous other individuals filing lawsuits, claim that not only did Abbott design, manufacture and market a defective medical implant, but the company also deployed sales representatives who overpromised the beneficial effects of SCS implants, regularly assessed the effectiveness of the devices, and reprogramed them despite not being licensed physicians.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Failures

Abbott’s Proclaim is one of several spinal cord stimulation systems designed to treat chronic pain through electrical impulses. The devices consist of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted beneath the skin, electrodes positioned near the spinal cord and an external controller used to adjust stimulation settings.

These implants are intended to provide long-term pain relief by delivering electrical impulses that interfere with pain signals traveling through the spinal cord to the brain. They are generally used when other treatments have failed to provide adequate relief.

However, a growing number of recipients have reported problems involving spinal cord stimulator lead fractures and migration, which can cause the devices to malfunction or deliver stimulation to unintended areas. These complications may result in painful electrical shocks, worsening chronic pain, nerve injuries and the need for additional surgery to repair or remove the implants.

Individuals who experienced these and other complications are now pursuing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against manufacturers including Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro.

The lawsuits raise allegations that manufacturers failed to adequately address known problems with their devices, including changes to stimulation technology, programming software and other components that plaintiffs claim increased the risk of serious complications without sufficient testing or warnings.

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Reprogramming Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Bailey was implanted with the Abbott Proclaim XR5 SCS System in January 2024, for the treatment of chronic pain. Before the permanent implant, he was given an external SCS system for a short trial period to make sure the implant would be effective.

The lawsuit notes that during the process, Bailey met with several Abbott sales representatives, who did not have medical licenses. These individuals allegedly advised Bailey that the permanent implant would be just as effective as the trial device.

However, the lawsuit states it was not.

“On multiple occasions, Plaintiff reported to the Abbott sales representatives that he was experiencing ineffective pain relief and was experiencing unexpected and painful shocking from the SCS device. The representatives represented to him that the complications could be alleviated through programming adjustments, and that the pain relief would be increased through these adjustments.”

– Homer Bailey v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.

In addition to the lack of pain relief, Bailey reported worsening pain as time went on. He underwent additional surgery to have the device removed in October 2024 due to mechanical and therapeutic failure. In light of these conditions, Bailey claims there was no way the sales representatives could have programmed the device so that it was functioning properly. He also indicates they never suggested to him that the implant itself may have failed.

Bailey presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment, and unauthorized practice of medicine. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

SCS Implant Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with other Abbott SCS implant lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois as part of a multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Similar MDLs have been formed for all Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits  and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Central District of California and the Northern District of California, respectively.

The judges are expected to begin preparing for the selection of representative claims to serve as bellwether early test trials, the results of which could help in the negotiation of SCS implant lawsuit settlements.

Meanwhile, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review claims of injuries caused by implant system problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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

The parents of a 31-year-old Seattle woman have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI, claiming its ChatGPT chatbot encouraged their daughter to disregard her doctors’ recommendations and conceal potentially dangerous changes to her prescribed medical treatment.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Qun Wan and Meiqin Xu individually and on behalf of their deceased daughter, Bowen Wan, in the California Superior Court for San Francisco on October 27. It names OpenAI Inc., OpenAI Opco LLC, OpenAI Group PBC and OpenAI CEO Samuel Altman as defendants.

Bowen’s parents claim OpenAI negligently designed ChatGPT, failed to provide adequate warnings and allowed the chatbot to dispense medical advice without appropriate safeguards.

ChatGPT Risks

ChatGPT is one of many recently developed artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs). These programs allow users to ask questions, complete routine tasks and carry on conversations that can resemble interactions with another person. Some individuals have also begun relying on the technology for emotional support, companionship and medical advice.

However, the increasing popularity of conversational AI has raised concerns about its potential effects on users’ mental health, prompting legal challenges against companies responsible for developing and operating the technology.

A number of ChatGPT mental health lawsuits have been filed in recent months against OpenAI, including a wrongful death complaint alleging the chatbot helped a teenager plan his suicide. Researchers have also raised concerns about the potential for AI chatbots to provide children with instructions related to self-harm and other dangerous behaviors.

ChatGPT Medical Advice Allegations

In the months leading up to her death, Bowen Wan faced the loss of her Amazon job and uncertainty over her immigration status. She reportedly believed her epilepsy medication impaired her ability to communicate fluently, potentially jeopardizing her job interviews.

According to the complaint, Bowen had taken lamotrigine, an anti-seizure medication, for years and maintained a stable daily dose of 400 milligrams. The lawsuit alleges ChatGPT reinforced her belief that reducing the medication would improve her language skills and developed a schedule to discontinue it entirely over approximately 25 days.

“Bowen was alone, 5,700 miles away from her only family, living in a rented apartment, on lamotrigine, and cycling in and out of American neurologists who did not always agree on how to treat her. Then, on February 2, 2023, she opened a ChatGPT account.”

— Qun Wan et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.

The lawsuit alleges ChatGPT encouraged Bowen to disregard her physicians’ concerns, conceal the medication reduction from her doctor and decline a blood test that could have revealed falling lamotrigine levels. The chatbot also allegedly undermined her physician’s recommendations concerning the antidepressants citalopram and escitalopram.

Bowen was found dead in her Seattle apartment on February 14, 2026, after her parents became concerned that they could not contact her. The King County medical examiner attributed her death to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).

Her parents allege ChatGPT’s recommendations contributed to Bowen’s death by encouraging her to discontinue medication that had controlled her seizures for years. They maintain that OpenAI prioritized user engagement and growth over safety, allowing the chatbot to provide potentially dangerous medical advice while encouraging users to become increasingly reliant on the technology.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence through the unlawful practice of medicine and psychology, design defect, failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, violation of the unfair competition law, wrongful death and survival action.

It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with court-ordered changes intended to prevent ChatGPT from providing dangerous medical advice. The filing also identifies the case as a proposed addition to JCCP No. 5431, ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, a California proceeding involving similar claims against OpenAI.

ChatGPT Lawsuits

Product liability attorneys are reviewing potential cases involving individuals who experienced serious psychological or physical harms allegedly linked to interactions with AI chatbots, including:

• Suicide or suicide attempts
• Suicidal ideation or self-harm
• Depression or worsening mental health symptoms
• Mania, psychosis or other psychiatric episodes
• Reinforcement of paranoid beliefs or delusions
• Unsafe medical or mental health recommendations
• Emotional attachment or dependence on AI chatbots
• Encouragement of violence or other dangerous conduct

Attorneys handling ChatGPT injury lawsuits offer free case evaluations and represent clients on a contingency fee basis, meaning legal fees are not collected unless compensation is recovered through a settlement or jury verdict.

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

A group of U.S. lawmakers are warning that when online sports betting apps send tons of promotions, VIP offers and free bets, it is because their algorithm thinks the recipient is a potential gambling addict.

On October 22, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Representative Paul Tonko of New York and Representative Valerie Foushee of North Carolina sent letters (PDF) to the CEOs of BetMGM, Caesars, DraftKings, Fanatics, Kalshi and Polymarket, demanding answers about how the companies select customers for VIP programs and other gambling promotions.

The lawmakers raised concerns that sportsbooks may be using customer data to identify individuals who frequently lose money or exhibit signs of gambling addiction, then targeting those same individuals with incentives to continue wagering.

Citing reports of severe financial losses, mental health problems and deaths linked to gambling addiction, the lawmakers are seeking information about how betting companies collect and analyze customer data, whether their algorithms are designed to predict addictive behavior and how that information influences the promotions offered to individual users.

Days later, a CBS News report raised additional concerns about a practice known as “limiting,” in which sportsbooks allegedly restrict promotions and betting opportunities for customers who consistently win. The report suggested that while profitable bettors may receive fewer incentives, those who frequently lose money may continue receiving offers encouraging them to place additional wagers.

Sports Betting Addiction Risks

The rapid expansion of legalized sports betting has made gambling more accessible than ever, raising concerns about the potential for addiction and the ways online sportsbooks encourage continued wagering.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law that largely prohibited states from authorizing sports betting, allowing individual states to decide whether to legalize the activity. Since then, most states have authorized some form of sports wagering, fueling the growth of mobile betting platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

Unlike traditional gambling, which often required individuals to visit a casino or sportsbook, mobile apps allow users to place wagers from virtually anywhere, at any time. Bettors can gamble on game outcomes, individual player performances and even specific plays or events as they unfold during live sporting events.

This constant accessibility, combined with promotional notifications, free bets and personalized incentives, has raised concerns that online sportsbooks may be encouraging excessive gambling among individuals who are already struggling to control their betting habits.

Those concerns are now central to a growing number of sports betting addiction lawsuits being filed nationwide, which allege that gambling companies use sophisticated algorithms to track customers’ betting patterns, spending habits, losses and other activity to identify those most likely to continue wagering.

According to the lawsuits, rather than using that information to intervene when individuals exhibit signs of problem gambling, sportsbooks allegedly target vulnerable customers with VIP memberships, bonus offers, free bets and other incentives designed to encourage larger and more frequent wagers.

Plaintiffs claim these practices can deepen gambling addictions, leading to substantial financial losses, mounting debt and serious consequences for individuals and their families.

Lawmakers Question Sportsbook VIP Programs

The lawmakers’ letter questions sportsbook VIP programs, where gamblers are often assigned to an individual to personally assist with their use of the platform, offering them uniquely tailored bonuses and enticements. The perks can include access and even tickets to major sporting events, videos from celebrities and athletes and more, at the cost of more wagering.

The letters claim that some companies are now suspected of using artificial intelligence to even more efficiently target potential gambling addicts.

“Unsurprisingly, VIP programs have been at the center of controversy in both independent investigations as well as litigation filed by victims of the gambling industry. FanDuel, for instance, offered one of its VIP customers a personal message from Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Bryce Harper at the height of their addiction. In addition, recent reporting from ProPublica revealed that DraftKings rewarded a journalist who imitated clear signs of problem gambling—including chasing losses, placing nonstop microbets, and betting on obscure events—with a VIP membership.”

– U.S. Lawmakers’ Letters to Sportsbook CEOs

The letters demand CEOs provide information on how many consumers are in their various VIP reward programs, their average winnings and losses, information on promotions sent when gamblers attempted to cut back on their wagering by closing their accounts, and how much revenue the VIP programs bring in. They also seek details of the perks, offers and services provided by the sportsbooks to those VIP customers.

Additionally, lawmakers also want information on how the sportsbooks select who gets offered VIP membership, their average winnings and losses, if those customers had ever requested to suspend their accounts and whether they showed signs of problem gambling or significant hardship.

The lawmakers are calling for the CEOs to answer their questions by November 5.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

The letter comes as an increasing number of  DraftKings sports betting addiction lawsuits and FanDuel sports betting addiction lawsuits continue to be filed nationwide. Many include allegations almost identical to the concerns raised in the lawmakers’ letters, indicating the sportsbooks targeted them with the purpose of fostering addiction and draining their bank accounts.

Sports betting addiction lawyers continue to review potential claims for individuals who suffered significant financial losses or psychological damage due to addictive gambling behaviors against companies including:

Individuals who experienced serious gambling-related losses can request a free and confidential case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. These claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses.

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

A Puerto Rico woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Bissell and Amazon, alleging she suffered burns when a handheld steam cleaner unexpectedly expelled scalding water and steam as she attempted to open its safety cap.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Chaya M. Kaye in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on October 27, naming Bissell Homecare Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com Inc. as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that Amazon’s involvement in advertising, selling, storing and delivering Bissell steam cleaner products makes it part of the distribution chain and potentially liable for injuries or property damage caused by defects in the devices.

Steam Cleaner Dangers

Bissell steam cleaners are designed to remove dirt, grease and grime from household surfaces using heated water and pressurized steam. While these appliances are commonly used to clean countertops, grout and bathroom fixtures, defects that allow hot water or steam to escape unexpectedly can expose users to serious burn injuries.

Concerns about these risks have led to multiple recalls involving millions of Bissell steam cleaners, following hundreds of reports of hot water and steam escaping from the devices during use.

In 2024, approximately 3.2 million Bissell steam cleaners were recalled after consumers reported that the devices could spray or leak hot water and steam, resulting in more than 150 reported burn injuries.

Despite the earlier recall, similar safety concerns continued to emerge. In April 2026, Bissell recalled another 1.7 million steam cleaners following at least 200 reports of unexpected hot water or steam being released from the appliances, including more than 160 reports of burn injuries.

The recurring problems have also raised questions about when Bissell became aware of the alleged defects and whether the company took adequate steps to protect consumers.

A Bissell steam cleaner class action lawsuit filed in October 2026 alleges that the manufacturer continued selling defective products despite knowing they posed a risk of burns. The complaint also claims Bissell delayed its initial recall, failed to provide an adequate remedy for affected consumers and concealed the full extent of the safety problems.

Bissell Steam Cleaner Burn Allegations

According to the latest complaint, Kaye purchased a new Bissell Steam Shot OmniReach steam cleaner from Amazon on October 20, 2025.

Eight days later, the product allegedly failed to release pressure from its tank through the nozzle during use. Kaye claims the steam cleaner’s pressure indicator also failed to accurately warn her that pressure remained inside, leading her to believe it was safe to open the cap. When she attempted to do so, the device suddenly expelled scalding hot water and steam onto her right hand, causing burns that required emergency medical treatment.

Kaye indicates she was treated at Ashford Hospital in San Juan, Puerto Rico, where doctors diagnosed a burn to her right hand and administered medications. She was also prescribed burn cream and pain medication, but claims she continued experiencing pain after the incident, requiring additional medical treatment.

Following the incident, Kaye returned the steam cleaner to Amazon, which accepted the return and issued a refund. The complaint indicates Amazon has retained possession of the allegedly defective device since November 2025.

The steam cleaner was among the models affected by an April 9, 2026, Bissell recall involving attachments that could unexpectedly detach and release hot water or steam. However, Kaye’s lawsuit raises separate allegations that the device’s safety cap could be opened while the tank remained pressurized.

She indicates the steam cleaner lacked a mechanism to prevent the safety cap from being opened in those instances. Instead, the device allegedly relied on users to avoid opening the cap under pressure.

“Any warnings and instructions that accompanied the Product were inadequate to warn of the risk that the tank could retain pressure and expel scalding water when the safety cap was opened.”

— Chaya M. Kaye v. Bissell Homecare Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability and negligence. It seeks damages for physical injuries, mental anguish and emotional suffering, medical expenses, attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court deems just and proper.

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

A Nevada woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that when she was prescribed Ozempic she was told the drug would help control her blood glucose levels and possibly cause her to lose a little weight, but not that she was at risk of losing her sight.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maria David Patten in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 19, naming Novo Nordisk Inc., Ozempic’s manufacturer, as the defendant.

Patten claims the company failed to warn the medical community and patients of the potential risks of permanent blindness as a side effect of Ozempic injections, indicating she has suffered sudden and significant vision loss as a result. Doctors have allegedly informed Patten that her loss of sight is permanent.

Ozempic Blindness Risks

Ozempic (semaglutide) belongs to a class of medications known as GLP-1 receptor agonists and was originally approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Soon it became apparent that the injections also carried noticeable weight loss benefits, leading to an explosion in popularity and a weight loss version known as Wegovy that uses the same active ingredient.

However, recent studies have revealed that Ozempic and other GLP-1 medications, like Mounjaro, Zepbound, Victoza, Rybelsus and Trulicity, may be linked to a rare vision disorder known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The condition can starve the optic nerve of blood, resulting in sudden and permanent vision loss.

In July 2024, Harvard researchers published a study warning that GLP-1 side effects could increase the risk of NAION. The strongest association was with semaglutide-based drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, with data indicating patients given either drug were seven times more likely to develop NAION than those given other treatments.

A number of Ozempic and Wegovy blindness lawsuits are being filed nationwide against Novo Nordisk, indicating the manufacturer knew, or should have known the risks of Ozempic vision loss side effects, but chose to protect its profits instead of patients’ eyesight.

Ozempic Blindness Allegations

According to the complaint, Patten first began giving herself Ozempic injections in August 2022, as directed by her doctor. A little over a year later, in October 2023, she experienced sudden vision loss.

Medical diagnoses revealed that Pattern had developed NAION and ceased use of Ozempic in October 2023. However, her eyesight allegedly continued to worsen.

By May 2024, Patten began suffering from disc edema OS, which is a swelling of the left optic disk, causing blurry vision, dark spots in the field of vision, severe headaches, nausea and other adverse health effects. The lawsuit notes that she has suffered significant loss of vision, which is permanent and has had life-altering effects.

Patten’s lawsuit alleges that the medical community has known since at least 2016 that the eyes contain GLP-1 receptors, with the earliest optic ischemic neuropathy event linked to the medications in 2012, and specifically associated with semaglutide in 2019.

The lawsuit notes that Ozempic’s warning label still does not mention NAION.

“Ms. Patten will never see clearly again as a result of her usage of Ozempic. Novo Nordisk knew or should have known that the use of semaglutide could lead to severe and debilitating injuries suffered by Plaintiff and numerous other patients. Novo Nordisk continues to downplay the risk of NAION and has not changed or provided any warnings to the public and medical community.”

– Maria David Patten v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al.

The filing presents claims of failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Ozempic Lawsuits

Patten’s complaint will be consolidated with other Ozempic blindness lawsuits and similar vision loss claims involving GLP-1 medications in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where U.S. District Judge Karen Marston is overseeing coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Judge Marston is also presiding over a separate group of GLP-1 lawsuits involving gastrointestinal injuries, including stomach paralysis and bowel obstruction. Although the two groups of cases are proceeding on separate tracks, the litigation involves overlapping discovery and coordinated pretrial proceedings.

As the litigation moves forward, Judge Marston is expected to establish a bellwether trial process, selecting a small group of representative cases to go before juries. These early trials will help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The Ozempic stomach paralysis lawsuits are expected to reach trial first, and the outcomes will be closely watched for indications of how juries may evaluate claims against the drugmakers. While the injuries and allegations differ, the early verdicts could influence settlement negotiations involving both Ozempic stomach paralysis and blindness lawsuits.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive GLP-1 lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A New Mexico couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging CooperSurgical distributed defective embryo culture media that lacked magnesium, an essential ingredient for embryo development.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a woman known as L.B. and her husband, K.B., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on October 23, 2026, naming CooperSurgical Inc. as the sole defendant.

The couple claims the defect caused them to lose what they believed was their only remaining embryo screened as both chromosomally normal and female, resulting in additional fertility treatments and lasting emotional distress.

IVF Embryo Risks

During in vitro fertilization (IVF), eggs are retrieved from a woman’s ovaries and fertilized with sperm in a laboratory. The resulting embryos are placed in specialized culture media to support their development before being transferred into the uterus in hopes of achieving pregnancy. IVF treatment can take months or years and cost tens of thousands of dollars.

In late 2023, CooperSurgical issued a LifeGlobal IVF culture media recall after reports indicated that certain batches were interfering with embryo development, potentially causing couples to lose embryos and undergo additional costly fertility treatments.

Since then, dozens of CooperSurgical IVF culture media lawsuits have been filed, alleging manufacturing defects made the products unsafe for developing embryos. The complaints also claim CooperSurgical failed to adequately warn fertility clinics and prospective parents that the defective media could damage or destroy embryos, leaving them unsuitable for transfer.

CooperSurgical Embryo Media Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, L.B. began fertility treatment in November 2020 after being diagnosed with several reproductive conditions. She underwent an egg retrieval in June 2021, experienced severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and later gave birth to the couple’s son in July 2022.

The couple subsequently decided to pursue another pregnancy despite being advised of increased risks associated with complications during the earlier delivery. L.B. underwent months of hormone therapy, daily progesterone injections and a hysteroscopy to prepare for another embryo transfer. On November 30, 2023, the couple’s fertility clinic allegedly thawed and cultured their embryo in one of the recalled CooperSurgical media lots before transferring it.

Filings indicate the couple believed the embryo was their only remaining one screened as both chromosomally normal and female. Pregnancy tests on December 8 and December 11 confirmed the transfer had failed.

The couple initially believed the failure was related to the embryo itself, based on their physician’s assessment. Without knowing about the recalled media, L.B. underwent another round of hormone therapy, daily injections and a second hysteroscopy in January 2024.

On February 2, 2024, their fertility physician informed them that the embryo transferred in November had been exposed to recalled CooperSurgical culture media, which was suspected of contributing to the failed transfer.

Another embryo transfer was attempted on February 7, 2024, using an embryo with less than 85% confidence of normal chromosome 22 pairing. The complaint alleges the higher-risk genetic screening result caused substantial anxiety and prompted additional prenatal testing.

The second transfer resulted in a successful pregnancy, and the couple’s daughter was born on October 22, 2024. However, they claim the earlier embryo loss caused lasting emotional distress, which was compounded when L.B. experienced bleeding and received treatment for a threatened miscarriage in March 2024.

The couple began professional counseling in November 2024.

“The defect made the Recalled Lots unreasonably dangerous. They posed an unreasonable risk of injury to the embryos cultured in them, and to the patients whose bodies and treatment depended on those embryos. A reasonably prudent person with full knowledge of the risk would find it unacceptable.”

— L.B. et al. v. CooperSurgical Inc.

The lawsuit alleges CooperSurgical failed to include magnesium, an essential ingredient for embryo development, in certain batches of its LifeGlobal culture media. L.B. and her husband claim inadequate manufacturing controls, ingredient monitoring and product testing allowed the defective media to be distributed to fertility clinics. They also allege CooperSurgical received reports of arrested embryo development before their November 30 transfer but failed to promptly warn clinics or remove the affected products from use.

The couple raises allegations of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent breach of the continuing duty to warn, loss of consortium, trespass to chattels and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They seek punitive and compensatory damages.

CooperSurgical IVF Settlement

In May 2026, CooperSurgical reached a settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed in March 2024 over allegations that defective LifeGlobal IVF culture media caused embryos to be destroyed during fertility treatments.

The settlement came nearly two years after the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) rejected a request to consolidate similar CooperSurgical lawsuits before one federal judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

At the time, at least 30 lawsuits involving the allegedly defective IVF culture media were pending in federal courts nationwide. However, the JPML determined that formal consolidation was unnecessary, finding that the parties and courts could coordinate the cases informally.

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

A Texas woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against the makers of the SmartPort port catheter claiming the medical implant caused her to contract a candida fungal infection, which can cause thrush and other adverse health effects.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Gretchen Wofford in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 22, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Wofford accuses the companies of manufacturing and marketing defective medical implants made of inferior materials. She says AngioDynamics failed in its duty to provide accurate warnings to patients and the medical community about the SmartPort potentially fracturing and allowing infectious material to take root.

Port Catheter Failures

Port catheters are medical implants consisting of a subdermal port and catheter. They are implanted in patients who require regular drug or fluid injections, like chemotherapy patients. Once the port is implanted, doctors do not have to perform a needle stick every time access to a vein is needed.

In recent months, a growing number of port catheter lawsuits have been filed against AngioDynamics and C.R. Bard, both makers of port catheters, following reports from health care providers that devices such as the SmartPort were fracturing post-implantation. These malfunctions have resulted in bleeding, infections, thrombosis, heart rhythm problems, device migration and pieces of fractured catheter entering the blood stream, putting patients at risk of a pulmonary embolism.

According to numerous individuals’ allegations, manufacturers used too much of a substance known as barium sulfate in the design of the catheter hose, which is inserted into the bloodstream. When too much is added to the polyurethane catheter, it allegedly degrades faster than expected, causing device failure.

Port Catheter Infection Allegations

According to the complaint, Wofford was first implanted with an AngioDynamics SmartPort port catheter in January of this year. The device was implanted on the right side of her chest for the purposes of chemotherapy.

In March, Wofford went to the hospital for brachytherapy, when healthcare professionals diagnosed her as suffering from an acute fever over 105 degrees Fahrenheit that included symptoms of chills, confusion, fatigue and weakness. She was admitted to the hospital for a suspected sepsis infection.

Blood cultures revealed Wofford was suffering from Candida, a fungal infection in the bloodstream. Additional tests tracked the infection back to the SmartPort, which was surgically removed later that month as she was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, antimicrobial and antifungal medications.

The lawsuit states Wofford was hospitalized for 16 days and suffered serious injuries and medical expenses.

Wofford alleges AngioDynamics knew about the problems with the SmartPort long before it was implanted in her, having received a large number of adverse event reports warning of similar problems in patients who received the port catheter implants for years.

“Soon after the SmartPort was introduced to market, which was years before Plaintiff was implanted with her device, Defendants began receiving large numbers of adverse event reports (‘AERs’) from health care providers reporting that the SmartPort was fracturing post-implantation and that fractured pieces were migrating throughout the human body, including to the heart and lungs. Defendants also received large numbers of AERs reporting that SmartPort was found to have perforated internal vasculature.”

– Gretchen Wofford v. AngioDynamics Inc et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Wofford’s complaint is one of many AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed over the manufacturer’s devices, including the SmartPort, Vortex Port, Xcela and others. All federal claims are currently consolidated in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL)

Similar Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed at the federal level have also been consolidated into an MDL in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who has already begun to bring early bellwether test cases to trial.

The first Bard PowerPoert lawsuit ended in a defense verdict, which the plaintiff has challenged, seeking a new trial over alleged improper jury instructions. The second trial ended in a $40 million verdict for a New Mexico woman who said her PowerPort fractured inside of her body, causing a pulmonary embolism.

A third PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trial is currently underway, involving claims of port catheter infection by May Lattanzio of Florida.

While none of these trials are binding on other claims, they are being closely watched, as the results could have a significant impact on any port catheter lawsuit settlement negotiations.

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

Federal safety officials are urging consumers to immediately stop using certain DREO space heaters amid concerns that defective devices may unexpectedly catch fire during use.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the DREO space heater recall on October 29 after receiving 17 reports of space heaters igniting, resulting in three incidents of property damage and one burn injury.

Space Heater Lawsuits

Electric space heaters have been linked to a number of fires and serious injuries in recent years, raising concerns about defective heating elements, overheating and safety features that fail to prevent dangerous temperatures.

Several space heater recalls have been issued following reports of devices overheating or catching fire, while consumers have also filed product liability lawsuits alleging manufacturers failed to adequately protect against these hazards.

In September, a Washington family filed a Vornado heater lawsuit, alleging that a defective electric space heater overheated and sparked a fire that left their son with smoke inhalation injuries.

Similar allegations were raised in an Amazon space heater lawsuit filed by a Texas woman in 2025, who claims she suffered first-degree burns after a heater continued operating overnight despite advertised automatic shutoff protections.

Earlier this week, a lawsuit against TPI Corporation was removed to federal court, alleging that a defective electric heater caused a house fire, causing roughly $150,000 worth of damages.

DREO Space Heater Recall

According to the CPSC report, the new recall involves approximately 338,000 DREO ceramic electric space heaters, model DR-HSH015. An additional 36,300 devices were sold in Canada.

The heaters are black, measure approximately 11.5 inches wide and 13 inches tall, and come with a remote control.

Only units manufactured between April 2025 and January 2026 are affected by the recall. The manufacturing date is printed on a label on the underside of the heater, which also features the “DREO” brand name on the front.

The products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Costco retail locations, as well as online through DREO, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, QVC, Home Depot, B2BRenew and Costco from September 2025 through October 2026 for between $70 and $110.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the space heaters and contact DREO for a free replacement. Owners should unplug the affected heater, destroy it by cutting the electrical cord and follow DREO’s instructions for submitting a photo of the destroyed device.

For more information, contact DREO at 833-820-0887 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or by email at spaceheater@realtimeresults.net. Users with questions can also visit www.dreo.com and click “Product Recalls,” or visit www.recallrtr.com/spaceheater.

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

A silicosis claim brought against one of the leading quartz countertop manufacturers and suppliers in the country has ended with a California jury deciding the company is liable for the majority of a former stoneworker’s damages.

Caesarstone Ltd. announced the verdict in a Form 6-K (PDF) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 26, indicating that the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dennys Rene Rivas Williams.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Williams, who is a former countertop fabricator. Williams worked at Primus Marble in Los Angeles from 2015 through 2022, when he was eventually diagnosed with silicosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling silica dust.  

Williams’ lawsuit indicates he received a double-lung transplant in 2024 when he was only 37 years old. Those lungs are currently failing as well, and he will likely require another double-lung transplant next year. The next set of lungs is only likely to last another three years, after which he will most likely die, according to testimony at the trial held in California Superior Court.

Silica Dust Exposure Concerns

Silicosis is a major health risk that results from exposure to silica dust during the cutting, grinding, polishing and installation of quartz countertops, also known as engineered stone. The progressive lung disease is caused by repeated exposure, frequently occurring among workers in the industry, and often leads to death.

The dust, behaving like minute particles of glass, is known to trigger inflammation and cause permanent scarring in the lungs. Silicosis progression leads to labored breathing, progressing to respiratory failure and death in severe cases. Treatment often involves lung transplants, as the damage from silicosis is irreversible. Even then, as in the case of Williams, the disease may continue to progress.

Health experts, and numerous individuals pursuing silicosis lawsuits, allege that manufacturers of quartz countertops and other forms of engineered stone have failed to warn workers about the true risks of silica dust exposure. They also indicate companies have failed to provide adequate silica dust suppression systems in workplaces and did not provide workers with proper protective equipment.

Silicosis Lawsuit Verdict

In its SEC filing, Caesarstone indicates Williams was awarded $67.3 million in damages. The jury apportioned 69.1% of the fault to Caesarstone, representing approximately $46.5 million of the total award, although the company noted that the amount could change through post-trial proceedings.

The form notes that Caesarstone continues to face multiple silicosis lawsuits filed by stonecutters, fabricators and countertop installers across California state courts, the heart of the engineered stone industry. Those lawsuits have been consolidated into a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County before Judge Elihu Berle and Judge Robert B. Broadbelt for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Caesarstone says it is considering its available actions, with the SEC filing referencing the possibility of post-trial remedies and an appeal.

Silicosis Lawsuits

As silicosis lawsuits consolidated into the JCCP continue to be prepared for trial, new claims are being filed in both federal and state courts by workers who say they developed the potentially deadly lung disease. Quartz countertop industry workers may be eligible for compensation if they have a medical diagnosis of:

• Silicosis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Lung infections, including tuberculosis

Silicosis lawyers continue evaluating potential claims for quartz countertop workers throughout the United States who developed silicosis following workplace exposure to silica dust. Free consultations are available to help determine whether affected workers may qualify to pursue financial compensation.

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

A Texas resident has filed a product liability lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging a spinal cord stimulator caused serious complications that continued even after the device was surgically removed more than five years later.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Dayton Williams in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 20, naming Abbott Laboratories as the sole defendant.

Williams claims Abbott made significant changes to its spinal cord stimulators without adequate testing or warnings, exposing patients to potentially serious complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implantable medical devices that deliver electrical impulses intended to interfere with pain signals traveling to the brain. The systems typically include a battery-powered generator, electrodes and connecting leads implanted beneath the skin near the spine, along with an external controller that allows stimulation levels to be adjusted.

Reports of spinal cord stimulator complications have raised concerns about devices malfunctioning unexpectedly, delivering painful electric shocks, shifting out of position or eroding through the skin. Patients have also described burning sensations, increased pain, nerve injuries and other problems associated with the implants.

Some patients allege their injuries were aggravated by company sales representatives who frequently assist with programming the devices despite lacking medical licenses. The representatives may adjust stimulation settings to address pain complaints, sometimes allegedly without sufficient supervision from a physician, potentially exposing patients to additional risks.

These concerns have led to a number of Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits along with similar claims involving devices manufactured by Boston Scientific, Nevro and Medtronic. Complaints allege defects in the implants and raise concerns about device programming or adjustments performed by company representatives without appropriate medical oversight.

Abbott Proclaim Elite Malfunction Allegations

According to the complaint, Williams received an Abbott Proclaim Elite spinal cord stimulator on April 5, 2019, after undergoing a temporary trial to determine whether the treatment could relieve his chronic pain.

Before the permanent implantation, an Abbott representative identified only as “Kassie” allegedly assured Williams the device was safe, clinically validated and capable of providing long-term pain relief comparable to the trial system. She also indicated it would reduce his need for additional chronic pain treatments.

Following surgery, Abbott representatives, including Kassie, allegedly programmed the device and repeatedly adjusted its therapeutic settings without meaningful physician supervision. The lawsuit claims the representatives were not licensed medical professionals, raising concerns that company personnel were improperly making treatment decisions.

After implantation, Williams allegedly experienced inadequate pain relief, worsening nerve pain and unpredictable electrical shocks. The complaint also describes interruptions in therapy, communication failures and lead migration.

Despite these complications, Abbott representatives allegedly continued to assure Williams that reprogramming could resolve the problems, attributing his symptoms to underlying medical conditions rather than the device.

On October 23, 2024, Williams underwent surgery to permanently remove the Proclaim Elite system because of its alleged mechanical failures and inability to provide adequate pain relief, maintaining that pain and other complications have persisted despite the removal.

The lawsuit also alleges Abbott substantially modified its original spinal cord stimulator platform through successive FDA premarket approval supplements without conducting adequate new clinical testing. Williams claims the changes affected the devices’ firmware, stimulation patterns, batteries and wireless programming, introducing risks that were not properly disclosed to patients or physicians.

“The defects in the Proclaim Elite system, its design, firmware, labeling, and risk disclosure, were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. These defects existed at the time the device left Abbott’s control and were not known or reasonably knowable to Plaintiff or his physicians at the time of implantation.”

— Dayton Williams v. Abbott Laboratories

Williams raises allegations of manufacturing defects, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of warranties and unauthorized practice of medicine. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, medical expenses, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The lawsuit follows a recent decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize all Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins will oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings involving the claims.

The panel also established a separate multidistrict litigation (MDL) for Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Northern District of California. Meanwhile, Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits have already been consolidated in the Central District of California, where U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton is expected to begin selecting representative cases for early bellwether trials.

As the litigation moves forward, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are continuing to investigate potential claims involving device malfunctions and complications such as:

Individuals who believe they suffered injuries that may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can obtain a free case review. Lawyers pursuing these claims work on a contingency fee basis, requiring no upfront payment and collecting legal fees only if compensation is obtained.

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

A Nevada man has filed a product liability lawsuit after doctors discovered part of a Bard G2 Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter stabbing into his heart.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christopher O’Leary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on October 20, naming C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. as the defendants.

O’Leary claims he suffered severe chest pain and had to undergo additional surgeries due to repeated attempts to retrieve the broken strut from the fat surrounding his heart. He accuses C.R. Bard of designing a defective medical implant that put patients at unnecessary risk of severe injuries and death.

IVC Filter Concerns

IVC filters are often implanted in patients who suffer from deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and other blood clot-related conditions, preventing the clots from moving into the heart and lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism.

Bard is not the only manufacturer of the small, spider-like devices, which also include Cook Medical’s Celect and Gunther Tulip IVC filters. Reports involving both manufacturers’ products include similar incidents of the devices fracturing, migrating out of position, and causing organ perforations.

This has led to numerous individuals filing IVC filter lawsuits against both manufacturers, alleging they failed to adequately design and test their IVC filters before placing the devices on the market.

Bard IVC Filter Fracture Allegations

According to the complaint, O’Leary first received a Bard G2 IVC Filter System in July 2009. However, he began to experience chest pain and admitted himself to the hospital in April 2026.

Doctors performed a number of tests, finding O’Leary suffered from pleuritic chest pain, abnormal EKG, hypertension and other heart abnormalities. A CT scan revealed a small angular piece of metal piercing his epidural fat, which surrounds the heart. The object was identified as a strut from the Bard G2 Filter that had broken off and traveled through O’Leary’s bloodstream to his heart.

Between early May and June of this year, O’Leary underwent several procedures, where doctors attempted to remove the strut, but had difficulty due to its location. On May 2026, they removed the original IVC filter, noting a fragment could not be removed despite multiple attempts. The piece from his heart was removed in early June, and the final piece of the filter that had been stuck in his vena cava was removed on June 26.

According to the lawsuit, C.R. Bard was aware of problems with the IVC filter for years through various incident reports from doctors and patients. However, O’Leary alleges that the company chose to continue marketing the faulty device for the sake of the company’s bottom line.

“Despite having knowledge as early as 2005 of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the product, Bard and BPV consciously disregarded the known risks and continued to actively market and offer for sale the G2 Filter System and the G2 Express.”

– Christopher O’Leary v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al.

O’Leary indicates he suffered permanent and continuing injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, pain, suffering, impairment and emotional trauma, all of which have diminished his ability to take care of the affairs of daily life.

The lawsuit raises allegations of manufacturing defect, information defect/failure to warn, design defect, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional/fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The complaint is one of thousands of Bard IVC filter lawsuits the manufacturer has faced, which were once consolidated in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

However, most of those cases have been settled, following a number of bellwether trials and massive verdicts against C.R. Bard. In 2019, Judge Campbell remanded Bard IVC filter lawsuits that did not settle back to the U.S. District Court where they would have originally been filed.

A similar multidistrict litigation (MDL) is currently centralized and underway in the District of Southern Indiana before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young, who is handling the Cook IVC filter claims.

Judge Young has also directed attorneys to prepare a group of representative cases to serve as potential bellwether test trials. However, he is encouraging the parties to pursue settlement negotiations, which have reportedly progressed over the past year, leading to the possibility that large numbers of claims could be resolved without requiring thousands of separate trials.

If the bellwether process does not lead to a broader resolution, Judge Young may begin returning unresolved cases to the federal courts where they were originally filed for preparation for individual trial dates.

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

An insurance company has filed a product liability lawsuit against TPI Corporation, alleging a defective electric heater caused extensive property damage at a policyholder’s home.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alfa Mutual Insurance Company on behalf of its insured, James Brown, in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, on August 23. It names TPI Corporation as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on October 26.

Alfa Mutual Insurance claims the defective heater caused a house fire that resulted in $147,468.87 in insurance payments for structural damage, personal property losses, additional living expenses and related costs, which the company now seeks to recover from TPI.

Electric Heater Fire Risks

Electric heaters rely on electrical controls, thermostats and safety mechanisms to regulate temperatures and prevent overheating. When these components malfunction, heaters may generate excessive heat, fail to shut off properly or create fire hazards even when they are not actively being used.

Concerns about defective electric heaters have been raised in other product liability lawsuits involving fires, burn injuries and property damage.

In September 2026, a Washington family filed a Vornado heater lawsuit, alleging their son suffered smoke inhalation injuries when a defective electric heater overheated and caught fire.

Similarly, a Texas woman filed an Amazon space heater lawsuit in 2025, claiming she suffered first-degree burns when an electric heater failed to shut off overnight as advertised, despite being positioned five feet away.

Electric Heater House Fire Allegations

According to Alfa Mutual’s complaint, a TPI-brand 22R30-2 electric heater located in a bedroom caused a house fire at James Brown’s home in Mentone, Alabama, on January 26, 2026.

A subsequent joint examination allegedly revealed that the heater, which featured low, high and off settings, would automatically begin generating heat when surrounding temperatures dropped, even while switched off. Alfa Mutual claims an internal electrical defect caused the malfunction, igniting nearby combustible materials and sparking the fire.

The complaint also claims TPI failed to adequately test the product, incorporate available safer designs or provide sufficient warnings about potential fire hazards.

“TPI owed a duty of reasonable care to James Brown to design, manufacture, test, inspect, market, and/or supply the electric heater in a manner that would not pose a fire hazard during foreseeable residential use.”

– Alfa Mutual Insurance Company v. TPI Corporation

The lawsuit raises claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), as well as separate allegations of negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Alfa Mutual seeks reimbursement for $147,468.87 in insurance payments, along with additional damages, storage fees, expert expenses, interest, attorney fees and court costs.

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

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal hair relaxer lawsuits indicates that attorneys have selected five claims to serve as the final early test trials in litigation alleging exposure to popular chemical straighteners can cause reproductive cancers.

Cosmetics companies such as L’Oreal and Soft-Sheen face more than 12,000 product liability lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by women who say the manufacturers failed to adequately warn users that regular exposure to hair relaxers like Dark & lovely, Just for Me and Optimum could increase the risk of uterine, ovarian and endometrial cancer.

A National Institutes of Health published study in late 2022 determined that regular chemical straightener use was linked to a significantly increased risk of uterine cancer. Researchers found that women who used the products more than four times per year faced a 156% increased uterine cancer risk, while those who used them between one and four times annually faced a 56% increased risk.

Since 2023, all federal hair relaxer lawsuits have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The litigation also involves a series of “bellwether” trials designed to present representative claims to juries and gauge how they respond to evidence and testimony expected to be common to many of the hair relaxer injury lawsuits.

Judge Rowland and lawyers for both sides started with a pool of 32 potential hair relaxer lawsuit bellwether trial cases.

Attorneys for both sides then submitted 12 proposed cases for the final bellwether pool, but Judge Rowland declined to adopt their recommendations and instead selected 10 lawsuits herself. Her criteria required each case to name at least three defendants and excluded women reporting memory loss, certain mental health conditions or learning disabilities, as well as those pursuing separate talcum powder cancer lawsuits involving similar reproductive cancers.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

In a Notification of Docket Entry (PDF) issued on October 22, Judge Rowland announced that the parties had submitted an email identifying the five final bellwether cases. Selected hair relaxer lawsuits include those by:

• Bridget Boatwright (PDF), of New York, who was diagnosed with uterine and endometrial cancer in 2023, following years of using Optimum, ORS Olive Oil and other hair straighteners.
• Carrie Chapman (PDF), also of New York, who received an endometrial cancer diagnosis in 2017 after regular use of ORS Olive Oil, Dark & Lovely, Optimum and Crème of Nature products.
• Charlene Fennell (PDF), of New Jersey, received an endometrial diagnosis in 2022 after years of Just for Me, Crème of Nature and Dark & Lovely use.
• Gloria Ford (PDF), from Maryland, used ORS Olive Oil, Dark & Lovely and others before receiving an ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2011.
• Karla Smith (PDF), of New York, was diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2018, following 40 years of using Dark & Lovely, Optimum, Luster’s Pink Oil, ORS Olive Oil, African Pride and Crème of Nature.

Judge Rowland previously indicated that the first hair relaxer lawsuit bellwether trial will begin on September 7, 2027. A series of case management conferences are also scheduled for the months preceding the trial. Those conferences will allow the court and parties to address discovery disputes, expert issues, motions and other trial preparations as the first bellwether case approaches. However, the judge has not yet named which claim will go first.

Although the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on other complaints, the verdicts could have significant impact on any negotiations toward securing a settlement agreement to resolve the litigation.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

As the first hair relaxer lawsuits get prepared for bellwether trials, hair relaxer lawyers are continuing to review claims for women who regularly used chemical straighteners and were diagnosed with serious reproductive cancers, such as:

• Uterine cancer
• Endometrial cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Uterine sarcoma and other uterine malignancies

Free consultations are available to determine whether individuals and families of individuals who received reproductive cancer diagnoses qualify to pursue a claim. All claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are never any fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

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

A New York man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a defective FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus glucose sensor repeatedly reported dangerously low blood sugar levels, leading him to seek emergency medical treatment for a suspected diabetic crisis that hospital tests ultimately found had not occurred.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Andrew Vincent in New York Supreme Court on October 20, naming Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories and other unidentified entities as defendants.

Vincent claims Abbott failed to provide timely notice of a known sensor problem, leaving him unaware of a potentially relevant safety warning until after his emergency room visit.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Recalls

The FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus are wearable continuous glucose monitors that measure blood sugar levels throughout the day, helping people with diabetes make treatment decisions, including how much insulin to administer.

In July 2024, Abbott announced a FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor recall after discovering that certain devices could produce falsely elevated glucose readings. The FDA classified the recall as Class I in September 2024, its most serious designation, which is reserved for product problems that may cause severe injuries or death.

A separate FreeStyle Libre 3 recall was initiated in November 2025, affecting more than 3 million FreeStyle Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus sensors that could display glucose levels lower than they actually were. Following reports of hundreds of injuries and multiple deaths, the FDA classified the action as a Class I recall in January 2026.

The recalls have been followed by a growing number of FreeStyle Libre 3 lawsuits, which allege that inaccurate blood sugar readings caused users to make unsafe diabetes treatment decisions, leading to hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and other potentially life-threatening complications.

DKA occurs when the body lacks sufficient insulin and begins producing excessive ketones, causing dangerous levels of acid to build up in the bloodstream. Without prompt treatment, the condition can be fatal.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus Sensor Defect Claims

According to the complaint, Vincent was traveling in the Florida Keys on December 26, 2025, when his FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensor repeatedly displayed dangerously low blood sugar readings, including measurements of 44 mg/dL and 41 mg/dL, which he interpreted as signs of a potential hypoglycemic emergency.

Vincent claims he did not have access to a finger-stick blood glucose meter to independently confirm the sensor’s measurements. He says he took steps to address the apparent low blood sugar and sought emergency treatment at Mariners Hospital/Baptist Health in Tavernier, Florida.

However, hospital testing produced blood sugar readings of approximately 183 mg/dL and 184 mg/dL, substantially higher than those displayed by Vincent’s sensor. The lawsuit maintains that the discrepancy, along with a subsequent physician’s assessment, supports his claim that the device malfunctioned.

Hospital records also documented blood pressure of 191/109 and a heart rate of 108 beats per minute. Vincent claims the apparent emergency caused him distress and physical discomfort, and he paid $500 for the emergency department visit.

The complaint cites a letter from Halper Family Medicine indicating that Vincent’s emergency visit resulted from a malfunctioning continuous glucose monitor that consistently reported low readings, and that the physician considered emergency evaluation appropriate because Vincent lacked access to a finger-stick meter.

Court filings also reference a notice from Fidelis Care/Express Scripts dated December 16, 2025, concerning the November 24, 2025 safety alert. The notice reportedly warned that a recently filled FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus prescription might be affected by a recall or safety issue involving inaccurate readings.

Although the notice was dated 10 days before the December 26 incident, Vincent claims he did not receive it until afterward. He maintains Abbott failed to provide timely and effective warnings that would have allowed him to identify and stop using a potentially affected sensor. An earlier warning may also have prompted him to stop relying on the sensor and obtain a replacement or alternative glucose monitoring method, potentially avoiding the emergency room visit.

“The subject sensor contained a manufacturing defect when it left the responsible manufacturer’s control, causing it to generate falsely low readings rather than perform within its intended glucose-monitoring specifications.”

— Andrew Vincent v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of manufacturing defect, negligence, failure to warn and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks at least $250,000 in compensatory damages, along with recoverable medical expenses, other proven losses, interest and court costs.

Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 Lawsuits

Abbott faces a number of lawsuits alleging that defective FreeStyle Libre glucose sensors provided inaccurate blood sugar readings, causing users to make inappropriate insulin dosing and diabetes management decisions that resulted in serious health complications.

Individuals who suffered severe injuries after relying on a recalled FreeStyle Libre 3 or FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus continuous glucose monitor may qualify for financial compensation. Reported injuries and complications associated with allegedly faulty glucose readings include:

• Wrongful death
• Severe hypoglycemia
• Seizures
• Confusion
• Loss of consciousness
• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Other acute metabolic emergencies requiring hospitalization

FreeStyle Libre 3 lawyers are reviewing potential cases throughout the United States on behalf of individuals and families affected by allegedly defective glucose sensors. Case evaluations are free and confidential, with no attorney fees unless a financial recovery is obtained.

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

A federal court in North Carolina is hosting the first Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit trial, involving claims by a man diagnosed with chronic kidney disease after living on the base for only four years.

The U.S. government faces about half a million administrative claims and lawsuits from veterans, workers and families who lived and worked on the North Carolina U.S. Marine training base between the mid-1950s and late 1980s, claiming they suffered a wide array of cancers and other ailments after being exposed to the heavily chemical-laced water on the base.

Individuals filed the complaints during a two-year window from August 2022 through August 2024, following passage of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), which promised financial compensation for individuals diagnosed with ailments linked to the chemicals that had contaminated water on the base for decades. However, critics say the government has slow-walked and avoided resolution of a large number of claims.

In September 2023, the government announced an elective settlement option for Camp Lejeune lawsuits, but that option has resulted in very few claims being resolved.

The lawsuits have been overseen by four different U.S. District Judges in the Eastern District of North Carolina, including Richard E. Myers II, Terrence W. Boyle, Louise W. Flanagan and James C. Dever III. The judges have worked over the last couple years to prepare a series of trials involving different categories of injuries to serve as bellwether trials to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Camp Lejeune Bellwether Trials

The judges established a Camp Lejeune bellwether lawsuit Track 1 criteria in October 2023, in which the parties selected a group of 100 cases to go through early discovery involving the following five categories of injuries:

• Bladder cancer
• Kidney cancer
• Leukemia
• Parkinson’s disease
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

That list was later narrowed to 25 claims, including five from each category. The cases will be resolved through a series of bench trials, the first of which began on Monday, October 26 involving claims by Frank Mousser, of Texas, who indicates his kidney cancer is the result of four years of exposure to the tainted water on the base.

Camp Lejeune Kidney Cancer Lawsuit

Mousser’s original complaint (PDF) was filed in March 2023, indicating he served on the base from October 1982 through September 1986. He notes that the government acknowledges that the base’s water was contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been linked to an increased risk of kidney cancer.

His attorneys filed a Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (PDF) on October 19 ahead of the trial, calling for the judges to decide in Mousser’s favor.

“On August 25, 2020, at age 57, Mr. Mousser was found to have a 3.7 cm mass within his right kidney, which was diagnosed as a high-grade papillary upper tract urothelial carcinoma. On October 20, 2020, surgeons removed Mr. Mousser’s right kidney, its ureter, and a small cuff of his bladder, then filled his bladder with a chemotherapy drug to reduce the risk of recurrence.”

– Frank Mousser v. United States of America

On October 23, plaintiffs counsel also filed an administrative motion (PDF) to conduct a census of all remaining cases, which they say will help the parties reach a global resolution to the litigation. This would give both sides an accurate representation of what a global settlement would entail.

The outcomes of Mousser’s bench trial will not be binding on the other Camp Lejeune lawsuits, but is specifically being held early in hopes that the outcome will lead to a settlement agreement to resolve all of the pending lawsuits and administrative claims.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against several major tobacco companies and retailers, alleging they concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking and misled consumers about the products’ health risks and addictive properties.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mae Ann Humphries in Illinois Circuit Court on September 21, naming R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Walgreen Co. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 22.

Defendants argue that Walgreens was improperly named because it did not design or manufacture the cigarettes Humphries smoked. They maintain that her negligence and strict liability claims against the retailer are legally insufficient.

Humphries says she began smoking cigarettes as a teenager in the mid-1960s. She claims she was unaware of the serious health risks that tobacco companies allegedly failed to disclose, leading to her addiction and eventual development of lung cancer.

Cigarette Injury Lawsuits 

Cigarettes have been at the center of numerous lawsuits alleging the products are addictive and harmful to human health. Many of these claims highlight steps tobacco executives took to conceal the dangerous effects of their products, as well as deceptive marketing tactics and efforts to downplay tobacco’s addictive qualities.

In 2015, three of the largest U.S. tobacco companies settled nearly 400 lawsuits filed by smokers or their decedents, alleging the companies hid information about cancer risks associated with smoking. The settlement paid more than $100 million to plaintiffs in the “Engle progeny” lawsuits.

In another “Engle progeny” lawsuit, a Florida jury awarded more than $23.6 billion in punitive damages in 2014 to the family of a smoker who died of lung cancer, following allegations that tobacco companies deliberately misled consumers about the dangers of smoking.

Tobacco Company Marketing Allegations

According to the complaint, Humphries began smoking Kool cigarettes at age 16 in 1966, switching to Newport 100s in the early 1980s. She continued smoking until 2016 and was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2024.

Humphries claims the cigarettes, which were manufactured by R.J. Reynolds and purchased from Walgreens stores, were unreasonably dangerous and caused her to develop lung cancer.

The filing alleges the defendants knew or should have known that smoking cigarettes greatly increased the risk of developing a number of health conditions. However, they allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care to warn consumers of the risks and dangers cigarettes pose, including lung cancer, laryngeal cancer, emphysema, COPD, heart disease, and other forms of cancer and disease.

Moreover, Humphries argues the companies designed cigarettes to be addictive and habit forming, and knew the products would lead to dependence, especially if a user began smoking at a young age.

Humphries alleges tobacco companies engaged in a decades-long campaign to mislead consumers about smoking risks, beginning with the industry’s 1954 “Frank Statement,” which questioned whether cigarettes caused cancer and maintained that further research was needed.

The complaint also cites testimony by tobacco executives before Congress in 1994, when they denied that cigarettes were addictive. Humphries maintains the companies continued making false or misleading statements about smoking risks and nicotine addiction for decades.

Humphries further alleges the companies concealed information about the health effects of cigarettes, failed to adequately test the products, failed to remove them from the market or recall them, failed to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, and added additives such as menthol to make them easier to inhale and be more addictive.

“Defendant was negligent in utilizing tobacco and/or re-constituted tobacco that was high in nitrosamines, nitrates, nicotine, carcinogens, and other substances deleterious, poisonous, and highly harmful when alternative, less dangerous, materials were available to be used in the manufacturing process.”

— Mae Ann Humphries v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company et al.

The complaint raises claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation and willful and wanton conduct against R.J. Reynolds, conspiracy claims against the three tobacco manufacturers, and negligence and strict liability claims against Walgreens.

Humphries seeks compensatory damages for lung cancer, medical expenses, pain and suffering and other injuries allegedly resulting from decades of cigarette smoking.

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

A Massachusetts man has filed a lawsuit alleging DraftKing employees disregarded state gambling laws by offering to personally take his sports wagers to an out-of-state casino and place them for him.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Samuel Cannarozzi in Massachusetts Superior Court on October 15, naming DraftKings Inc., RMH NH LLC, doing business as The Brook, and Rach Mesquite Casino Inc. as defendants.

Cannarozzi claims he “lost everything he owned” as a result of DraftKings violating state and federal gambling laws, as well as its own policies, in an effort to exploit someone it knew was a gambling addict.

Sportsbook Gambling Risks

DraftKings is one of several online sports betting apps that have risen to prominence after a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that allowed each state to decide for itself whether sports betting could be legalized. Most states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have already agreed to allow sports gambling in their jurisdictions.

As a result, apps like DraftKings and FanDuel allow consumers to place wagers from home and on live events, instead of having to travel to a casino. These apps then send promotions, like “free bets” bonus rewards and VIP programs, which critics say are targeted toward those who appear to be susceptible to gambling addiction.

A number of consumers, especially young men, have filed DraftKings gambling lawsuits and FanDuel gambling lawsuits in federal and state courts across the country. Claims maintain that the sportsbook operators intentionally use algorithms to analyze and target potential gambling addicts to encourage them to make larger and more frequent wagers, despite the obvious financial harm it causes.

DraftKings Illegal Gambling Allegations

According to the complaint, DraftKings encouraged Cannarozzi to continue placing large wagers through its VIP program, offering personalized promotions, special treatment and direct access to company representatives who allegedly had a financial interest in keeping him gambling.

One representative, identified as Tucker, reportedly told Cannarozzi he had been selected for VIP status because his recent wagering activity “looked strong.” However, Cannarozzi alleges that the program was designed to encourage heavy gamblers to continue betting, rather than reward customers for their success.

At one point, Cannarozzi attempted to limit his gambling by requiring himself to travel to The Brook casino in New Hampshire whenever he wanted to place a wager. The trip involved a 90-minute drive from his Massachusetts home, creating an inconvenience he hoped would help control his betting habits.

However, the lawsuit claims DraftKings representatives offered to eliminate that obstacle entirely.

Another employee, identified as Michael Walsh, allegedly explained that he and a worker at The Brook lived in Massachusetts and regularly traveled to the New Hampshire casino. Rather than making the drive himself, Cannarozzi was told he could submit wagers by phone or text, and the employees would place the bets on his behalf.

The arrangement allegedly allowed Cannarozzi to gamble from his Massachusetts home despite state restrictions on placing those wagers. Casino employees would then send photographs of the betting tickets, while any winnings could either be applied toward future bets or delivered to him during an in-person meeting.

According to the complaint, the arrangement continued for nearly two years, with Cannarozzi exchanging approximately 400 text messages with Walsh and another DraftKings employee between November 2023 and October 2025.

The lawsuit alleges the employees went to considerable lengths to accommodate his gambling activity. Some wagers were reportedly placed through other customers’ high-roller accounts to obtain promotional benefits, while employees allegedly offered to remain at the casino after normal operating hours to accommodate bets on West Coast sporting events.

Cannarozzi claims the employees received tips ranging from $200 to $350 for their assistance and were aware that the arrangements violated state gambling laws.

During that same period, Cannarozzi says he accumulated approximately $600,000 in gambling losses, which he attributes to the unlawful betting arrangements and DraftKings’ efforts to encourage continued wagering.

“As a result Cannarozzi lost everything he owns, All of these losses were enabled by the unlawful conduct of DraftKings and The Brook.”

— Samuel Cannarozzi v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Massachusetts gaming laws. Cannarozzi seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Cannarozzi’s claim is one of an increasing number of gambling addiction lawsuits filed against sports betting operations nationwide, which individuals say are using high technology to exploit signs of gambling addiction, ruining lives and livelihoods for the sake of profits.

DraftKings gambling addiction attorneys are reviewing potential claims for those who experienced significant financial losses or psychological damage due to addictive gambling behaviors, allegedly fueled by DraftKings and other sportsbook promotions and rewards. Companies that may be involved in these claims include:

Individuals who experienced serious gambling-related losses can request a free and confidential case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. These claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses.

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 has filed a lawsuit alleging that a man posing as a child contacted a 9-year-old girl through Roblox and convinced her to move their conversations to Snapchat, where he allegedly subjected her to sexual exploitation.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by an adult identified as KG-GAL 0006 on behalf of a minor known only as KG-JD 0006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 16. It names Roblox Corporation, Snap Inc. and other unidentified entities as defendants.

The lawsuit claims both companies failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect young users, allowing the alleged predator to establish contact with the child and continue the abuse across both platforms.

Roblox and Snapchat Sexual Abuse Risks

Roblox is a popular online gaming platform where users, including young children, can create and play games, explore virtual environments and communicate with others through messaging features.

A growing number of Roblox child sexual abuse lawsuits raise concerns about the platform’s ability to distinguish adult users from children and prevent predators from exploiting its communication features. The complaints allege that insufficient age verification and monitoring allow adults to misrepresent their identities and develop inappropriate relationships with minors.

Snapchat, meanwhile, allows users to exchange private messages, photos and videos, many of which automatically disappear after being viewed. Lawsuits involving the application allege that these disappearing messages, combined with inadequate parental controls and other safety deficiencies, can make it difficult to detect abusive communications, preserve evidence and prevent sexual exploitation.

Snapchat Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

According to the complaint, KG-JD 0006 was approached through a Roblox game by an adult man who falsely represented himself as a child her age. The man allegedly developed a relationship with the girl and gained her trust by pretending to be a peer. He then persuaded her to add him on Snapchat, moving the relationship from the gaming platform to a social media application.

KG-GAL 0006 claims the predator convinced the girl they were romantically involved, professed his love and threatened to end the relationship when she did not respond quickly enough. She goes on to allege that he manipulated KG-JD 0006 into sending sexually explicit photographs.

The girl’s mother allegedly noticed behavioral changes, including signs of depression. After arranging therapy, she examined her daughter’s phone and discovered the communications.

Filings indicate the mother reported the incident to local police, who retained the phone as part of an investigation. The complaint states that the investigation remains ongoing.

The lawsuit claims Roblox and Snapchat have become interconnected tools for child predators, with Roblox serving as an initial point of contact where adults can pose as children and gain their trust before moving conversations to Snapchat. Once there, the complaint alleges predators can exploit private messaging features and inadequate safety protections to manipulate children into sharing sexually explicit images or engaging in increasingly dangerous interactions.

“Leveraging the trust cultivated on Roblox, the predator manipulated Plaintiff into adding him on Snapchat. As discussed above, this cross-platform connection is a documented exploitation pathway that both Roblox and Snap profit from and refuse to disrupt.”

— KG-GAL 0006 et al. v. Roblox Corporation et al.

Snapchat’s disappearing-message features can allegedly make abusive communications more difficult for parents to discover. In addition, its Quick Add feature could make minors easier for adults to locate, although Snap did introduce restrictions for teenage accounts in January 2022.

However, the complaint criticizes Snap’s age verification practices and the absence of parental controls before late 2022. The lawsuit also references Snap’s internal research and reports of child sexual exploitation to argue that the company was aware of the risks.

The filing raises allegations of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, design defect and failure to warn. It seeks past, present and future general, economic and special damages for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and medical treatment.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

KG-JD 0006’s complaint is one of at least 180 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits currently pending before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, where the federal cases have been consolidated for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As the cases progress, Judge Seeborg is expected to develop a bellwether trial process, selecting a small group of representative lawsuits to go before juries first. While the outcomes will not be binding on other claims, they could provide insight into how juries may interpret evidence and testimony presented throughout the litigation.

Earlier this year, the court also appointed a special master to facilitate initial Roblox settlement negotiations. Successful discussions could provide a pathway for resolving numerous lawsuits without requiring each family to pursue a separate trial.

If the settlement negotiations and bellwether trials fail to produce a comprehensive resolution, unresolved federal lawsuits may eventually be sent back to the courts where they were originally filed for individual trials.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers are continuing to review potential cases for families whose children were harmed through the platform. Attorneys handle these claims on a contingency fee basis, with no legal fees or litigation expenses owed unless compensation is obtained through a settlement or jury verdict.

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

Federal health regulators have warned doctors nationwide that ongoing quality control problems involving Olympus Medical endoscopes and duodenoscopes manufactured in Japan may pose safety risks to patients, including the potential spread of dangerous infections.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Olympus medical scope import alert in a letter to healthcare providers on October 20. The agency indicates that it is seeking to prevent future shipments of certain Olympus Medical Systems Corporation devices from entering the United States and that doctors should be aware that the company’s products may be dangerous.

Olympus Endoscope Risks

Best known for its cameras and photography equipment, Olympus is also a leading manufacturer of endoscopes, which are medical devices equipped with cameras and lights that allow doctors to examine and treat internal organs without open surgery. These products are commonly used during procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), colonoscopies, upper endoscopies and bronchoscopies.

During these examinations, endoscopes come into contact with blood, tissue, bodily fluids and potentially infectious material. Because the devices are reused on multiple patients, they must undergo thorough cleaning and disinfection or sterilization between uses, which is known as “reprocessing.”

However, the FDA has repeatedly warned that narrow internal channels and other complex design features can make endoscopes difficult to clean and disinfect properly. As a result, infectious material may remain trapped inside the devices, potentially allowing dangerous bacteria and other pathogens to spread between patients.

The agency has spent years urging manufacturers to address these risks through improved reprocessing instructions and disposable components. These include removable or disposable parts designed to make difficult-to-clean areas, such as the elevator mechanism in duodenoscopes, easier to disinfect.

Despite these efforts, the FDA continues to raise concerns about endoscope infection risks. A number of former patients have also filed Olympus scope lawsuits, alleging the manufacturer failed to adequately address design defects that allowed dangerous infections to spread, sometimes resulting in fatal complications.

Olympus Endoscope Alert

The FDA’s import alert is intended to prevent future shipments of certain Olympus medical devices manufactured in Japan from entering the United States, including:

• Ureterorenoscopes
• Bronchoscopes
• Laparoscopes
• Automated endoscope reprocessors
• Ingestible telemetric gastrointestinal capsule imaging systems
• Enteroscopes

According to the FDA, Olympus has failed to adequately address longstanding regulatory compliance and quality control problems, prompting the agency to restrict imports of the affected devices.

“Be aware of the FDA import Alert for certain medical devices manufactured in Japan by Olympus Medical Systems Corporation (Olympus), under which the devices will be refused entry into the United States.”

— U.S. Food and Drug Administration Letter to Healthcare Professionals

The FDA is urging healthcare providers to review Import Alert 89-04 and familiarize themselves with the model numbers and Unique Device Identifiers (UDIs) of the affected products. However, the agency emphasized that the restrictions do not extend to accessories or other related products used with the devices covered by the alert.

The import restrictions also do not require healthcare providers to stop using Olympus devices already in service, provided they are functioning properly. However, the FDA stresses the importance of following all manufacturer instructions for cleaning, disinfecting and reprocessing the equipment to reduce the risk of complications.

Healthcare providers are also advised to avoid using damaged devices or those that fail leak testing, and to maintain routine inspection and maintenance schedules consistent with manufacturer recommendations.

A complete list of affected devices is available in the FDA’s letter to healthcare professionals. The agency also encourages doctors and patients to report any problems involving Olympus medical devices through its MedWatch adverse event reporting system.

Olympus Medical Scope Lawsuits

The warning comes as the manufacturer faces an increasing number of Olympus medical scope lawsuits filed by patients who suffered serious infections following procedures involving the company’s medical devices. The lawsuits claim that the manufacturer failed to correctly design products to be safe and effective, and has refused to properly address the problem for years.

Medical scope infection lawyers continue to investigate potential claims against Olympus, Fujifilm and other manufacturers on behalf of those nationwide who experienced complications following an endoscopic procedure, including:

Potential contaminated scope infection lawsuits are reviewed and pursued on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront expenses for a legal evaluation. Attorneys receive payment only if compensation is recovered through a settlement or other successful resolution.

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

A Louisiana woman who fled an abusive relationship alleges her former partner secretly placed an Apple AirTag inside their 10-year-old daughter’s shoe, allowing him to track the woman’s whereabouts without triggering a timely warning on her Android phone.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a woman identified only as Jane Doe GS-0001 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 15, naming Apple Inc. as the sole defendant.

Doe GS-0001 claims Apple knew their AirTag products could facilitate stalking but failed to implement adequate safeguards.

Apple AirTag Risks

Apple launched AirTags in 2021 as compact, affordable Bluetooth trackers designed to help consumers find misplaced items, such as keys, handbags and luggage. When an AirTag is separated from its owner, nearby Apple devices can detect its signal and anonymously transmit its location through the company’s Find My network.

The system can provide highly accurate tracking in heavily populated areas, where large numbers of Apple devices are available to detect AirTag signals. However, privacy advocates warned before the product reached consumers that the trackers could be easily hidden in clothing, vehicles or personal belongings, allowing someone to monitor another person’s whereabouts without their consent.

Those risks have become the focus of numerous Apple AirTag lawsuits including claims brought by women who say current or former romantic partners secretly used the devices to follow them. The complaints allege Apple’s safety measures, including alerts intended to identify unwanted tracking, do not provide sufficient protection or allow victims to promptly find and deactivate concealed devices.

Some plaintiffs also maintain that locating an AirTag can be difficult when it is hidden inside a vehicle or another inaccessible area, creating challenges for both victims and police. The lawsuits further allege that identifying the person responsible for placing a tracker or preventing continued surveillance may remain difficult even after unwanted tracking is detected.

Court filings indicate Apple received more than 40,000 reports of unwanted AirTag tracking from April 2021 through April 2024, averaging more than 1,000 reports per month.

Apple AirTag Safety Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Doe GS-0001 left an abusive relationship with her former romantic partner, who is also the father of her child, in 2020. However, she says the man continued stalking her through October 2024, forcing her to repeatedly move and stay in hotels to conceal her whereabouts.

The lawsuit indicates that Doe GS-0001 and her 10-year-old daughter were staying at a hotel on October 16, 2024, specifically because the former partner did not know their location. However, she alleges her former partner secretly placed an Apple AirTag inside the child’s shoe that morning before she went to school.

When the woman picked up her daughter from school, her Android phone allegedly did not warn her that an unknown AirTag was nearby. She claims the notification did not arrive until approximately 9 p.m., when she discovered the tracking device inside her daughter’s shoe.

Doe GS-0001 says she attempted to disable the AirTag by taking it apart and subsequently reported the incident to police.

However, the incident substantially aggravated her pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Doe GS-0001 maintains that she continues to fear her former partner, who allegedly has access to firearms. She has repeatedly relocated and stayed in domestic violence shelters since discovering the device.

“Plaintiff is in fear for her life every day that her abuser will find her and harm her, as he has access to weapons, including firearms. Her sense of physical, mental, and emotional safety has been permanently devastated.”

— Jane Doe GS-0001 v. Apple Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, design defect and violation of Louisiana consumer statutes. It seeks general and punitive damages as well as an injunction against Apple over any further unlawful practices regarding the design, manufacture and release of its AirTag products.

Apple AirTag Lawsuits

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered all federal Apple AirTag stalking lawsuits transferred to the Northern District of California on October 2, where U.S. District Judge Noël Wise will preside over the coordinated litigation.

Judge Wise will manage discovery and other pretrial matters involving common allegations, while the parties may pursue settlement discussions aimed at resolving the claims. The court could also select a limited number of representative cases for early bellwether trials, which would help both sides assess how juries might evaluate the evidence and testimony presented in the lawsuits.

While any bellwether verdicts would not be binding on other plaintiffs, their outcomes could shape subsequent settlement negotiations. If no comprehensive resolution is reached, cases that remain unresolved may ultimately be sent back to their original federal courts for individual trials.

Meanwhile, Apple AirTag lawyers continue investigating potential claims nationwide involving individuals who say the tracking devices were used to facilitate:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal activity

Individuals considering an AirTag lawsuit can speak with a lawyer about their potential claim at no upfront cost. Attorneys handle these cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning legal fees are only paid if compensation is recovered.

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

A federal judge has ordered attorneys involved in a product liability lawsuit alleging that a LINX Reflux Management System broke apart inside a man’s body to have the case ready for trial by November 27, 2028.

Deral Vincent filed the LINX reflux lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 30, naming Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries Torax Medical Inc. and Ethicon Inc. as defendants.

Vincent alleges that the manufacturers sold a defective medical implant that failed after being surgically placed around his esophagus, exposing him to serious complications. The lawsuit also points to a 2018 LINX recall, which involved a manufacturing defect that could cause the device’s magnetic beads to separate from their connecting wires.

Torax LINX Implant Failures

The FDA approved the LINX Reflux Management System in March 2012 as a treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a condition that allows stomach acid to flow backward into the esophagus, causing chronic heartburn and other complications.

The implant consists of a small ring of magnetic titanium beads connected by wires, which is surgically placed around the lower esophageal sphincter. The magnetic beads are designed to keep the sphincter closed to prevent acid reflux while expanding to allow food and liquids to pass into the stomach.

However, reports of LINX device failures raised concerns that the connecting wires could break, allowing the magnetic beads to separate and potentially compromise the implant’s ability to control acid reflux. Device failures may cause recurring GERD symptoms, difficulty swallowing, pain and other complications, sometimes requiring additional surgery to remove the implant.

In May 2018, Torax Medical initiated a recall of certain LINX devices after identifying a manufacturing problem that could allow a bead to separate from an adjacent wire link. The FDA subsequently classified the action as a Class II recall, acknowledging a potential risk of adverse health consequences from the affected implants.

The recall has since become a central issue in several LINX lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately prevent device failures or warn about the potential need for additional surgery when the implants break apart.

LINX Lawsuit Schedule

Vincent’s lawsuit claims that his LINX broke, resulting in the return of his GERD symptoms and the need for removal surgery in April 2025. He presents claims of manufacturing defect, negligence, negligence per se and strict liability, seeking compensatory damages.

Late last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a pretrial scheduling order (PDF), setting a list of key deadlines counsel will need to meet to have Vincent’s lawsuit ready for a three-day jury trial “on or about November 27, 2028.”

“The parties are expected to work cooperatively throughout this litigation to narrow the issues in dispute, to use reasonable, good faith and proportional efforts to preserve, request, identify and produce relevant information and resolve discovery disputes, and to keep the Court timely informed of developments in the case that could significantly affect the case management schedule.”

– U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright

The schedule calls for fact discovery procedures to be completed by January 26, 2028, with expert discovery completed by May 26, 2028. All dispositive motions are to be served, filed and heard by July 26, 2028.

Torax Medical LINX Lawsuits

Vincent’s claim and similar Torax Medical LINX lawsuits are being filed in the District of Minnesota, which is where Torax Medical is headquartered.

LINX lawsuit attorneys are currently reviewing additional potential LINX lawsuits and expect the number of claims to continue to rise as more patients implanted with the devices experience failures causing serious injuries and requiring additional medical procedures. Compensation could be available to individuals who have suffered injuries or complications due to:

• Device failures
• Migration and organ punctures
• Need for additional revision surgery to remove a failed device

Attorneys investigating these cases offer free consultations and case evaluations to help individuals determine whether they may qualify for financial compensation through a LINX Reflux lawsuit or settlement involving injuries and complications linked to an allegedly defective device.

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed a product liability lawsuit indicating that LiquiCell Shear Points, designed to cushion the face from CPAP masks, caused his skin to blister, leaving him with permanent scars.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by William Surkis in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 9, naming Birchwood Laboratories LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Fulfilment Services Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. as defendants.

Manufactured by Birchwood Laboratories, LiquiCell Shear Points are thin, liquid-filled membranes placed between medical devices and the skin to reduce friction, particularly around the nose and cheeks where CPAP masks or oxygen tubing may cause irritation. The pads use adhesives marketed as suitable for sensitive skin to hold them in place.

According to Birchwood’s product literature, the pads are designed to allow skin to move more freely against medical equipment, reducing friction and pressure that can contribute to skin breakdown. In addition to CPAP masks, LiquiCell Shear Points are marketed for use with oxygen tubing, eyeglasses, braces and other devices that remain in contact with the skin for extended periods.

However, Birchwood’s product safety data sheet acknowledges that the membranes may cause skin irritation in sensitive individuals. The document also warns that silicone fluid released if a membrane ruptures may irritate the skin, potentially causing redness, itching and other reactions.

Surkis claims the LiquiCell Shear Points he purchased through Amazon.com were defectively designed, defectively manufactured and failed to provide him with adequate safety warnings. He further alleges the products’ manufacturer and seller materially misrepresented the effectiveness and safety of the devices.

CPAP Mask Pad Scarring Allegations

According to the complaint, Surkis received the LiquiCell Shear Points through an Amazon delivery on October 12, 2024. He began using them with his CPAP mask eight days later.

“Within 48 hours of using the LiquiCell Shear Points, Plaintiff developed a raised rash and blistering on his nose at the location where the LiquiCell Shear Points were placed.”

– William Surkis v. Birchwood Laboratories LLC et al.

The lawsuit states that the blisters left Surkis with permanent facial scarring, which he attributes to defects in the LiquiCell Shear Points product.

Surkis maintains that the pads’ materials or adhesives may have contributed to his injuries, despite using them as instructed without any modifications.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks compensatory damage for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment and loss of life’s pleasures.

CPAP and Breathing Device Problems

The new lawsuit involves a different product and alleged defect than the massive Philips CPAP and other breathing device recalls that began in 2021. Philips recalled approximately 15 million devices worldwide after discovering that sound-dampening foam used to reduce the machines’ noise could break down and release potentially harmful particles and chemicals into users’ airways.

The FDA warned that exposure to the deteriorating foam could cause respiratory irritation, headaches, asthma, inflammatory reactions and potentially toxic or cancer-causing effects. Thousands of individuals subsequently filed Philips CPAP lawsuits, alleging the manufacturer knowingly sold defective devices that exposed consumers to serious health risks.

The federal litigation was centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2021, where claims involving injuries such as cancer, respiratory problems and other illnesses were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The lawsuits raised allegations that Philips failed to adequately investigate reports of foam deterioration or warn consumers about the potential dangers before issuing the recall.

In April 2024, federal regulators also obtained a consent decree requiring Philips Respironics to address manufacturing and quality-control problems. The agreement restricted the company’s ability to manufacture and sell certain new breathing devices at several U.S. facilities until specified safety requirements were met, while also requiring continued efforts to repair, replace or provide refunds for recalled machines.

Philips agreed to a $1.1 billion CPAP recall settlement in April 2024, resolving most claims involving alleged personal injuries and the need for medical monitoring. The company did not admit liability or acknowledge that its devices caused the injuries alleged in the litigation.

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

A Tennessee man claims a hernia repair procedure left him with permanent injuries after the Covidien Parietene Macroporous Mesh used during the operation allegedly failed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Vincent Van Tassel in Massachusetts Superior Court on October 15, naming Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp. as defendants.

Van Tassel claims the mesh uses a defective design that caused it to fail after being implanted to repair a left inguinal hernia. As a result, he argues Covidien created a device which was not fit for implantation into the human body.

Hernia Mesh Risks

Covidien faces approximately 2,500 similar hernia mesh lawsuits filed nationwide, involving products such as ProGrip, Symbotex and Parietex. The lawsuits allege that design defects increase the risk of recurring hernias, adhesions and other painful complications, often requiring additional surgery to remove or replace the implants.

Many Covidien hernia mesh products feature absorbable collagen barriers designed to prevent the mesh from adhering to the intestines and surrounding organs. However, plaintiffs allege these protective barriers can deteriorate too quickly, exposing the underlying polypropylene mesh to internal tissues and allowing painful adhesions to form. The lawsuits also claim that polypropylene itself can trigger harmful inflammatory reactions in the body.

Plaintiffs maintain that Covidien knew or should have known about these risks but continued marketing the products without adequately warning patients or medical professionals. The lawsuits allege the manufacturer failed to address known design problems, placing financial interests ahead of patient safety despite mounting reports of serious complications.

Parietene Hernia Mesh Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Van Tassel was implanted with the Parietene Macroporous mesh during hernia repair surgery. However, the implant allegedly failed instead of fixing the hernia, causing permanent damage.

Van Tassel states that the manufacturers knew about the problems and the potential failures of the collagen layer but refused to address the issue to save money and maintain profit margins. Instead, he alleges Covidien continues to use materials it knows are not suited for the job.

“The polypropylene mesh used in the manufacture of the Parietene line of products, which was implanted into Plaintiff, is not suited for implantation into the human body due to its pore size and weave, high volume of material utilized, selection of polypropylene resin, and other design features. These designs aspects lead to adverse tissue reactions in the body, which directly lead to complications.”

– Vincent Van Tassel v. Covidien LP et al.

The filing indicates Van Tassel suffered nerve damage, chronic pain, ilioinguinal nerve involvement and CRPS (Complex Regional Pain Syndrome), all of which led to the need for multiple additional surgeries and removal of the failed mesh.

Van Tassel presents claims of breach of warranty, defective design, failure to warn and negligence. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

The lawsuit comes amid a series of early test cases of Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits taking place in the District of Massachusetts, where the litigation has been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. These trials are designed to put representative cases before juries to see how they are likely to react to evidence and testimony that would be presented in most hernia mesh claims.

The first bellwether trial ended in early August with an $88 million verdict granted to Larry Patterson and his wife, Tammy, after a Symbotex mesh became adhered to his bowels causing obstruction and recurring hernias.

The second bellwether trial is scheduled for January 11, 2027, and a third for March 2027. While the outcomes are not binding on other claims, if juries continue to issue massive plaintiff verdicts, it could force Covidien to the bargaining table to seek a Covidien hernia mesh settlement agreement.

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

An insurance company has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective rechargeable battery accessory attached to a Meta Quest 3 virtual reality headset caused a house fire that resulted in more than $247,000 in insured losses.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company on behalf of its insured, Scott Mason, in Madison County Circuit Court on September 17, 2026. Amazon removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on October 19.

The lawsuit names Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Shenzhen Early Century Technology Co. Ltd. and Shenzhen Hongtuzhi E-Commerce Co. Ltd., both doing business under the Aubika name, as well as several unidentified entities involved in the battery accessory’s production or distribution.

Meta, which manufactures the Quest 3 headset, is not named as a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit primarily attributes the fire to an allegedly defective aftermarket battery-powered head strap sold under the Aubika brand.

Lithium-Ion Battery Problems

The Meta Quest 3 is a virtual reality and mixed reality headset that allows users to experience immersive digital environments, play games, exercise and interact with others through motion-tracking technology and handheld controllers.

The device contains a rechargeable lithium-ion battery and can be charged through a USB-C connection. Consumers can also purchase aftermarket accessories, including replacement head straps with built-in batteries designed to extend operating time, such as the Aubika product purchased by Mason.

Lithium-ion batteries store substantial amounts of energy. However, design or manufacturing defects, poor-quality components and inadequate safety features can cause them to overheat or short circuit. In some cases, these failures can trigger thermal runaway, an uncontrolled reaction that generates intense heat and may cause batteries to ignite or explode.

Numerous lawsuits filed in recent years have involved fires allegedly caused by lithium-ion batteries in products such as heated insoles, vape devices, power banks and electric vehicles.

Amazon has also been named as a defendant in prior product liability lawsuits involving items manufactured by third-party companies and sold through its online marketplace.

These claims often focus on Amazon’s role in listing products, processing payments, storing inventory and shipping merchandise to consumers. Individuals argue that the company’s involvement in the sales and distribution process may make it legally responsible when defective products cause injuries or property damage.

Meta Quest 3 Battery Head Strap Fire Allegations

According to the complaint, Mason purchased two Meta Quest 3 headsets through Amazon for $499 each on November 12, 2023. He later purchased two Aubika Fast Charging Head Straps on January 2, 2024, paying $69.99 each for accessories equipped with 8,000 mAh rechargeable batteries.

On the evening of October 9, 2024, one of the headsets, equipped with an Aubika battery head strap, was placed on a basement table and connected to a household electrical outlet using the power adapter and charging cable supplied by Meta.

The following morning, the occupants left the house around 9 a.m. When they returned approximately five hours later, they discovered smoke and a fire burning on the basement table, prompting a response from the Madison County Fire Department.

The flames had spread up the basement wall and into the dining room above, causing extensive fire, smoke, heat and water damage throughout the home. The family’s dog also died from injuries sustained in the blaze.

According to the complaint, the fire department identified an equipment or heat-source failure as the cause of ignition, with a mechanical malfunction contributing to the fire. Investigators reported no human factors contributing to the incident.

A fire investigator retained by Kentucky Farm Bureau subsequently determined that the fire originated on or near the basement table where the headset and battery head strap were charging.

The investigator discovered burned lithium-ion battery remains on the table, on the floor beneath it and melted into nearby carpeting. The headset, battery head strap, controllers, charging equipment and surrounding debris were collected and preserved as evidence.

The lawsuit alleges that the Aubika head strap or one of its components failed while charging, causing the fire. However, the complaint also identifies other products or charging accessories near the suspected point of origin as possible causes, indicating that the investigation remains ongoing.

Kentucky Farm Bureau maintains that Amazon knew or should have known about the fire risks associated with rechargeable battery head straps sold through its marketplace, but failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers.

“Upon information and belief, Amazon received customer complaints, returns, product-safety reports, and reviews before October 10, 2024 reporting overheating, melting, or burning of battery head straps sold on its marketplace, including the Head Strap, and Amazon did not warn purchasers, including Mason.”

— Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

The complaint raises claims of strict product liability, negligence, negligent undertaking and breach of express and implied warranties, alleging that Amazon and Aubika failed to ensure the battery accessory was reasonably safe for its intended use.

Kentucky Farm Bureau is seeking reimbursement for more than $247,000 already paid toward property repairs, damaged belongings and additional living expenses, along with any further covered losses and Mason’s $1,000 insurance deductible.

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

A federal judge has ruled that those pursuing lawsuits against baby food manufacturers due to large amounts of heavy metals in their products cannot prove to a jury that those metals were the source of their child’s developmental disorders.

For the last several years, major baby food manufacturers have faced hundreds of product liability lawsuits claiming that products sold by Hain Celestial, Beech-Nut, Gerber and others contained high levels of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium. The lawsuits allege that exposure to these metals caused children to develop autism, ADHD and other neurological or developmental problems.

The litigation gained momentum following a February 2021 Congressional report that found higher levels of heavy metals in baby food than expected, raising concerns about the potential impact of repeated exposure during early childhood, when the brain and nervous system are still developing.

A follow-up Congressional report released in September 2021 identified additional baby food products containing potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals, including certain rice cereals and other foods marketed to infants and toddlers. The investigation also raised concerns about inadequate testing practices and manufacturers’ failure to consistently remove products containing elevated levels of toxic metals from the market.

Shortly after parents began filing baby food heavy metal lawsuits nationwide, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order establishing MDL No. 3101 (PDF) on April 11, 2024, consolidating the federal claims in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The litigation eventually grew to include hundreds of lawsuits alleging that manufacturers placed profits ahead of children’s safety by selling baby foods containing toxic heavy metals without adequately warning parents about the potential long-term health risks.

Baby Food Autism, ADHD Lawsuits

On February 27, 2026, Judge Corley granted a request by the manufacturers to exclude the expert testimony plaintiffs intended to use to establish that heavy metals in baby food could cause autism and ADHD.

The ruling followed several days of hearings examining the scientific evidence offered by plaintiffs, including opinions from epidemiologists and toxicologists who attempted to link exposure to lead and arsenic in the products to developmental disorders.

However, Judge Corley determined that the proposed testimony was unreliable, citing several deficiencies in the experts’ methods, including unrealistic assumptions about the amounts and types of baby food children consumed.

The judge found that the experts failed to adequately establish whether the levels of heavy metals children could realistically ingest through the products were sufficient to cause autism or ADHD.

Following that decision, the manufacturers asked the court to dismiss the affected claims, arguing that without admissible expert testimony establishing general causation, plaintiffs could not prove an essential element of their lawsuits.

Judge Corley agreed, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on October 14, 2026, in a court order (PDF).

In product liability lawsuits involving toxic exposures, plaintiffs must generally establish that a substance is capable of causing the type of injury alleged before attempting to prove that it caused their own injuries. Federal judges are responsible for ensuring that expert testimony used to establish that connection meets scientific reliability standards before it can be presented to a jury.

Although plaintiffs argued that more discovery was needed to determine the actual heavy metal exposure levels of individual children, Judge Corley rejected that argument, finding that additional case-specific evidence would not overcome the lack of reliable general causation testimony.

“Absent the testimony of those proposed experts, Plaintiffs have presented no admissible evidence supporting the general causation element of their claims. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.”

— U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

The ruling dismisses claims alleging that heavy metals in the defendants’ baby food products caused autism or ADHD in cases filed or transferred into the MDL by November 21, 2025.

However, the decision does not extend to claims involving other alleged neurological injuries, including IQ loss, learning disabilities or language disorders. Claims involving injuries allegedly caused by infant formula were also excluded from the ruling.

Judge Corley also authorized an immediate appeal of the autism and ADHD causation decision, potentially allowing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to determine whether those claims can proceed.

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

A Utah resident has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a defective Anker power bank caught fire in his pants pocket while he was driving, causing him to crash into a concrete barrier and suffer severe burns to his leg.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Po Douangpapha in the Salt Lake County District Court of Utah on October 21, naming Anker Innovations Limited and Fantasia Trading LLC as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Douangpapha was driving through a construction zone when his Anker 334 MagGo Battery (PowerCore 10K) suddenly overheated and ignited inside his pocket. As smoke filled the vehicle, the pain from the burning battery allegedly caused him to lose control and crash.

The complaint alleges the power bank suffered a thermal runaway event, a dangerous condition in which lithium-ion battery cells rapidly overheat and can ignite or explode. Douangpapha maintains the defendants knew about the risk but failed to adequately warn consumers.

Portable Power Bank Injury Risks

Anker power banks are portable charging devices designed to recharge cell phones and other electronic devices without access to an electrical outlet. The compact chargers contain rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, allowing consumers to carry an additional power source in their pockets, bags or vehicles.

However, Anker has faced mounting safety concerns involving its portable power banks in recent years, including reports of overheating, fires and serious burn injuries.

On September 18, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced an Anker PowerCore portable power bank recall due to overheating lithium-ion batteries that posed fire and burn hazards.

Federal regulators indicated the manufacturer received at least 33 reports of fires and explosions involving the recalled chargers, including four burn injuries and one incident involving property damage.

The incidents raised concerns about thermal runaway, which occurs when a lithium-ion battery generates heat faster than it can dissipate. Once triggered, the reaction can spread between battery cells, potentially causing intense heat, smoke, fire or explosions.

In August 2026, another consumer filed an Anker MagGo power bank explosion lawsuit, alleging a defective portable charger ignited inside his pocket, setting his clothing on fire and causing severe burns and property damage.

The latest lawsuit raises similar allegations but describes how a battery fire inside a moving vehicle allegedly created additional dangers when the driver was unable to immediately pull over.

Anker Power Bank Fire Caused Car Crash, Lawsuit Alleges

According to the complaint, Douangpapha purchased an Anker 334 MagGo Battery (PowerCore 10K) directly from the manufacturer before the October 28, 2024 incident.

He was driving along a highway in West Valley City, Utah, when he suddenly heard a noise resembling a sparking fuse. Within seconds, the front pocket of his pants began smoking and caught fire.

Douangpapha was traveling through a construction zone without an available shoulder or emergency lane, leaving him unable to immediately stop his vehicle as the battery continued burning against his leg.

As smoke filled the passenger compartment, Douangpapha rolled down his window and attempted to breathe outside air. However, the complaint indicates the increasing pain from the burning battery caused him to swerve and crash into a concrete barrier.

After exiting the vehicle, Douangpapha discovered the power bank had burned a hole through his pants pocket. He subsequently returned to his vehicle and drove home, where he removed his clothing and discovered the extent of his injuries.

The lawsuit indicates the skin on his leg was blackened in some areas and pink in others, with loose, burned skin and dark soot extending from his calf to his hip. He also suffered blisters on his fingers after attempting to remove the burning battery from his pocket.

His family called 911, and emergency responders transported him to a hospital for treatment of severe burns. Douangpapha ultimately required skin graft surgery to repair the damaged tissue.

Lawsuit Alleges Anker Failed to Warn About Battery Fire Risks

Douangpapha maintains that Anker and Fantasia knew or should have known that the portable batteries were susceptible to thermal runaway, yet continued selling the devices without adequate warnings or safeguards.

The complaint points to Anker’s history of battery-related safety problems and subsequent recalls as evidence of the dangers associated with its portable chargers.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants failed to adequately address the potential for lithium-ion batteries to overheat and ignite during normal use, exposing consumers to serious injuries.

“Despite knowledge of the specific risks of thermal runaway, Defendants sold the Battery without adequate safety warnings to protect the public from the risks of the exact event that seriously injured Mr. Douangpapha.”

— Po Douangpapha v. Anker Innovations Limited et al.

The complaint raises claims of strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Douangpapha seeks compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, physical pain, emotional suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and permanent disfigurement resulting from the battery fire.

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

An Illinois man seeks access to data on the DraftKings algorithms he says were used to drive him into gambling addiction and nearly taking his own life.

The DraftKings lawsuit was filed by Dane Miller in late June, alleging the online sportsbook uses sophisticated data collection and analysis to identify customers whose behavioral traits suggest they are more likely to gamble frequently and place larger bets. According to the complaint, many of those same traits can also indicate a heightened risk of developing a gambling addiction.

Miller maintains that DraftKings could use this information to warn customers about potentially dangerous betting habits and help prevent gambling addiction. Instead, the lawsuit alleges the company uses the data to encourage increasingly risky wagers and maximize customer losses, leaving some individuals facing severe financial hardship, damaged relationships and serious mental health problems.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction

A 2018 Supreme Court decision gave states the authority to legalize sports betting, which is now permitted in 39 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

As a result, online sports betting operators, or sportsbooks like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM, quickly became popular. Many of these platforms allow live betting while sports events are in progress, not just on the outcome of games, but on scores, particular plays or player performance as well.

Along with this rise in prominence has come growing concerns over sports betting addiction. Critics argue that the apps use aggressive and deceptive promotional marketing, as well as AI-powered algorithms that psychologically profile customers.

Young men like Miller are believed to be particularly susceptible to these tactics, with many on their own for the first time and inexperienced in managing their finances. Younger adults in general are also more at ease with making on-the-spot online transactions when compared to their older peers.

Many of those who claim to have developed gambling addictions have filed DraftKings lawsuits, as well as similar FanDuel lawsuits and other sportsbook lawsuits. Each claimant alleges the sports betting apps intentionally designed their products to encourage self-destructive habits in consumers.

DraftKings Compulsive Gambling Allegations

Miller claims he has wagered in excess of $2 million since opening an account in October 2020 on DraftKings, leading him to lose his job, relationship and savings, until he was hospitalized for suicidal ideation. The lawsuit argues that DraftKings meant that as a feature, not a bug.

According to Miller, DraftKings intentionally employs algorithms for the specific purpose of psychoanalyzing customers and then using that data to target them with the specific types of promotions that will stoke compulsive gambling habits. Bettors are allegedly hit with push notifications, e-mails, free bets and more without mercy.

Miller was even given “VIP” status, which meant there were agents specifically assigned to him to get him to bet more frequent and riskier bets. Some critics have alleged that sportsbooks like DraftKings specifically target gamblers they see as spending and losing the most, while not making any offers or notifications of special offers to those who have been winning more than losing.

DraftKings Lawsuit Discovery Request

Miller’s lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah in the Northern District of Illinois. On October 9, Miller, DraftKings Inc. and Casino Queen Inc. filed a joint initial status report (PDF) to bring the judge up to speed on the DraftKings lawsuit.

In the report, Miller’s attorneys indicated they would seek access to much of DraftKing’s algorithmic data, which could reveal key information on how the company collects and uses such data.

“Plaintiff anticipates discovery related to the design, marketing and promotion of Defendants’ product, including but not limited to the algorithms, specifications for any machine learning platforms, data inputs and outputs, standard operating procedures, bonus distribution, promotions, VIP/concierge programming, and software development kits.”

– Joint Initial Status Report

However, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (PDF) Miller’s complaint on October 2, arguing that a decision on discovery should be put on hold until that motion is resolved. They have challenged the lawsuit on multiple grounds, such as whether the company’s activities are subject to Illinois products liability law and whether the DraftKings lawsuit was filed in a timely manner.

In addition, Miller also filed a motion for reassignment (PDF) on October 5, seeking to have the case transferred to U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman, who is currently overseeing another DraftKings lawsuit, which he has ordered into mediation.

Counsel from both sides recommended Miller’s response opposing the motion to dismiss be due by November 13, with DraftKings’ reply due by December 7, 2026.

Sportsbook Addiction Lawsuits

Miller’s case will likely be closely watched as more consumers who feel they were exploited by DraftKings, FanDuel and other sites continue to file gambling addiction lawsuits. All say they have found themselves in financial and personal ruin due to the use of data-driven psychological algorithms for which they had no defense.

Sportsbook addiction lawsuits continue to be investigated nationwide for those who developed compulsive betting habits while using any of the various sportsbooks and platforms listed below:

To find out whether you qualify for a sportsbook 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 recently announced Depo-Provera settlement may resolve approximately 80% of federal lawsuits involving women who developed meningiomas after receiving the birth control injection, with a November 30, 2026 registration deadline approaching for eligible claimants.

Pfizer and plaintiffs’ attorneys reached the agreement in June 2026, following months of negotiations over Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits that allege the drug maker failed to adequately warn women about the potential risk of developing meningiomas, which are typically noncancerous brain tumors that can cause serious complications.

The settlement covers a substantial portion of the federal litigation, as well as certain claims pending in New York state court. However, the agreement does not resolve every case, and some women may be excluded from compensation based on when they filed their lawsuits or the timing of their brain tumor diagnosis relative to their last injection.

According to the latest multidistrict litigation statistics published by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (PDF), there were 6,412 Depo-Provera lawsuits pending in federal court as of October 1, 2026.

Based on the parties’ estimate that approximately 80% of federal plaintiffs will be eligible, roughly 5,130 of the currently pending cases could qualify for the settlement, while about 1,280 may fall outside the agreement. However, these are estimates, and the actual number of claims resolved will depend on individual eligibility reviews and whether qualifying plaintiffs agree to participate.

Depo-Provera Settlement Agreement Reached in June 2026

The federal claims are centralized before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida, as part of the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3140), established in February 2025.

The lawsuits generally allege that women developed intracranial meningiomas after receiving Depo-Provera or related medroxyprogesterone acetate injections, and that Pfizer failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential brain tumor risks.

On June 15, 2026, attorneys announced an agreement to resolve a majority of the pending federal and New York state court claims.

The parties subsequently signed a Master Settlement Agreement in July, according to Case Management Order No. 12 (PDF), issued by Judge Rodgers on July 27.

The order confirmed that approximately 80% of federal plaintiffs were expected to qualify, although the complete eligibility requirements and compensation terms remain confidential. Pfizer has not admitted liability or wrongdoing as part of the agreement.

Who Qualifies for the Depo-Provera Settlement?

The settlement is intended to compensate eligible women who filed claims alleging they developed meningiomas after receiving Depo-Provera or other covered medroxyprogesterone acetate injections.

However, not everyone who received the injections and developed a brain tumor will necessarily qualify. An August 10 court order (PDF) identifies several groups of plaintiffs who are excluded from the agreement, including:

• Women who filed their lawsuits too late: Certain claims are excluded because of when legal action was initiated against Pfizer.
• Women whose brain tumor diagnosis falls outside the required timeframe: Some claims are excluded based on the amount of time between their last Depo-Provera injection and meningioma diagnosis.
• Women who do not meet other settlement requirements: Additional eligibility restrictions exist, but the complete criteria have not been publicly disclosed.

The court has not revealed the exact filing-date restrictions or how much time can pass between the last injection and a meningioma diagnosis before a claim becomes ineligible.

The agreement also establishes a special administrative filing process for certain individuals who retained attorneys on or before June 11, 2026, and otherwise qualify for the settlement. These individuals may submit claims through a separate court docket without initially paying a federal filing fee.

However, the June 11 cutoff applies specifically to eligibility for that administrative filing process and does not establish a universal deadline for filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit.

The deadline to register for the settlement program is November 30, 2026. Eligible claimants must complete the registration process by that date, although it is not a universal deadline for filing new Depo-Provera lawsuits.

Women who believe they qualify should contact their attorney, since the complete eligibility rules are contained in the confidential settlement agreement.

How Much Will the Depo-Provera Settlement Pay?

The total amount Pfizer has agreed to pay has not been publicly disclosed, and there is currently no confirmed average settlement payment or compensation range for individual claims.

However, several court orders provide some information about how compensation will be handled. On August 5, Judge Rodgers appointed BrownGreer PLC as the settlement administrator through Case Management Order No. 13 (PDF). BrownGreer will oversee the claims process, review supporting documentation, determine eligibility and help coordinate settlement payments.

A subsequent September 4 court order (PDF) appointed Matt Garretson of Garretson LLC to oversee a Supplemental Compensation Fund, allowing certain eligible plaintiffs to request additional compensation beyond their initial settlement awards.

Garretson will establish criteria for reviewing those requests and determine whether additional payments should be awarded and, if so, how much each qualifying claimant should receive.

However, the specific criteria and amounts available through the fund have not been publicly disclosed, and additional compensation is not guaranteed.

According to the July settlement order, payments are expected to begin during the first quarter of 2027, although the timing of individual awards will depend on the claims review process.

What Happens to Depo-Provera Lawsuits That Do Not Settle?

Although the agreement may resolve most pending federal claims, the litigation will continue for women who are excluded from the settlement or choose not to participate.

The agreement has already changed the trial schedule for the federal litigation.

The first Depo-Provera bellwether trial was originally scheduled to begin December 7, 2026. However, Judge Rodgers canceled that trial after the selected plaintiffs became eligible for the settlement.

Three replacement cases were subsequently identified to continue through the litigation process, including consideration of whether certain claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations.

The court has also established additional evidence and documentation requirements for plaintiffs continuing outside the settlement, including records showing their use of Depo-Provera and the alleged meningioma injury.

While these cases may continue toward trial or individual resolutions, it remains unclear how many plaintiffs will ultimately be excluded from the agreement, how many eligible women will decline to participate or how many additional lawsuits may be filed.

The next federal case management conference is scheduled for December 18, 2026, when the court may address further settlement administration issues and the status of the remaining claims.

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

A Texas man has filed a lawsuit alleging he suffered a stroke and permanent vision impairment after receiving Andexxa to reverse bleeding caused by the blood thinner Eliquis.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Roger Naumann in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 15, naming AstraZeneca, the drug’s manufacturer, as the defendant.

Naumann claims AstraZeneca knew Andexxa side effects posed a serious risk to patients but failed to provide adequate safety warnings, which eventually led to the drug being pulled from the market.

Andexxa Recall

Andexxa (andexenet) was first approved for use in the United States in 2018 as a reversal agent meant to stop the effects of next generation blood thinners, like Eliquis and Xarelto.

The more commonly used older blood thinner, Warfarin, can be reversed with a dose of vitamin K. However, the technique does not work on the newer drugs, which resulted in some doctors being unable to stop patients from bleeding out. Andexxa was promoted as the answer and fast-tracked through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process due to the lack of an alternative.

In December 2025, the FDA announced an Andexxa recall after receiving reports indicating Andexxa blood clot risks were much higher than originally anticipated, resulting in deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and other thromboembolic risks. According to the agency’s findings, 14.6% of Andexxa patients suffered adverse health effects from blood clots, compared to only 6.9% of patients who underwent standard medical treatment.

The FDA ultimately determined that the risks of Andexxa outweighed the benefits. The drug was removed from the market entirely as a result.

In the wake of those findings, patients like Naumann who suffered serious adverse effects after receiving Andexxa to reverse the actions of blood thinners have begun filing lawsuits over the drug’s safety.

Andexxa Stroke Allegations

According to the complaint, Naumann suffered gastrointestinal bleeding following a colonoscopy in October 2024. Because he was taking the blood thinner Eliquis at the time, doctors administered a two-part, high dose of Andexxa on October 18 to reverse the medication’s effects and control the bleeding.

By October 20, the same day he was discharged from the hospital, Naumann claims he began experiencing anemia, dizziness, fatigue, blurred vision and multiple falls. He returned to the emergency room on October 29, where doctors determined he had suffered a stroke that left him with permanent vision problems.

Naumann alleges AstraZeneca failed to adequately warn patients and medical professionals about the risk of dangerous blood clots associated with Andexxa or provide sufficient guidance on how to recognize and manage those complications.

The lawsuit also maintains that AstraZeneca should have recommended regular blood monitoring following Andexxa treatment and provided physicians with instructions for stabilizing and treating individuals who develop blood clots after receiving the medication.

“During the years since first marketing Andexxa in the U.S., Defendant failed to modify the U.S. labeling and prescribing information for Andexxa which disclosed its true risks. Defendant ignored the increased risk of the development of the aforementioned thrombosis injuries associated with the use of Andexxa, but they have, through their marketing and advertising campaigns, urged consumers to use Andexxa despite these risks.”

– Roger Naumann v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of strict liability, manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and violation of consumer protection/consumer fraud laws. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Andexxa Lawsuits

Naumann’s complaint is among the first Andexxa lawsuits filed over allegations that the blood thinner reversal agent caused a stroke. Product liability lawyers are now investigating additional Andexxa lawsuits on behalf of individuals who suffered serious complications or lost loved ones due to:

• Stroke
• Heart attack
• Pulmonary embolism
• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Other dangerous blood clots requiring emergency treatment
• Sudden or unexpected clotting shortly after Andexxa was administered
• Death caused by a blood clot or clot-related complication

Lawyers are offering free consultations and claim evaluations to help families determine whether financial compensation may be available through an Andexxa lawsuit, as a result of the drug maker’s failure to adequately research the side effects and warn about potential risks associated with the reversal agent.

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

A Minnesota man has filed a product liability lawsuit against Amazon after a telescoping ladder he purchased through the online retailer allegedly collapsed while he was cleaning his home’s gutters.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Michael J. Steele and Abby Steele in Minnesota District Court for Hennepin County on September 22, naming Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon Logistics Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Payments Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 20.

Although the ladder was manufactured by a Chinese company and sold through a third-party seller, the Steeles maintain Amazon is liable because it stored and shipped the product through its “Fulfilled by Amazon” program.

Ladder Collapse Injuries

Several ladder manufacturers and retailers have faced product liability lawsuits in recent years over alleged locking-mechanism defects that have caused ladders to collapse.

Earlier this month, an Ohio man brought a product liability lawsuit against Home Depot after suffering severe fractures and permanent nerve damage when a Werner ladder, sold exclusively at Home Depot retail locations, collapsed while he was using it.

The Werner ladder was part of a recall affecting more than 122,000 ladders. The recall was issued due to locking mechanisms becoming jammed and not fully locking into place, posing a fall hazard for users.

A similar lawsuit was filed against Little Giant Ladder Systems earlier this year. That case was brought by a man who suffered spinal injuries and nerve damage after a Little Giant ladder collapsed, causing him to fall more than 15 feet.

Amazon Telescoping Ladder Allegations

According to the complaint, Steele purchased the telescoping ladder through Amazon.com in May 2020. It was manufactured by Energy Bear and sold by JHKIDS, two companies based outside the United States, through Amazon’s “Fulfilled by Amazon” program.

On November 4, 2020, Steele was cleaning the gutters of his Minnesota home using the ladder, which he had extended and secured with its safety locks as instructed.

As he descended, the locking mechanisms allegedly failed, causing the ladder to collapse and sending him onto his asphalt driveway. He suffered broken bones that ultimately resulted in early-onset arthritis.

The lawsuit claims the ladder’s locking mechanisms were defective and insufficient for fully securing the ladder during ordinary use. It further argues that the ladder did not meet relevant safety standards.

“Defendants caused Plaintiffs injuries and damages as stated above by their negligence in selling, storing, shipping, and distributing a defective telescoping ladder to consumers such as Plaintiff Michael J. Steele. Defendants were further negligent in failing to adequately test products taken into its custody and control to determine the hazards to users of those products. For this negligence, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for their damages.”

— Michael J. Steele et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn and breach of express and implied warranties. It seeks compensation for loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, and past and future medical expenses.

Amazon Product Liability Lawsuits

Amazon has faced a series of product liability lawsuits involving allegedly defective products manufactured and sold by third parties. Consumers maintain that the company’s extensive role in marketing, handling payments, storing and delivering merchandise makes it responsible for ensuring those products are safe.

Many of these lawsuits involve items manufactured overseas or sold by foreign companies with little or no presence in the United States, making it difficult for injured consumers to identify the manufacturers and hold them accountable.

As a result, consumers injured by products purchased through Amazon are increasingly pursuing claims directly against the online retailer, arguing that its participation in the sales and distribution process makes it legally responsible for injuries caused by dangerous merchandise.

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

A South Carolina woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator implants may frequently fail because of poor manufacturing that allows moisture to damage their delicate electronics.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Theresa Donner in Massachusetts Superior Court on October 14, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and other unknown entities as the defendants.

Donner claims the manufacturer failed to construct a proper hermetic seal for the spine implants’ components, causing corrosion, short circuits and device failure. As her device failed, Donner allegedly experienced random electric shocks, a return of chronic pain, having to reset the device multiple times and unexpected surges of stimulation.

She states the implant was manufactured with defective welds or seals, which Boston Scientific’s quality control department failed to catch.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) use electrical pulses to try to block pain signals from reaching the brain. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator and leads, which are implanted near the spine, and an external remote control for changing and setting the stimulation settings.

Designed to be permanent implants, Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, Nevro and Medtronic all face a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits from individuals who have experienced device failures resulting in permanent nerve damage and other injuries.

These spinal cord stimulator problems frequently require patients to go through another surgery to have the implants removed. Consumers often say the manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential risks and either warned them or made the necessary design changes to prevent injuries and device failures.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Donner was first implanted with a Boston Scientific Spectra WaveWriter SCS in November 2019. She hoped the implant could provide her with relief after a history of back pain.

However, problems allegedly began six months after implantation, starting with sharp electric shocks radiating out from the battery site. These occurred between once per day and once every other day, the complaint notes.

Problems continued to worsen over time, leading to fracture or migration of components, loss of pain-management efficacy, and the need to repeatedly reset the device, which caused painful surges every time, among other problems.

“These symptoms are consistent with moisture ingress into the sealed IPG enclosure, causing electrical shorts and unintended stimulation, as described herein. Due to the issues that Plaintiff experienced, she elected to have the System explanted on or about August 5, 2026. Plaintiff continued to experience painful symptoms for approximately one year after the System was removed and continues to suffer lasting injuries.”

– Theresa Donner v. Boston Scientific Corporation Inc. et al.

Any device being implanted into the human body must be hermetically sealed so that no moisture or fluids can penetrate the device and get to the electronics. The most crucial areas are the joints, which must be precisely laser-welded, and feedthroughs, where wires go into and out of the device.

The Spectra WaveWriter lawsuit notes that Donner’s symptoms, as well as symptoms described in several past Boston Scientific SCS implant recalls, are the exact type of results one would expect from moisture ingress.

Donner argues that moisture entering an active implanted stimulator can disrupt electrical currents and cause excessive heat or unintended stimulation, potentially resulting in direct injuries to patients.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect and negligence. It seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Boston Scientific SCS System Lawsuits

Dozens of Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton in the Central District of California. The judge has begun taking the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in preparation for a series of early test “bellwether trials”.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review potential claims nationwide of SCS implant stimulator problems and failures, resulting in complications including:

Individuals who experienced complications potentially linked to a defective SCS implant can request a free evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Attorneys investigating these cases handle claims on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal fees and payment only if compensation is recovered.

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed a SpaceOAR lawsuit alleging a defective hydrogel spacer used during prostate cancer treatment infiltrated his rectal wall, causing severe tissue damage and a fistula that required a colostomy and urinary catheter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Daniel Patrick Marchio and Rose Marie Marchio in Massachusetts Superior Court on October 14, naming Boston Scientific Corporation as the sole defendant.

Daniel and Rose Marchio allege SpaceOAR Vue was implanted to protect Daniel’s rectum from radiation exposure, yet the gel entered his rectal wall instead of remaining in its intended location. They maintain that radiation treatment continued even after an MRI revealed the infiltration.

SpaceOAR Risks

SpaceOAR devices are injectable hydrogel spacers used during prostate cancer radiation therapy.

The original SpaceOAR was developed by Augmenix Inc. and received FDA clearance in April 2015. Boston Scientific acquired Augmenix in 2018, and a second-generation version, SpaceOAR Vue, received FDA clearance in July 2019. Unlike the original device, SpaceOAR Vue is radiopaque, making it easier to identify on CT scans.

Because the prostate is located immediately in front of the rectum, radiation targeting cancer cells can also damage nearby rectal tissue. SpaceOAR is designed to separate the organs, reducing radiation exposure to the rectal wall.

Physicians inject the hydrogel between the prostate and rectum using ultrasound guidance, creating a protective barrier throughout radiation treatment. However, some individuals allege the injection site can be difficult to visualize, increasing the risk of gel entering the rectal wall or surrounding tissue.

In light of these concerns, product liability attorneys are investigating SpaceOAR lawsuits alleging Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn physicians about complications from misplaced hydrogel, including rectal ulceration and fistula formation, particularly when radiation continues after infiltration.

SpaceOAR Vue Injuries Following Radiation Treatment

According to the complaint, Daniel Marchio was diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer in September 2022. Physicians recommended hormone therapy, brachytherapy and external beam radiation, beginning with radioactive seed placement on January 9, 2023, at UPMC Hanover in Pennsylvania.

On March 17, 2023, his urologist implanted SpaceOAR Vue to protect his rectum during radiation treatment. However, an MRI performed 10 days later allegedly revealed that a moderate amount of hydrogel had infiltrated his rectal wall.

Despite those findings, Daniel began external beam radiation on April 3, receiving 25 treatments through May 5.

The Marchios allege Boston Scientific should have instructed physicians to obtain MRI imaging after implantation and postpone radiation when hydrogel infiltration was detected, warning that radiation exposure could increase the risk of ulcers and fistulas.

An August 2023 MRI revealed a fistula at the location of the hydrogel. Although physicians initially attributed the condition to previously undiagnosed inflammatory bowel disease, the Marchios maintain it resulted from radiation exposure following SpaceOAR infiltration.

In April 2024, doctors at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center confirmed a large rectourethral fistula, an abnormal connection between the rectum and urethra.

Daniel underwent surgery on April 25, requiring a colostomy bag to divert stool and a suprapubic catheter to drain urine directly from his bladder. Both procedures were intended to prevent waste from passing through the injured area.

Following additional examinations and catheter exchanges, Daniel was allegedly advised in August 2024 that pelvic reconstructive surgery was the only possible treatment for the fistula.

The lawsuit indicates Daniel has incurred more than $300,000 in medical expenses. However, the Marchios maintain they did not discover the alleged connection between SpaceOAR Vue and his injuries until April 2026.

Lawsuit Claims Boston Scientific Failed to Warn About SpaceOAR Risks

Daniel and Rose Marchio allege Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn physicians about SpaceOAR complications, including rectal wall infiltration, ulceration, fistulas and injuries requiring colostomy or urinary diversion.

The complaint also claims SpaceOAR Vue was defectively designed because the hydrogel can infiltrate the rectal wall, its placement is difficult to control and misplaced material cannot be easily removed.

According to the lawsuit, Boston Scientific knew about significant infiltration and fistula risks by January 2023 but failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions for MRI evaluation following implantation. The Marchios also claim some major medical centers have stopped using SpaceOAR because of safety concerns.

“The SpaceOAR Vue is defective because the risks inherent in the product design outweigh the utility or benefit derived from the product.”

— Daniel Patrick Marchio et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation

The lawsuit raises claims involving defective design, failure to warn and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief.

Rose Marchio also seeks damages for loss of consortium, alleging her husband’s injuries have affected their marriage, companionship and household responsibilities.

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

New research suggests that patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) face substantial risks of strokes and other neurological complications, which are associated with significantly reduced survival.

A group of U.S. researchers published a study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) journal, Heart Failure, on October 6, warning that they found LVAD recipients developed nonstroke neurological adverse events (NAEs), leading to deaths among implant recipients.

HeartMate 3 LVAD Recalls

The HeartMate 3 LVAD was first introduced in 2011 as a medical implant used to help patients with advanced left ventricular heart failure circulate blood throughout the body. The implant is a heart pump controlled by an external controller and a HeartMate Mobile Power Unit, which is employed when the patient is away from a stationary power source.

However, the last several years have seen the HeartMate system beset with problems, injuries and fatalities, resulting in several HeartMate 3 recalls and safety warnings. HeartMate 3 recalls were announced in May 2024 and April 2025.

The 2024 recall came after reports of blood leaks and air embolisms, often requiring emergency surgery to address. The recall in 2025 was announced following reports of the devices suddenly losing power without warning. The problem was traced back to a faulty electrical component in the MPU.

Problems with heart implants have been linked to dozens of deaths and have sparked a number of HeartMate lawsuits filed in courts nationwide by individuals who suffered serious injuries, or who lost loved ones, due to what they claim is a defective design.

HeartMate 3 LVAD Neurological Risks

For the new study, a group of researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data on nearly 12,000 patients who received HeartMate 3 implants from 2017 to 2023. Led by Omar Saeed, the team looked at survival rates, stroke incidence and NEAs.

According to their findings, eight percent of patients suffered a stroke, and another eight percent experienced a nonstroke NEA over a period of 1.4 years. After two years, researchers found that HeartMate 3 recipients faced seven times the risk of death if they suffered a stroke, and more than five times the mortality if they were diagnosed with an NEA. Survival rates for those who had a stroke was only 45%, while those who suffered a nonstroke NEA had a survival rate of about 56%.

Overall, researchers found that nearly one in six HeartMate 3 recipients experienced some form of neurological complication, with approximately half of those events occurring within the first year after implantation.

Among patients who suffered nonstroke neurological complications, 70% experienced problems such as encephalopathy, delirium, seizures or transient ischemic attacks. Another 19% suffered more serious injuries, including bleeding around the brain, oxygen-related brain damage or traumatic brain injuries.

The study also found that patients who suffered bleeding within the brain faced particularly poor outcomes, with only 35% surviving on device support after two years. Researchers identified several factors associated with increased neurological risks, including advanced age, a history of stroke, the use of temporary life-support equipment and additional surgical procedures performed during LVAD implantation.

“Stroke and nonstroke NAEs are incurred by a similar proportion of patients, and both are associated with substantially reduced survival. Consequently, stroke and nonstroke NAEs should be given comparable weight with universal nomenclature when evaluating the safety of durable LVADs.”

– Omar Saeed, Neurological Dysfunction During Contemporary Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device Support for Advanced Heart Failure: An STS-INTERMACS Analysis

Highest mortality risks among nonstroke neurological complications were associated with serious injuries such as bleeding around the brain, oxygen-related brain damage and traumatic brain injuries, which were linked to more than 12 times the risk of death compared with patients who experienced no neurological adverse events.

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

An Alabama woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Unilever, alleging the company continued selling TRESemmé conditioners containing a potentially harmful preservative despite years of consumer complaints about hair loss and scalp irritation.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Carliss Eaton in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on October 19, naming Conopco Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA, as the sole defendant.

Eaton claims Unilever formulated its TRESemmé conditioner with DMDM hydantoin, an ingredient linked to hair loss, scalp irritation and other side effects.

DMDM Hydantoin Hair Care Risks

DMDM hydantoin is a preservative used in some personal care products that releases small amounts of formaldehyde, a chemical classified as a known human carcinogen. The preservative can also trigger allergic contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals, which may contribute to scalp irritation, hair shedding and thinning.

Earlier this year, six consumers filed a hair loss lawsuit against Unilever, alleging that TRESemmé products caused excessive shedding, thinning hair and allergic reactions.

A similar lawsuit filed in 2023 claimed that Unilever continued using DMDM hydantoin in TRESemmé products despite knowing about the potential risks. The company previously faced claims involving its Suave hair care products, resulting in a $10.2 million settlement and the removal of DMDM hydantoin from the affected product line.

TRESemmé Hair Loss Allegations

According to the complaint, Eaton used TRESemmé Moisture Rich Conditioner, which she alleges contained DMDM hydantoin, and TRESemmé Smooth & Silky Conditioner. She claims she subsequently developed scalp irritation and progressively worsening hair loss, leaving noticeable thinning on the top of her head.

Eaton alleges her hair eventually began falling out in clumps, but the shedding stopped after she learned about the alleged connection between TRESemmé products and hair loss and discontinued using them.

The lawsuit alleges Unilever deceptively marketed TRESemmé products as gentle, nourishing treatments capable of repairing hair and improving its softness and shine, without adequately warning consumers about the alleged risks.

Eaton claims Unilever knew about consumer complaints involving hair loss and scalp irritation for more than a decade but continued using DMDM hydantoin despite the availability of safer alternatives. She maintains the company prioritized profits over consumer safety by failing to reformulate the products or provide adequate warnings.

The filing also claims Unilever had already removed DMDM hydantoin from some products before Eaton was injured and subsequently eliminated the preservative from its personal care products, replacing it with an alternative ingredient.

“Defendant knew or should have known about the consumer complaints because, upon information and belief, Defendant either received the complaints directly or regularly monitored online retailers and other online and social media sources where consumers were complaining about the products’ harmful effects to their hair and scalp, including that the products cause hair loss.”

— Carliss Eaton v. Conopco Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to provide adequate warning and negligence. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injury, pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering.

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

The makers of Dupixent face a product liability lawsuit from a Colorado man who says he was diagnosed with cutaneous t-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a rare form of skin cancer linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, after use of the eczema treatment.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Carl P. Liverman in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on October 12, naming Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. as the defendants.

Liverman claims the manufacturer knew about CTCL risks linked to the use of Dupixent yet failed to provide patients or their doctors with sufficient warnings.

Dupixent Skin Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, more commonly known as eczema. Since then, the agency has granted approval for the manufacturers to market Dupixent as a treatment for other inflammatory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

In recent months, questions have emerged about the drug’s safety profile, following studies linking Dupixent side effects primarily to CTCL, but also to other forms of T-cell lymphoma. Researchers warn that the rare form of cancer may go undetected because its symptoms appear similar to the eczema and other skin conditions Dupixent is designed to treat.

These findings have led to numerous Dupixent skin cancer lawsuits, each alleging that patients have developed CTCL as a result of Dupixent use, resulting in the need for harsh cancer treatments and life-long medical monitoring.

Mycosis Fungoides Allegations

According to the complaint, Liverman was prescribed Dupixent to treat his eczema in July 2022, receiving his first injection in August of that year. He continued to use Dupixent until February 2024, when his dermatologist removed him from the treatment.

The decision came after more than a year of use without any signs of his eczema improving. Doctors also raised cancer suspicions in December of that year. In May 2024, Liverman was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides, the most common form of CTCL.

The lawsuit indicates Liverman has undergone extensive treatments involving various medications, ultraviolet B phototherapy, topical corticosteroids and ongoing laboratory monitoring.

“Plaintiff, Carl P. Liverman, has been advised by his healthcare providers that he will likely require ongoing treatments and healthcare services for CTCL indefinitely. Plaintiff has been advised that the available therapies for his disease are palliative rather than curative, that the only potentially curative therapy is an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, and that early stage CTCL progresses to late stage disease in up to 25 percent of patients.”

— Carl Liverman v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.

Liverman indicates that had he and his doctor been warned about the potential cancer risks, he would have been prescribed, and used, a different treatment and avoided the CTCL diagnosis. As a result, he alleges he suffered severe bodily injury, pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life and medical expenses due to an incurable condition caused by the drug.

He raises allegations of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, while seeking both punitive and compensatory damages.

Dupixent Skin Cancer Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar Dupixent skin cancer lawsuits in the District of New Jersey as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Qurashi for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

It is anticipated that Judge Qurashi will eventually order attorneys to prepare several representative cases for what are known as bellwether trials. These early test cases give counsel and the court the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that will make up key factors in potentially all Dupixent CTCL lawsuits.

These trials’ outcomes will have no legal bearing on other pending claims, but how the juries rule could help build the foundation of a potential Dupixent skin cancer lawsuit settlement agreement.

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

A South Carolina woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a defective AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter fractured while implanted in her late husband, requiring an additional surgical procedure to remove the device.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Vicki L. Chiappini on behalf of herself and the estate of her deceased husband, Albert Peter Chiappini Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 8. It names AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Chiappini maintains AngioDynamics and Navilyst knew or should have known about reports of SmartPort fractures and other complications that could result in additional surgeries, yet continued selling the devices anyway.

Port Catheter Risks

Port catheters are medical devices implanted beneath the skin to provide ongoing access to a patient’s bloodstream for chemotherapy, blood transfusions, medications and other intravenous treatments. They typically feature an access port connected to a flexible polyurethane catheter that delivers fluids directly into a vein.

Medical manufacturers AngioDynamics and C.R. Bard face hundreds of port catheter lawsuits nationwide, alleging that defects in the devices have caused bloodstream infections, blood clots, vascular damage and other potentially life-threatening complications.

The lawsuits claim that defects in the catheter materials can create irregular surfaces where bacteria and blood products accumulate, increasing the likelihood of serious injuries. Plaintiffs also allege that manufacturers failed to adequately test the devices or address known safety concerns.

AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits specifically claim the manufacturer knew or should have known about these risks but continued selling the implants without providing adequate warnings to patients and medical professionals.

Chemo Port Fracture Allegations

According to the complaint, Albert Chiappini Jr. underwent surgery to have an AngioDynamics SmartPort implanted on March 31, 2020, at Conway Medical Center in Conway, South Carolina. The device was implanted by Dr. Aaron M. Epstein to provide vascular access for chemotherapy.

On October 9, 2023, medical providers discovered that Chiappini’s SmartPort had fractured and recommended removing it. Dr. Epstein removed the fractured device at CMC Surgical Associates on November 22, 2023. The complaint alleges the failure caused physical and emotional suffering, additional medical expenses and other financial losses.

Chiappini’s wife attributes the fracture to problems involving the concentration and distribution of barium sulfate within the catheter’s polymer material. The lawsuit claims these manufacturing problems weakened the tubing, while safer alternative designs were available that could have reduced or prevented deterioration.

The complaint maintains that neither Chiappini nor his physicians would have agreed to use the device if the manufacturers had disclosed the risks.

“Defendants’ design decision of how it chose to utilize barium sulfate and its specific process for mixing it with polyurethane/silicone leads to a structurally compromised catheter, thereby creating a defective condition and heightened risk to the user or consumer.”

— Vicki L. Chiappini et al. v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

Vicki Chiappini raises allegations of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, survival action and violation of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. She seeks general and punitive damages.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

The case joins hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits being handled by U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where the claims have been centralized for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. As the litigation progresses, the court is expected to select a small group of representative cases for early bellwether trials.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell is overseeing a separate multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of Arizona involving federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits. The first bellwether trial ended without a complete verdict, prompting the plaintiff to seek a new trial over allegations that improper jury instructions affected the outcome.

A second bellwether trial resulted in a $40 million verdict for a New Mexico woman who claimed her Bard PowerPort fractured after implantation, allowing pieces of the catheter to migrate to her heart and causing a pulmonary embolism.

Judge Campbell has scheduled additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials throughout the year. Although these verdicts do not determine the outcomes of other lawsuits, they may provide insight into how juries respond to the evidence and help guide potential port catheter settlement negotiations.

If attorneys cannot reach settlements or otherwise resolve the litigation, individual cases may eventually be returned to the federal courts where they originated for separate trials.

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

A federal appeals court has upheld its decision to reinstate thousands of lawsuits alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.

Johnson & Johnson and its over-the-counter drug manufacturer spin-off, Kenvue, faced hundreds of Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits, which allege that the manufacturer failed to warn women that taking the acetaminophen-based painkiller during pregnancy could cause developmental and neurological problems in their offspring.

Originally consolidated in the Southern District of New York in October 2022, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote was assigned to oversee the litigation through pretrial proceedings. However, Judge Cote dismissed the litigation in 2024 after excluding the expert witness testimony plaintiffs needed to show a causal link between Tylenol and developmental problems. With no way to show causation, the claims could not move forward.

Tylenol Autism and ADHD Problems

Acetaminophen, sold under the Tylenol brand name and as an ingredient in numerous other cold and flu medications, is one of the most widely used pain relievers and fever reducers in the world. For decades, it has also been considered one of the safest options for treating pain and fever during pregnancy, when many alternative medications are not recommended.

However, research published in recent years has raised concerns about whether prenatal acetaminophen use may increase the risk of autism and ADHD in children, particularly when the medication is used frequently or for extended periods during pregnancy.

Conflicting research has become a central issue in thousands of Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits, which allege that manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential developmental risks but failed to provide adequate warnings to pregnant women. The manufacturers dispute those claims, maintaining that the available scientific evidence does not establish that acetaminophen causes autism or ADHD.

In September 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced plans to update acetaminophen warning labels to address evidence suggesting a possible association with autism and ADHD. The agency also notified healthcare providers about the potential risks, while acknowledging that a causal relationship had not been established.

The FDA’s action brought renewed attention to the controversy, but questions about the strength of the scientific evidence remain central to the litigation, particularly whether expert testimony linking prenatal acetaminophen exposure to autism and ADHD should be presented to juries.

Tylenol Autism, ADHD Lawsuits

Following Judge Cote’s dismissal of the litigation, plaintiffs filed an appeal of that ruling. In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned her decision and reinstated hundreds of Tylenol lawsuits, returning them to the judge for further pretrial proceedings and reigniting the litigation.

On September 10, defendants filed a petition for rehearing, saying more deference should have been given to Judge Cote’s decision. The manufacturers also argued that the reversal does not make the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses admissible and still leaves them without the ability to argue causation.

The 2^nd Circuit rejected the manufacturers’ petition in a brief order issued on October 16, which has not yet been publicly released. However, it appears the panel gave no reasoning for its decision.

As a result, the litigation will continue to move forward, with the cases returning to Judge Cote, who could order plaintiffs and defendants to select several representative claims to serve as potential Tylenol ADHD and autism lawsuit bellwether trials. These would put several lawsuits before juries, allowing stakeholders to see how they are likely to respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

These cases will be closely watched. While they are not binding on other claims, they could help both sides reach a Tylenol lawsuit settlement agreement, resolving all or most of the litigation.

Families who believe their child’s ADHD or autism diagnosis may have been caused by the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy are being encouraged to submit information for review by a lawyer to determine if they qualify for a claim.

All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in the case.

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

An Ohio couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a defective NordicTrack treadmill caused the woman to fall and fracture her hip, requiring surgery to implant a metal plate, bolt and locking screws.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Janet Bockey and Randall Baumgarte in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County on October 16, naming iFIT Inc., Nordictrack Inc., Western & Southern Financial Group and other unknown entities as defendants.

Bockey and Baumgarte allege that NordicTrack improperly manufactured the treadmill and knew about defects involving its bolts. They claim those defects caused Bockey’s injuries, leaving her with permanent impairments.

Treadmill Injury Lawsuits

NordicTrack and other major treadmill manufacturers have faced lawsuits in recent years involving allegations that defective designs and malfunctioning components caused serious injuries. The claims have raised concerns about unexpected changes in treadmill speed, mechanical failures and moving belts that can pose dangers to users and nearby children.

Last year, a New York woman filed a lawsuit against NordicTrack alleging a defective treadmill suddenly accelerated to its maximum speed without warning, causing her to lose her balance and fall face-first onto the moving belt. The woman claims the unexpected acceleration left her with serious injuries that could have been prevented through safer design features.

Similar safety concerns have also been raised about treadmills manufactured by Peloton. In September, a lawsuit alleged that the defective design of a Peloton treadmill created an entrapment hazard, causing a child’s hand to become trapped beneath the moving belt and resulting in serious injuries.

The allegations follow a series of safety problems involving Peloton treadmills, which led the company to recall more than 125,000 treadmills in 2021. The recall was announced after a child died and dozens of other incidents were reported involving children, pets and objects becoming trapped beneath the machines.

NordicTrack Treadmill Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Bockey and Baumgarte purchased a NordicTrack treadmill, model NTL14119, on May 2, 2020. Bockey regularly used the machine for walking and running several times a week and was training for a marathon when the accident occurred.

On February 18, 2022, Bockey was running on the treadmill when one of its two rear tension bolts allegedly fractured, causing the rear roller to shift and the moving belt to slip off track. As a result, her foot landed on the treadmill deck instead of the belt, causing her to lose her balance and fall from the machine onto her hip.

The fall left Bockey with fractures to her femur and hip, requiring emergency surgery to repair the damage. During the procedure, surgeons implanted permanent titanium hardware, including a plate, bolt and locking screws, to stabilize the fractured bone near her hip joint.

Following surgery, Bockey reportedly experienced severe pain and mental anguish and underwent extensive physical therapy. She relied on a walker for several months before transitioning to a cane, and the lawsuit indicates she continues to experience difficulty walking and cannot run without pain.

An investigation into the treadmill failure allegedly revealed fatigue striations on the fractured bolt, indicating damage from repeated stress. Further testing determined that the bolt had not undergone proper heat treatment during manufacturing, leaving it brittle and unable to withstand the repeated impact of normal treadmill use.

Bockey and Baumgarte maintain that the manufacturing defect caused the bolt to fracture and the treadmill belt to shift unexpectedly, resulting in her injuries. They also allege that safer alternative designs were available, but the manufacturers prioritized profits over consumer safety.

The couple further claims the manufacturers knew or should have known about the risks associated with the treadmill’s bolts, yet failed to warn consumers about the potential for sudden failures or provide instructions to inspect the components for signs of damage.

“The design of this bolt did not conform to SAE J429, an applicable private product standard in effect when the Treadmill left iFIT’s control. The bolt was also more dangerous than a reasonably prudent consumer would expect of the fastener holding the rear roller of a treadmill in ordinary use.”

— Janet Bockey et al. v. iFIT Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of design defect and failure to warn. It seeks compensation for medical expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost wages, physical pain and suffering and mental anguish.

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

Concerns about dangerous infections linked to reusable medical scopes, including those manufactured by Fujifilm and Olympus, are driving demand for improved disinfection systems as lawsuits raise questions about whether the devices can be adequately cleaned between procedures.

A new report published by IndexBox in October 2026 projects that the global market for advanced medical scope cleaning equipment will grow by approximately 5.8% annually through 2035. The growth is being driven by an increasing number of procedures, stricter infection-control requirements and efforts to replace older cleaning systems.

Medical Scope Infection Risks

Medical scopes are reusable devices equipped with cameras and specialized tools that allow doctors to examine and treat conditions inside the body. They are commonly used during colonoscopies, endoscopies and ERCP procedures, and must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected between uses to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria.

Hospitals often rely on automated cleaning systems to disinfect these instruments, using specialized chemicals and controlled cleaning cycles to reduce the risk of contamination. However, some scopes have complex designs with narrow channels and moving parts that can make certain areas difficult to reach.

These concerns are particularly significant for duodenoscopes used during ERCP procedures, which allow doctors to examine and treat problems involving the bile ducts and pancreas. Their intricate components can trap bacteria and other biological material, potentially allowing contamination to remain even after recommended cleaning procedures are followed.

A number of Olympus endoscope lawsuits allege that design defects allow bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other biological material to accumulate in narrow channels, damaged components and other hard-to-reach areas.

Plaintiffs claim these defects, combined with inadequate safety warnings, have allowed contaminated medical scopes to transmit dangerous infections between individuals, sometimes resulting in sepsis, organ failure or death.

Endoscope Cleaning Systems Report

As concerns continue about the risks of transmitting dangerous infections through reusable medical scopes, hospitals and outpatient facilities are investing in more advanced equipment designed to improve disinfection and reduce the chances of bacterial contamination.

According to the IndexBox report, hospital endoscopy departments account for approximately 45% of the market for advanced scope cleaning systems, reflecting the challenges of safely disinfecting large numbers of instruments used repeatedly throughout the day.

Outpatient surgery centers account for another 25% of demand, as more colonoscopies and other gastrointestinal procedures are performed outside traditional hospitals. Gastroenterology clinics and other specialized medical facilities are also investing in the technology as the number of procedures involving reusable scopes continues to increase.

“As procedure volumes grow, the installed base of endoscopes expands, directly increasing the throughput burden on reprocessing departments and creating demand for additional high-end reprocessor capacity.”

— IndexBox, High-End Endoscopic Reprocessors Market Forecast to 2035: Rising Endoscopy Volumes and Infection Control Mandates Drive Growth

The report indicates that many facilities still rely on older equipment or cleaning methods that require significant manual handling, which can leave room for errors or inconsistencies in how medical scopes are disinfected between procedures.

Newer systems are designed to address those concerns by automatically monitoring disinfectant levels, checking for equipment leaks and documenting whether required cleaning cycles have been completed. Hospitals are increasingly replacing aging equipment with these systems to improve infection control and reduce the risk of contaminated instruments being reused.

However, the findings also highlight a concern raised in medical scope infection lawsuits. While better cleaning technology may help hospitals follow disinfection procedures more consistently, it may not overcome defects in the scopes themselves.

Plaintiffs pursuing lawsuits against Olympus and other manufacturers allege that certain medical scopes contain narrow channels, damaged components and other areas where bacteria can remain trapped, even after recommended cleaning procedures are completed. As a result, they claim hospitals may unknowingly reuse contaminated instruments, exposing individuals to potentially life-threatening infections.

Endoscope Lawsuits

Endoscope infection lawyers are investigating potential claims against Olympus, Fujifilm and other manufacturers on behalf of individuals who suffered serious infections or lost loved ones following an ERCP, colonoscopy, bronchoscopy or other procedure involving a potentially contaminated reusable scope.

Individuals may qualify to pursue compensation if they or a loved one experienced complications following an endoscopic procedure, including:

Potential contaminated scope infection lawsuits are reviewed and pursued on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront expenses for a legal evaluation. Attorneys receive payment only if compensation is recovered through a settlement or other successful resolution.

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

A California man is pursuing a lawsuit against Amazon.com, indicating it sold defective heated electric gloves through its online store that malfunctioned and severely burned his hands.

The complaint (PDF) was originally filed by Anthony Fergerson in California Superior Court on March 16, naming Amazon.com Inc. as the sole defendant. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 13.

Fergerson’s claims come amid broader concerns about lithium-ion battery failures in hand warmers and other heated clothing items.

Heated Clothing Concerns

Heated gloves and portable hand warmers are commonly used to keep hands warm during cold weather or while working in freezing temperatures. Many rely on small, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to generate heat.

However, concerns have emerged in recent years about battery malfunctions that can cause these devices to overheat, catch fire or explode, potentially resulting in serious injuries or death.

In July, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued an Ocoopa hand warmer recall affecting 1.5 million pairs of hand warmers following reports of 15 fires, 35 burn injuries and one death. The safety concerns also led to at least one lawsuit against Amazon.com, where Ocoopa products were sold by a third-party seller.

Similar problems have been reported with other battery-powered heated clothing products, including electric insoles, heated socks and foot warmers, some of which are also sold through Amazon.

A number of heated insole lawsuits allege that defective batteries and inadequate safety features caused the devices to overheat, resulting in severe foot burns that required extensive medical treatment, including surgical debridement and skin grafting.

Heated Glove Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Fergerson purchased a pair of Feeljuly heated electric gloves and was wearing them in March 2024, when they suddenly overheated on his hands. The burns Fergerson suffered as a result allegedly required hospital and other medical treatments.

The lawsuit accuses Amazon of distributing defective products through its online delivery service, alleging that the company should have insured the products were safe before allowing them to be sold on its website. Fergerson’s complaint calls the gloves unreasonably dangerous.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defects and malfunctions in the Subject Product, the product overheated and/or otherwise failed, causing Plaintiff to sustain severe burns and other serious bodily injuries and damages.”

– Anthony Fergerson v. Amazon.com Inc.

Fergerson raises allegations of general negligence and products liability. He seeks compensatory damages for wage loss, loss of property use, hospital and medical expenses, property damage and loss of earning capacity.

Heated Clothing Lawsuits

In response to these kinds of safety concerns, heated clothing and electric foot warmer injury attorneys are reviewing potential cases throughout the United States. Many involve consumers who suffered serious injuries when electric insoles, foot warmers and other forms of heated clothing allegedly malfunctioned during ordinary use. Reported injuries and complications include:

• Severe burns involving the feet, toes, fingers and hands
• Overheating or fires inside clothing
• Injuries requiring emergency medical care or hospitalization
• Surgical removal of damaged tissue or skin grafts
• Long-term pain, permanent scarring or impaired mobility

Electric clothing and heated insole lawsuits allege manufacturers and retailers sold dangerous products without sufficient safety testing, effective safeguards or adequate warnings about battery malfunctions, overheating and the risk of severe burns.

Amazon has also been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving defective items sold through its online marketplace. Although many of these products are manufactured by third-party companies, plaintiffs argue Amazon plays a significant role in marketing, selling and distributing them, often handling payments, storage and shipping before the products reach consumers.

This has become particularly important in cases involving imported products sold by overseas manufacturers and sellers, some of which have little or no presence in the U.S. and may be difficult for injured consumers to locate or pursue in court.

As a result, some individuals injured by defective products purchased through Amazon are pursuing claims directly against the online retailer, alleging it bears responsibility for allowing dangerous products to reach consumers.

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

Two mothers have filed a class action lawsuit alleging Mommy’s Bliss Kids Sleep supplements potentially expose young children to numerous health complications, despite being advertised as safe and effective sleep aids.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mayra Martinez and Alicia Hinestrosa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 12, naming Mom Enterprises LLC as the sole defendant.

Martinez and Hinestrosa maintain that Mommy’s Bliss products are unlawfully marketed as unapproved drugs and improperly display FDA disclaimers, violating federal labeling requirements.

Melatonin Exposure Risks

Melatonin is a hormone naturally produced by the body that helps control sleep patterns by signaling when it is time to rest. It is also available in over-the-counter (OTC) dietary supplements and prescription formulations.

Melatonin supplements and prescription products are commonly used by adults and teenagers to address insomnia, delayed sleep onset and anxiety. However, previous research has raised concerns about potential health complications, including a November 2025 study that found adults who used melatonin for more than a year faced a 90% higher risk of developing heart failure.

Researchers have also identified potential dangers associated with melatonin use among children. A 2015 study raised concerns about possible cardiovascular, immune system and metabolic complications, while a 2024 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that more than 11,000 children received emergency room treatment following accidental melatonin ingestion.

The CDC also reported that melatonin poisonings involving infants and young children increased by more than 400% between 2009 and 2024.

Children’s Melatonin Allegations 

According to the lawsuit, Mom Enterprises promotes the supplements using misleading safety and effectiveness claims, including statements that the products contain “child-safe melatonin” and “support restful sleep.”

These representations allegedly encourage parents to believe the supplements have been established as safe for young children, despite research raising concerns about the potential health risks of pediatric melatonin use, including overdose and seizure risks.

The filing also points out that a single Kids Sleep gummy contains 1 milligram of melatonin, which the mothers contend may be excessive for small children. It cites research indicating that much smaller doses can raise melatonin levels in adults to typical nighttime concentrations.

Martinez and Hinestrosa allege that Mommy’s Bliss markets Kids Sleep as a treatment for sleeplessness and insomnia, effectively promoting the supplements as drugs that require FDA approval, which Mom Enterprises allegedly never obtained.

The lawsuit also challenges the product’s labeling, claiming the disclaimer that the FDA has not evaluated its health claims appears on the back of the packaging rather than alongside the sleep-related claims prominently displayed on the front.

“These claims are misleading, as melatonin, the primary active ingredient in Kids Sleep, is unsafe for children.”

— Mayra Martinez et al. v. Mom Enterprises LLC

According to the complaint, Martinez purchased Mommy’s Bliss Kids Sleep approximately once a month from Walmart stores near Pomona, California, between April 2025 and early 2026. Hinestrosa reports making similar purchases at Walmart locations in Racine, Wisconsin, and Antioch, Illinois, from approximately 2022 through early 2026.

Both women claim their families used the supplements as directed, yet they would not have purchased them had they known about the alleged safety concerns and regulatory violations.

As a result, the two mothers maintain the products were effectively worthless because they were allegedly unsafe and unlawfully marketed. Martinez and Hinestrosa raise allegations of unfair competition, violations of consumer protection laws and breach of implied warranty.

The filing seeks class action status on behalf of consumers throughout the United States who purchased Kids Sleep for personal or household use beginning January 1, 2019, with special subclasses for California, Wisconsin and Illinois purchasers. It is also pursuing at least $10 million in classwide restitution and damages, along with punitive damages, corrective advertising and an injunction against the challenged marketing practices.

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

A California man has filed a lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes and a bicycle repair shop, alleging he suffered severe bone fractures requiring multiple surgeries after the front wheel of his electric bike detached, throwing him violently to the ground.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Anatoli Ratsa in California Superior Court on October 9, naming Isla Vista Bicycle Boutique, Rad Power Bikes Inc., Life Electric Vehicles Holdings Inc. and Rad Life Mobility Inc. as defendants.

Ratsa maintains the wheel separation was the direct result of a product defect caused by Rad Power Bikes’ design problems, as well as negligence on the part of the bicycle shop that repaired the e-bike.

E-Bike Risks

Electric bicycles have become increasingly popular in recent years, using battery-powered motors to assist riders while pedaling or, in some models, propel the bikes using a throttle. However, the growing use of e-bikes has also been accompanied by product liability lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers over alleged defects that have caused serious injuries.

In August, a lawsuit was filed against Ridstar and other defendants alleging a child suffered severe injuries when the front wheel detached from a Ridstar e-bike. The complaint claims the sudden failure threw the child violently to the ground, resulting in permanent disfigurement and disability.

Rad Power Bikes has also faced lawsuits involving alleged battery defects. Earlier this year, an Alabama woman filed a complaint claiming a faulty Rad Power e-bike battery sparked a house fire that killed her husband and left her with severe burn injuries.

Rad Power E-Bike Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Ratsa acquired the Rad Power e-bike in January 2026, and used it as a primary means of transportation before he began experiencing problems with the brake performance.

Ratsa took his e-bike to Isla Vista Bicycle Boutique on June 11, where the owner determined that the front brake rotor needed to be replaced, performed the repair and returned the bike to him.

On June 14, Ratsa was approaching a stop sign and applying the brakes when the bike’s front wheel allegedly detached from the fork, causing the bike to collapse forward and violently throwing him onto the pavement.

The lawsuit indicates Ratsa suffered severe and permanent injuries in the accident, including a displaced fracture of his right elbow that required surgery and the placement of surgical hardware. He also sustained severe contusions to his right hip and lower back, a head injury, multiple abrasions, lacerations and permanent scarring. Ratsa is expected to require additional surgeries and faces permanent limitations in the range of motion and function of his dominant arm.

According to the lawsuit, an investigation of the e-bike found that the quick-release lever securing the front wheel was in the fully closed position, suggesting the wheel detached because of a design defect rather than an improperly secured lever.

Ratsa alleges Rad Power Bikes knew or should have known about the defect but failed to correct it or warn consumers that the front wheel could detach while riding.

The complaint further claims the e-bike’s design was inadequate to keep the front wheel securely attached under the weight of a rider, despite the availability of safer alternative designs that Rad Power Bikes allegedly failed to incorporate.

The lawsuit also alleges the bike repair shop was negligent in failing to properly install the quick release skewer assembly when it reinstalled the wheel after replacing the brake. As a result, the filing claims the bike shop was negligent for failing to test and inspect the bike operation before returning it to Ratsa.

“The gravity of the danger posed by the design is extreme, the likelihood that such danger would occur is substantial, safer alternative designs — including a through-axle retention system, an adequate and properly dimensioned secondary retention device, and dropout geometry resistant to disc-brake-induced ejection — were mechanically and economically feasible at the time of manufacture, and the cost and adverse consequences of adopting such alternative designs were minimal.”

— Anatoli Ratsa v. Rad Power Bikes Inc. et al.

Ratsa raises allegations of negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn and negligence. He seeks compensation for physical pain, suffering, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as medical, surgical, hospital, diagnostic, rehabilitative and related expenses, loss of earnings and loss of future earning capacity.

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

A Georgia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective lead in her Abbott spinal cord stimulator (SCS) malfunctioned, causing painful complications that required additional surgery to remove the implant.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kristi Thompson in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 12, naming Abbott Laboratories as the sole defendant.

Thompson claims that Abbott sales representatives promised the SCS system would alleviate chronic pain. Instead, it caused more pain, permanent injuries and the need for additional surgeries. She says the manufacturer knew, or should have known, about the failure risks yet did not provide warnings to the medical community or patients.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are designed to use electrical pulses to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator, electrode leads and the wires connecting them, which are implanted under the skin near the spine, as well as an external remote control to adjust the electrical pulses.

In recent months, numerous reports have linked SCS systems to sudden device failures, painful electrical shocks, leads migrating out of position or protruding through the skin, burning sensations, worsening pain and nerve damage.

Some individuals also report that problems were made worse by company sales representatives, who are not licensed medical professionals but are often responsible for programming and adjusting the implants. These representatives may change stimulation settings in an attempt to improve pain relief, sometimes allegedly without adequate physician oversight, raising concerns that improper adjustments can cause additional complications.

As a result, a number of Abbott SCS implant lawsuits have been filed, as well as similar claims against other manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Nevro and Medtronic. All of the complaints indicate the companies’ implants were defectively designed and often operated by unlicensed representatives conducting medical procedures.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Problem Allegations

According to the complaint, Thompson received an Abbott Proclaim XR 7 SCS system in February 2018 after undergoing a trial period with a temporary device. Once the device was implanted, Abbott sales representatives, who are not licensed to conduct medical procedures, made adjustments to the system “without meaningful physician supervision.”

“This occurred on numerous occasions after Plaintiff was implanted with the SCS system. Abbott representatives maintained some communication with Plaintiff regarding the implanted SCS system and had at some point informed her of a lead failure.”

– Kristi Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.

Immediately after the procedure, Thompson indicates she experienced tenderness at the battery site, the remote control failed to respond, and she began feeling pain throughout her lower extremities. The lawsuit states she also experienced sudden electrical shocks and burning sensations, as well as an increase in the pain the device was supposed to prevent.

Ultimately, Thompson had the SCS system removed after discovering the leads had failed. Following the revision surgery, doctors discovered the leads had migrated out of position and were nonfunctional. Thompson claims she still suffers pain and symptoms caused by the failed Abbot implant.

On September 11, 2023, several months after Thompson’s procedure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that Abbott had issued five Proclaim SCS implant recalls it considered to be Class I, meaning they carried a risk of severe injury or death. The recalls were triggered by reports of plaintiffs suffering:

• Severe electrical shocks
• Sudden unintended stimulation
• Loss of therapy
• Device failure during recharging
• Malfunctioning wireless communication and programming failures.

Thompson presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unauthorized practice of medicine and violation of the Georgia Unfair Business Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Protection Acts. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The complaint comes days after the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered all Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who will now see the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

At the same time, the JPML also ordered the consolidation of Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Northern District of California. All Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits were previously consolidated in the Central District of California, where U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton is expected to begin preparing representative cases for bellwether trials.

Meanwhile, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review claims of injuries caused by implant system problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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

Federal regulators have renewed scrutiny of Olympus’ medical device manufacturing practices, adding to longstanding safety concerns involving the company’s endoscopes and other medical equipment.

In a press release issued on October 13, Olympus announced it had received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following inspections of six manufacturing facilities in the United States, Japan and Europe.

According to Olympus, the latest warning primarily concerns quality management systems and related manufacturing processes at facilities that include endoscope production sites in Japan and company subsidiaries in Minnesota and Germany.

Endoscope Risks

Endoscopes are medical instruments equipped with miniature cameras, lights and narrow internal channels that allow doctors to examine and treat internal organs without open surgery. They are used during procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), colonoscopies, upper endoscopies and bronchoscopies.

Because many endoscopes are reused on multiple patients, they must undergo thorough cleaning and disinfection between procedures. However, the FDA has repeatedly warned that the complex designs of certain scopes can make it difficult to eliminate potentially dangerous bacteria.

These longstanding safety concerns have become central to Olympus scope infection lawsuits, which allege the manufacturer failed to adequately address design defects and contamination risks that may allow dangerous bacteria to spread between patients during certain medical procedures.

2026 Olympus Warning Letter

The warning letter, dated October 7, stems from inspections conducted in late 2025 and primarily involves deficiencies in the company’s quality management systems and related manufacturing processes.

The facilities include four locations in Japan, a manufacturing site in Hamburg, Germany, and a Gyrus ACMI facility in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Olympus did not disclose the specific violations cited in the warning letter or identify whether particular medical devices were affected.

Olympus indicated that it has been working to correct the problems since the inspections concluded and plans to submit a comprehensive response to the FDA within 15 business days of receiving the warning. The company will also provide periodic updates until regulators determine that its corrective actions are adequate.

“We take the concerns identified in the Warning Letter seriously and are fully committed to resolving these matters with urgency and rigor.”

— Bob White, Olympus CEO

The company emphasized that the warning does not require any product recalls or restrict its ability to manufacture, market or distribute medical devices. Olympus also maintains that customers do not need to take additional action and that its products remain safe when used according to instructions.

Olympus Medical Device Warnings

The latest warning letter is part of a broader history of FDA regulatory actions involving Olympus endoscopes, including earlier investigations into whether certain reusable medical scopes can be adequately disinfected between patients.

In 2015, the FDA warned that duodenoscopes contain small moving parts and hard-to-reach areas where contamination may persist despite recommended disinfection procedures. The agency subsequently ordered Olympus, Fujifilm and Pentax to study contamination rates, issuing warning letters in 2018 after the manufacturers failed to provide sufficient data.

Results released by the FDA in December 2018 indicated that some duodenoscopes continued to test positive for contamination after undergoing the cleaning procedures intended to make them safe for reuse.

Olympus agreed to pay $85 million in criminal penalties that same year after pleading guilty to failing to report serious duodenoscope-related infections to the FDA, including an $80 million fine and $5 million in criminal forfeiture.

The FDA later recommended transitioning to duodenoscopes with improved designs in 2019 and issued another warning letter to an Olympus manufacturing facility in Japan in 2022 over quality control deficiencies involving endoscopes and reprocessing equipment.

In June 2025, the FDA restricted imports of certain Olympus medical devices manufactured in Japan, citing unresolved quality control violations. The restrictions affected specific endoscopes and automated reprocessing equipment, preventing new shipments of those devices from entering the United States.

Olympus Scope Lawsuits

Individuals have also filed Olympus scope infection lawsuits claiming contaminated endoscopes can cause serious infections, sepsis, organ failure and death.

Olympus endoscope lawyers are investigating potential claims nationwide on behalf of patients who developed serious infections or families who lost loved ones following an ERCP or another medical procedure involving a potentially contaminated reusable endoscope.

Individuals may qualify to pursue an Olympus endoscope lawsuit if they or a loved one experienced any of the following complications after a colonoscopy, endoscopy, ERCP or bronchoscopy:

Contaminated scope infection product liability lawsuits are pursued on a contingency fee basis, meaning individuals pay nothing upfront for an attorney to evaluate and investigate their case. Legal fees and expenses are only collected if compensation is recovered through a settlement or other successful outcome.

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

A panel of skin disease and cancer specialists are recommending doctors conduct a thorough diagnosis of patients for signs of a rare form of cancer, known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), before prescribing the eczema treatment Dupixent.

The findings were published earlier this year in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology, with researchers also recommending that doctors regularly monitor patients for signs of CTCL throughout their treatment with the eczema drug.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) belongs to a class of drugs known as monoclonal antibodies and was originally developed for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, more commonly known as eczema. Developed by Sanofi-Aventis and Regeneron, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017.

Over the years, the agency has allowed the medication to be marketed for an increasing number of skin and respiratory conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), eosinophilic esophagitis and more. As a result, Dupixent is now a blockbuster drug, with second quarter 2026 sales of $5.74 billion.

However, a study published in JAMA Dermatology in April 2024 determined that Dupixent users were more than four times more likely to develop CTCL than those who do not receive the injections. Studies, such as the TriNetX database study published later that year, appeared to confirm those findings, indicating a 3.5 times increased risk of Dupixent CTCL.

In light of these health concerns, the manufacturers now face a growing number of Dupixent lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide who say they developed CTCL after receiving the injections. Each claim alleges that neither patients nor the medical community were given adequate warning of the potential cancer risks, meaning either that the companies knew about the problem but hid it or that they failed to put Dupixent through sufficient testing.

Dupixent Cancer Study

For the new study, researchers reviewed 51 studies published through January 2, 2025, identifying 547 reported cases of CTCL and related lymphoid conditions following Dupixent exposure. Led by Florent Amatore, the team analyzed the findings and presented them to a panel of 37 experts, including dermatologists and pathologists.

According to the data, patients developed new or worsening skin lesions an average of 8.9 months after starting Dupixent. Among cases with a classified diagnosis, 72% involved mycosis fungoides, while approximately 11% involved Sézary syndrome, another form of CTCL.

Among 63 patients with available follow-up information, 44 achieved remission after discontinuing Dupixent and/or receiving additional cancer treatment, representing approximately 70% of the group. However, researchers cautioned that the findings do not establish whether stopping Dupixent contributed to those remissions.

“Current evidence suggests that dupilumab may unmask latent disease or worsen existing CTCL and therefore should be initiated only in cases of typical atopic dermatitis. Clinicians should perform comprehensive diagnostic evaluations in adults presenting with atypical, treatment-resistant or late-onset dermatitis, both before initiating and during dupilumab therapy.”

– Florent Amatore, Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas and dupilumab for atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and expert consensus

Dupixent CTCL Screening

After reviewing the data, the panel crafted a joint consensus on new prescribing protocols that doctors should use before putting a patient on Dupixent.

Experts recommended that doctors consider additional CTCL testing, including skin biopsies when appropriate, before prescribing Dupixent to adults who develop eczema after age 40, have no previous history of atopic disease or exhibit unusual symptoms that could indicate an underlying malignancy.

The researchers noted that while more than half of known cases were detected in the early stages, doctors should carefully review any signs of worsening, new or atypical skin lesions, since signs of CTCL can mimic those of atopic dermatitis. They also warned that CTCL and eczema can occur at the same time if the patient is dupilumab-resistant, complicating diagnosis further.

The panel also recommended that doctors continue monitoring patients throughout Dupixent treatment, particularly if new or worsening skin lesions appear. Nearly 97% of the experts agreed that Dupixent should be discontinued immediately when CTCL is confirmed, although physicians should carefully evaluate alternative treatments.

Data indicates some previous Dupixent patients with CTCL in remission saw the cancer return when given JAK inhibitors, like Xeljanz or Rinvoq. The panel warned that similar eczema drugs like Adbry (tralokinumab) and Ebglyss (lebrikizumab) may also carry CTCL risks, with at least one case report of a patient on Adbry developing mycosis fungoides. Both drugs are also monoclonal antibodies with similar mechanisms of action.

Dupixent Lawsuits

These screening recommendations also raise questions about whether doctors received adequate information concerning the potential for Dupixent to unmask or worsen previously undiagnosed CTCL, particularly because early symptoms of the cancer can resemble eczema. Many individuals allege that stronger warnings and earlier testing recommendations could have helped physicians identify the disease sooner and avoid continued treatment with a drug they claim may aggravate the condition.

The consensus report appears to back up allegations listed in dozens of Dupixent CTCL lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. These complaints have been centralized in the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Qurashi, where they are undergoing coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

Judge Qurashi is eventually expected to order the selection of several representative claims to serve as early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will be used to get a feel for how juries are likely to process expert testimony, evidence and arguments likely to be repeated across most of the litigation.

The results of these trials could lead to a Dupixent lawsuit settlement agreement, or else the judge will remand the cases back to the federal districts where they were originally filed for separate trials.

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

Federal regulators are urging consumers to immediately stop using certain Tristar Products Power Quick Pot electric pressure cookers over concerns that defective safety mechanisms may allow the lids to open while the appliances are still pressurized.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued the Tristar Products Power Quick Pot 6-Quart safety warning on October 15, after the manufacturer refused the agency’s request to recall the affected pressure cookers or provide consumers with a remedy.

Electric Pressure Cooker Injury Concerns

The Tristar Products Power Quick Pot is an electric pressure cooker designed with safety mechanisms intended to prevent the lid from being opened until internal pressure has been fully released.

However, similar safety concerns have led to several pressure cooker recalls and a number of pressure cooker lawsuits in recent years, involving appliances sold under brands such as Instant Pot, Crock-Pot and Ninja Foodi.

The complaints allege that defective lid-locking mechanisms and other safety features may allow consumers to open pressure cookers while they remain pressurized, causing scalding food, liquid and steam to erupt from the appliances.

These incidents can result in severe burn injuries, sometimes requiring hospitalization, skin grafts and extensive medical treatment.

Tristar Power Quick Pot Pressure Cooker Warning

The CPSC warning affects approximately 393,000 Tristar Products Power Quick Pot 6-Quart pressure cookers, model Y6D-36.

The affected appliances feature stainless steel cooking containers, black lids and front-mounted button controls with a digital display showing temperature and cooking functions. The words “Power Quick” appear on the front, while the model number is printed on a label on the back.

According to the CPSC, regulators received 24 reports of the pressure cookers opening while still pressurized, causing scalding food and liquid to be expelled onto consumers. Some incidents have resulted in serious burn injuries.

Because Tristar Products refused to recall the affected pressure cookers or provide a remedy, the CPSC is urging consumers to immediately stop using the appliances, refrain from selling or giving them away and discard them to prevent further injuries.

The affected pressure cookers were manufactured in China and imported by Tristar Products Inc. of Altamonte Springs, Florida. They were sold through Walmart.com, Amazon.com, eBay.com and other retailers nationwide from July 2016 through November 2023 for $44 to $160.

Consumers can report injuries, malfunctions or other safety incidents involving the pressure cookers through www.SaferProducts.gov.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Lawsuits

As concerns continue to emerge about defective safety mechanisms, pressure cooker injury lawyers are reviewing potential claims on behalf of consumers who suffered severe burns and other injuries, including whether users may be entitled to compensation through individual lawsuits or class action litigation.

Last month, a product liability lawsuit was filed against Amazon, alleging a 3-in-1 stainless steel pressure cooker sold by the company malfunctioned during use and caused scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected onto two consumers.

Individuals injured by malfunctioning pressure cookers, or whose family members were harmed, can request a free consultation and case evaluation to determine whether they have grounds to pursue legal action.

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