Three women have filed a joint lawsuit indicating they suffered serious injuries from defective Abbott spinal cord stimulator systems, indicating that the manufacturer misrepresented the safety of the devices and risk they may pose to the health of patients.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Dorothy Furia of California, Roseann Maroulis of Indiana and Anita McClellan of Oklahoma in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 5. The lawsuit names both Abbott Laboratories and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

All three plaintiffs were implanted with an Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator, a medical device surgically placed in patients suffering from severe, chronic back pain. The system works by delivering electrical pulses to the spinal cord, which are intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

The implant is designed to remain permanently inside the patient’s body. Each system includes a small battery powered pulse generator implanted beneath the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord, and an external controller that allows physicians or patients to adjust the level of stimulation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries

First introduced in the early 2000s, manufacturers have continued to refine and revamp the design of SCS devices, releasing multiple updated versions. Many of those updated versions were approved through the FDA’s 510(k) fast-track approval process, allowing devices to be approved without full clinical trials as long as they are deemed “substantially equivalent” to previous existing models.

The program has faced significant criticism over the years due to vague and inconsistent interpretations of what qualifies as “substantially equivalent.” Critics argue the FDA often takes a lenient approach and does not adequately verify whether newer devices include major changes in operation, materials or other design features compared to the original product.

Plaintiffs in a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits say SCS devices have undergone significant design and programming changes with limited independent testing. They report incidents involving sudden electrical shocks, burning sensations, worsening pain, neurological problems, lead fractures and lead migrations, and ineffective pain relief. In some cases the patients have to undergo revision or removal surgeries.

As lawyers continue to work to prepare for the next bellwether trial in April 2026, involving allegations that Uber should be held responsible for a driver sexually assaulting a passenger, the U.S. District Judge presiding over the litigation floated the idea of increasing the size of the jury, to provide a more representative sample of how jurors may respond to evidence likely to be repeated throughout thousands of other claims.

The rideshare giant currently faces more than 3,300 Uber sexual assault lawsuits brought by former passengers, almost exclusively women, who say they were harassed, assaulted or attacked by drivers.

Each lawsuit raises similar allegations, indicating that Uber relied on minimal background checks and failed to properly train drivers on sexual harassment and assault awareness. The lawsuits also contend Uber declined to adopt additional safety measures, such as surveillance cameras or enhanced in-app protections, that could help deter assaults or protect passengers during rides.

As the number of women who came forward with similar allegations against Uber rapidly grew, all federal sexual assault lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California in October 2023. The litigation was assigned to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Federal Uber Sexual Assault Trials

As part of the federal MDL proceedings, Judge Breyer has ordered the parties to proceed through a series of six bellwether trials. These representative cases are designed to help both sides evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated across thousands of similar claims if the litigation proceeds to trial.

The first federal Uber sexual assault bellwether trial went before an Arizona jury last month, resulting in an $8.5 million verdict for plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, who alleged she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. Jurors determined that Uber was not liable for failing to provide additional safety features. However, they found the company responsible for the actions of the driver, concluding he was acting as an agent of the rideshare service at the time of the assault.

The second federal bellwether trial is now scheduled to begin jury selection on April 13, 2026, involving claims brought by an anonymous plaintiff identified as WHB 823, who alleges she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in North Carolina in March 2019, after ordering a ride through the company’s app.

Expanded Uber Lawsuit Jury Pool

In a pretrial order (PDF) issued on March 3, Judge Breyer indicated that the court was considering expanding the jury from nine members to 12 for the WHB 823 case, which he says would better mirror how other cases would be handled in North Carolina state court. The change, if made, would also provide the parties with information about the relative strengths and weaknesses of their positions, he explained.

“This jury expansion would be contingent on the Parties stipulating that a majority of at least nine jurors would be sufficient to reach a verdict, rather than requiring unanimity. Under this arrangement, the Court would also provide the Parties with three additional preemptory challenges each, for a total of six preemptory challenges per side. “

– U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer

In response to the proposal, the parties filed a Joint Submission (PDF) late on Friday, providing their respective positions on the prospect of increasing the size of the jury.

Plaintiffs agreed that seating 12 jurors for the WHB 823 case would be useful and further the goals of the bellwether process, as long as unanimity is not required among the entire group. Therefore, plaintiffs indicated that they were willing to stipulate to the court’s proposal that an agreement among at least nine jurors would be sufficient to reach a verdict.

However, attorneys for Uber indicated that they were unable to agree to such a stipulation. Therefore, absent further developments, the court will likely move forward with a requirement that at least six jurors must unanimously agree to reach a verdict.

While the outcome of the bellwether trials will not be binding on other cases, they are being closely watched as they could have a significant effect on any settlement negotiations. However, if no Uber sexual assault lawsuit settlement is reached after the trials conclude, Judge Breyer may remand the cases back to their originating federal district courts for individual trial dates.

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

Nearly 1,000 women have now filed lawsuits against Chesapeake Regional Medical Center, alleging they were subjected to unnecessary and irreversible gynecological surgeries performed by a longtime physician later convicted of health care fraud.

The growing litigation stems from treatment provided by Dr. Javaid Perwaiz, a former obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for decades in the Chesapeake, Virginia area and performed many of his procedures at Chesapeake Regional Medical Center.

According to recent reports, 123 additional plaintiffs joined the litigation last week, bringing the total number of women pursuing claims to about 907 former patients. Many allege they underwent hysterectomies, sterilizations or other invasive procedures that were not medically necessary.

Women involved in the case are seeking about $10 million in damages each, arguing the hospital failed to intervene despite warning signs that Perwaiz was performing improper procedures.

Perwaiz was convicted in federal court in 2020 on 52 counts of health care fraud and related charges after prosecutors demonstrated he carried out unnecessary surgeries while billing insurers and government health programs.

He is currently serving a 59 year federal prison sentence for the scheme. Many of the surgeries cited in the lawsuits took place at Chesapeake Regional Medical Center, where Perwaiz held medical privileges from the 1980s until his arrest in 2019.

Hospital Failed to Stop Abuse

The growing wave of lawsuits claims the hospital and its leadership should have intervened earlier, alleging administrators ignored warning signs about the doctor’s conduct and allowed the procedures to continue for years.

According to the claims, the hospital continued granting Perwaiz privileges even though concerns had been raised about unnecessary surgeries and other irregular practices.

Some allegations in federal filings indicate the hospital received millions of dollars in reimbursements from government health programs for procedures performed by the doctor, while concerns about his conduct were raised internally. Plaintiffs contend the hospital’s failure to act allowed the doctor to continue performing surgeries that permanently altered patients’ lives.

The lawsuits seek compensation for medical expenses, emotional distress and other damages tied to procedures plaintiffs claim should never have been performed.

In addition to civil lawsuits, Chesapeake Regional Medical Center has also faced federal criminal charges related to the scheme, with prosecutors alleging the hospital conspired to defraud government health care programs and allowed medically unnecessary procedures to be performed at its facility.

Individuals who believe they may have been harmed by unnecessary surgeries, or other forms of doctor negligence, can contact a medical malpractice attorney to determine if they should file a lawsuit.

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

Two new studies suggest medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro may pose risks to bone health in older adults, raising concerns about prescribing the drugs to elderly patients.

In one of the studies, researchers from Israel report that the widely used diabetes and weight loss medications may significantly increase the risk of fractures among patients with fragile bones, a condition that commonly develops with age. 

Published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism last month, it is the second study in recent months to warn about potential bone risks.

Ozempic and Mounjaro, as well as their weight loss versions, Wegovy and Zepbound, all belong to a class of medications known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The class, which also includes Trulicity, Saxenda, Rybelsus and others, has skyrocketed in popularity in recent years as the medications became linked with increased weight loss and beneficial metabolic effects.

However, the researchers noted the drugs are increasingly prescribed to elderly patients despite limited understanding of their potential effects on bone health. Raising similar concerns, researchers from Denmark published a study in 2024 looking at bone density in 195 participants given the GLP-1 drug Victoza. They linked GLP-1s to a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), particularly around the hips and legs.

If confirmed, the findings could add to a growing list of GLP-1 side effects that were not originally disclosed on the drug labels. The manufacturers already face thousands of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits and GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits filed in courts nationwide, each alleging the drug makers failed to adequately test the medications and failed to provide proper warnings about the risks on the product labels.

In the new study on bone fracture risks, researchers analyzed a retrospective new user cohort of 46,177 patients age 65 and older who had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. All participants began treatment with either GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic or Mounjaro, or older diabetes drugs like Januvia and Byetta between 2018 and 2022.

Patients were followed for a median of 34.7 months. During that period, 4,086 participants, or about 8.8%, experienced fractures linked to bone fragility. The researchers found that elderly patients taking GLP-1 medications were about 11% more likely to suffer such fractures compared to those treated with other types of diabetes drugs.

Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that initiating GLP-1 therapy was associated with “a modestly increased risk of fragility fractures in older adults with type 2 diabetes.” They indicated the results may help physicians weigh potential skeletal risks against the drugs’ expected health benefits.

GLP-1 Osteoporosis and Gout Risks

The findings come as University of Pennsylvania researchers warned last week that GLP-1 side effects could also increase the risks of osteoporosis and gout.

Led by Dr. John Hornett, researchers initiated the study after he began noticing patients developing tendon injuries from minor injuries. The study’s findings were presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ annual meeting on March 2 and have not yet been published for peer review.

Dr. Hornett’s team looked at data on 146,000 adults with diagnoses of both obesity and Type 2 diabetes over the course of five years, comparing those who took GLP-1 medications with those who did not.

According to the findings, those taking GLP-1 drugs faced a 30% increased risk of osteoporosis. They also indicate that rates of gout were about 12% higher among those taking GLP-1 drugs as well.

The researchers did note that the current label for Ozempic (semaglutide) does include a warning of an increased risk of bone fractures in older adults and women.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

Claims that GLP-1 drug makers allegedly failed to warn about the risk of gastroparesis, or stomach paralysis, sparked the first wave of litigation against the manufacturers of the popular diabetes and weight loss medications.

The lawsuits target Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, which manufactures Mounjaro and Zepbound. Plaintiffs allege the companies did not adequately disclose the risk that the drugs could severely slow stomach emptying, leaving patients and doctors unaware of the potential complication.

The litigation accelerated after an October 2023 study linked GLP-1 drugs to a threefold increased risk of gastroparesis compared to users of non-injectable weight loss medications. Since then, more than 3,300 GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

Those claims have since been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where U.S. District Judge Karen Marston is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Marston has indicated the court will work with the parties to select a small group of representative cases for bellwether trials, allowing both sides to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to recur across thousands of similar claims.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

In January, the same judge was also put in charge of a growing number of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits, a smaller, but growing, litigation that began after a series of studies linked semaglutide-based drugs, like Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, to being associated with a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

The condition can cause rapid onset of blurred or reduced vision, including blindness. It occurs suddenly and the damage is often permanent. More than 50 GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits have already been filed by patients facing such injuries.

It is expected that Judge Marston will also plan a series of bellwether trials for these cases as well. However, this litigation is much earlier in the process than those involving stomach paralysis.

While the outcomes of these trials, for either condition, will not be binding on other claims, they will be closely watched to see what kinds of payouts juries award to plaintiffs, which are likely to have a significant impact on negotiations. However, if no settlement is reached following the bellwether trials, Judge Marston is likely to remand the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

Federal health officials are warning about potentially serious problems with Olympus ShockPulseSE Lithotripsy System reusable probes, after identifying a wiring defect that may delay treatment.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Olympus ShockPulseSE Lithotripsy System recall on March 5,  indicating that a miswired component in some devices may generate electrical noise in the power supply. According to the agency, the interference could reduce the system’s reliability during procedures used to break up kidney, ureter or bladder stones.

The recall expands an earlier corrective action initiated by Olympus on January 8 after the company discovered additional generators that may contain the improperly wired component.

The Olympus ShockPulseSE Lithotripsy System is used during procedures to remove large kidney and urinary tract stones. The device combines ultrasonic energy with mechanical shockwave technology to break stones apart inside the kidney or ureter during minimally invasive surgeries. Once fragmented, the debris can be suctioned out through an endoscopic instrument, most commonly during a procedure known as percutaneous nephrolithotomy, or PCNL.

According to the recall notice, some of the system’s generators may contain a component that was improperly wired during manufacturing. The defect can create electrical noise in the device’s power supply, potentially interfering with the lithotripsy probe’s performance and reducing the overall reliability of the system. If the problem occurs during a procedure, it could interrupt the device’s operation and delay treatment while surgeons attempt to restore functionality.

The recall comes amid broader safety concerns involving Olympus medical equipment. Late last year, the company also recalled certain endoscope forceps plugs after reports linked the reusable devices to serious infections, resulting in more than 100 patient injuries and at least one reported death. In addition, reusable Olympus probes have been linked to infection problems in recent years, due to difficulties cleaning the devices between patients.

The new Olympus recall was issued for dozens of ShockPulseSE Lithotripsy Systems with model/catalog number SPL-SR, containing generator SPL-G and unique device identifiers (UDIs): SPL-SR 00821925043824 and SPL-G 00821925044203. A full list of affected serial numbers can be found in the FDA recall notice.

The FDA has announced the current Olympus issue as a Class 2 recall, which is a voluntary action taken for products that could cause injury, but are not immediately life-threatening.

Olympus notified health care providers about the concern in an “Urgent: Medical Device Correction” letter issued on January 8, advising hospitals and surgical centers to review their inventory and determine whether they have any affected ShockPulse devices currently in use.

Facilities that identify impacted units have been instructed to contact Olympus customer service to obtain a Return Material Authorization and arrange for the devices to be sent back to the manufacturer. Olympus indicates that the affected generators will be repaired at no cost and then returned to the facility for continued use.

The company also asked customers to share the notice with any other providers who may have received or redistributed the affected devices, and urged health care providers to report any complaints or device problems to the Olympus Technical Assistance Center and to the FDA.

Any adverse events associated with the device may also be submitted through the FDA’s MedWatch adverse event reporting program.

Olympus Probe Recalls

Olympus has faced multiple recalls due to injury concerns linked to its probes in recent years.

In December 2025, officials warned that improper cleaning of certain Olympus MAJ-891 Endoscope forceps/irrigation plug components had resulted in serious patient infections, which had caused at least 120 injuries and one death.

That same month, a recall involving the Olympus PolyLoop Endoscope Ligation device was linked to 113 reports of serious injuries. In that case, it was discovered that the loop could become stuck around a patient’s tissue during procedures, leading to severe tissue or mucosal injuries that could result in long procedural delays or hospitalizations.

A prior Olympus endoscope needle recall was issued in September 2025, due to concerns that components may detach during procedures, creating a risk to patient safety. In March 2025, an Olympus guide sheath recall was issued following dozens of serious injuries resulting from the tips of those devices detaching inside patients.

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

A newly filed product liability lawsuit claims that repeated injections of Dupixent lead to the development of a form of T-cell lymphoma known as mycosis fungoides, which starts as rashes on the skin, but could spread to the lymph nodes and other organs.

Donareen Oakley, and her husband Claude, brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 3, naming Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, as defendants.

Dupixent (dupilumab) is an injected medication originally used to treat atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. Approved in 2017, the label was later expanded to include use for treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammation-based respiratory tract and skin conditions, making it a blockbluster treatment in the U.S.

Dupixent Mycosis Fungoides Risks

While the medication has been marketed as safe and effective by its manufacturers, Dupixent side effects have been linked to T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that impacts the body’s white blood cells, which are a key part of the immune system. These concerns have raised warnings that the medication may increase the risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Mycosis fungoides is the most common type of CTCL. It causes red scaly patches on the skin that itch, which could be confused with eczema or psoriasis that Dupixent is already prescribed to treat, making it particularly important for the drug maker to warn about the potential risk so that patients can be more carefully monitored. 

While incurable, mycosis fungoides from Dupixent usually progresses slowly and most patients diagnosed with it do not die from the disease. However, in later stages, like most forms of cancer, it can become far more dangerous if it spreads to the lymph nodes and other organs. At that point, five-year survival chances plummet, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment.

As a result of the drug makers’ failure to warn about the CTCL risks when the drug was introduced, a growing number of consumers are now pursuing Dupixent lawsuits nationwide. Each raises allegations that the drug’s manufacturers knew, or should have known, that Dupixent may increase the risk of mycosis fungoides and other forms of CTCL and PTCL, yet failed to adequately warn patients or the medical community while continuing to aggressively promote the drug for more and more treatments.

According to the lawsuit, Oakley developed a skin rash that was diagnosed as atopic dermatitis, and received Dupixent injections from July 2019 until about June 2020. She alleges that neither she nor her physician were warned that the drug carried any potential cancer risks, or about the importance of monitoring for signs or symptoms of mycosis fungoides or other forms of CTCL.

Although the treatment initially appeared to improve her condition, the complaint states that Oakley soon developed new spots and worsening rashes. In August 2020, she was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides.

Since the diagnosis, Oakley has undergone UVB light therapy and Kenalog injections, and continues to use topical corticosteroids and methotrexate as part of her treatment.

The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers concealed evidence linking Dupixent to cancer risks from the public, the medical community and regulators.

“At the time that Plaintiff was first prescribed Dupixent, Defendants were or should have been on notice that there existed reasonable evidence of a causal association between Dupixent and development and/or progression of CTCL.”

– Donareen Oakley et al v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals et al

Oakley says that she will continue to suffer from Dupixent mycosis fungoides side effects for the rest of her life. The couple presents claims of failure to warn, and negligence. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Mycosis Fungoides Lawsuits

With common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, last month a group of plaintiffs filed filed a petition calling for Dupixent lawsuits like the one filed by the Oakleys to be consolidated before one U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of Georgia, as part of a Dupixent MDL (multidistrict litigation). I

Centralization would allow the court to coordinated discovery into common issues that may impact hundreds, or even thousands of lawsuits brought by former users of Dupixent diagnosed with mycosis fungoides or other forms as CTCL.

As part of the management of the MDL, the judge may establish a bellwether trial process, where a group of representative claims are used to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. However, each case would remain an individual lawsuit, and plaintiffs would retain their own counsel to prove that their injuries were directly caused by the medication’s side effects.

While the litigation continues to expand, Dupixent lawyers provide no-cost consultations to help former users determine whether they may be eligible for a claim or settlement. These claims are handled on a contingency basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and attorney fees are only paid if a settlement or verdict is obtained.

The agricultural technology company Syngenta announced last week that it is ending production of the controversial weed killer Paraquat in June 2026, after years of litigation against the company over the failure to adequately warn that users may be at risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, even when all of the recommended safety features are followed.

Paraquat was first approved for use in the United States in 1964, when it was sold under the brand name Gramoxone. Although it has been banned in more than 70 countries due to its extreme toxicity, it remains widely used in the U.S. to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before crops are planted. It is also used after harvest to dry out certain crops.

The herbicide has long been associated with severe poisoning risks and, in recent years, researchers have also linked exposure to Parkinson’s disease. Studies indicate that farm workers, landscapers and others who regularly spray, mix or handle the herbicide may face a higher risk of developing chronic and progressive neurological damage.

As a result, manufacturers now face thousands of Paraquat lawsuits in federal court alleging that Syngenta failed to warn users that the herbicide may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Syngenta Ends Paraquat Production

On March 3, Syngenta issued a press release announcing that it was ending global production of Paraquat. The company currently plans to phase out production by June of this year and plans to retool the only Paraquat manufacturing plant in Huddersfield, UK.

While the company still maintains that Paraquat is safe and effective, and claims it has chosen to move on to new technologies, the announcement comes as lawmakers in several states call for the weed killer to be banned, including Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Utah.

“This decision is about focusing our resources where they deliver the greatest value for our business and our customers.”

– Mike Hollands, President of Syngenta UK, and head of global production and supply

The press release states that the company will work with customers to assist in transitioning away from Paraquat use.

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

The decision to end production also comes as plaintiffs and defendants in more than 6,000 Paraquat lawsuits continue to work to finalize terms of a global settlement agreement to compensate former users diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

Since June 2021, all federal Paraquat lawsuits have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of Illinois, where U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengal has been working with the parties to prepare for a series of early “bellwether” trials, which are designed to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first trial was expected to begin in January 2026. However, Syngenta reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, avoiding the trial at the last minute. The settlement came after attorneys announced in April 2025 that they were nearing a Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuit settlement agreement to resolve all claims pending in the federal MDL. Judge Rosenstengal subsequently put a stay in place on all pretrial proceedings at the federal level. In December, she extended the Paraquat lawsuit stay until March 6, 2026.

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

According to a new investigative report issued by the Rhode Island Attorney General, Catholic priests have sexually abused hundreds of children in Rhode Island over the last 75 years, with findings suggesting that the church prioritized silencing victims and protecting abusers over the safety and wellbeing of young kids.

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha issued a press release last week, detailing the findings of a seven year investigation by his office into allegations of child sexual abuse within the Diocese of Providence.

Similar to reports issued in other states in recent years, the findings detail decades of abuse allegations and identify 75 Rhode Island priests whom investigators determined were the subject of credible accusations.

Neronha said the investigation found that, rather than reporting allegations of horrific child sexual abuse to law enforcement, the diocese repeatedly reassigned priests accused of misconduct. According to the report, at least 30 priests facing accusations were transferred to new positions, with some moved as many as five times.

The investigation was launched in 2019, in partnership with the Rhode Island State Police, after a Memorandum of Understanding between the Attorney General’s office and former Bishop Thomas J. Tobin gave investigators access to internal diocesan records dating back to 1950.

Investigators reviewed more than 250,000 pages of records, including personnel files for accused priests, internal investigations into abuse complaints, documentation related to the “treatment” of abusive clergy and diocesan policies.

The report indicates that Rhode Island priests sexually abused more than 300 children over the past 75 years. Investigators were able to contact about 150 of the victims. Neronha said the findings reveal “deep institutional and personal failures” within the Diocese of Providence, adding that investigators believe the church’s handling of the allegations allowed additional children to be abused when the priests were not reported to law enforcement.

“Child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Providence occurred on an abhorrent, staggering scale. And as our report describes, for decades the Diocese of Providence engaged in a well-worn pattern of protecting the reputation of the Church and its priests over the welfare of children.”

– Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha

Four priests have already been arrested as a result of the investigation and indicted on charges of child molestation or sexual assault. They include Fathers John Petrocelli, Edward Kelley, James Silva and Kevin Fisette, who are all awaiting trial.

A fifth priest, James Jackson of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in June 2023 and was sentenced to six years in prison followed by five years of probation.

The Rhode Island investigation was prompted by a 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report that uncovered widespread child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church and detailed how church leaders concealed allegations against clergy. The findings sparked similar investigations in other states and led to new laws expanding the statute of limitations for abuse victims.

Report Calls for Reforms to Rhode Island Laws

Neronha also called on the state to adopt stronger laws to address the problem. He recommended that lawmakers amend Rhode Island’s civil and criminal statutes of limitations and require clergy, religious leaders and other religious employees to report known or suspected child sexual abuse or neglect. He also urged the legislature to authorize grand juries to issue public reports, even when no indictment is returned.

The recommended reforms are similar to those made by other states in recent years, such as New York, California, New Jersey and more, which expanded their statute of limitations for child sex abuse civil lawsuits, allowing “windows” of time for adult victims to file claims regardless of how long ago the incidents occurred.

Other states have gone even further. Maryland’s Child Victims Act eliminates the statute of limitations on such cases completely. This has resulted in an influx of Maryland child sexual abuse lawsuits against the Catholic Church and numerous other entities over the past year. The state successfully defended the law’s constitutionality before the Maryland Supreme Court.

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

According to a new report, dozens of dangerous chemicals are approved for use in the U.S. food supply because of a loophole in federal safety regulations.

On March 3, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published the results of an investigation into U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) practices, warning that the agency allows food manufacturers to classify certain chemicals in ways that bypass extensive safety reviews, even when there is evidence that the substances may pose risks to human health.

The issue stems from a regulatory exemption created decades ago. In 1958, Congress established the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) designation, which allowed companies to label common ingredients such as salt and baking powder as safe without undergoing formal FDA approval. The exemption also permitted companies to determine that certain chemicals qualify as GRAS, allowing them to avoid the agency’s lengthy premarket review process.

However, the report indicates the system has been widely exploited, allowing companies to introduce new substances into the food supply that have never been reviewed by the FDA. EWG states the problem worsened in 1997, when the agency created a voluntary notification system that lets companies decide whether to inform regulators about new chemical ingredients used in food.

According to EWG researchers, this expanded loophole has allowed companies to introduce hundreds of chemicals into cereals, snack bars, sports drinks, frozen foods and other heavily industrialized ultra-processed foods.

Food Additive Approval Problems

Concerns about food additive oversight have been raised by researchers for years. A report compiled by the Global Research Center and published in 2015 concluded that most food additives currently used in the U.S. food supply have not undergone thorough safety testing. The researchers warned that Americans may be routinely exposed to potentially harmful chemicals because regulators have relied on industry safety determinations rather than independent FDA review.

More recently, an August 2024 study by researchers from the NYU School of Global Public Health warned that federal regulators are failing to adequately protect consumers from risky food ingredients.

Those health experts called on the FDA to close regulatory loopholes and take a more active role in determining which additives are allowed in the nation’s food supply.

Secret GRAS

In the new report, researchers from the EWG investigated chemicals labeled as GRAS in the American food supply. They identified 111 food chemicals used in numerous products that they say are unsafe and may be harmful when ingested.

The EWG indicates manufacturers used the GRAS loophole to make their own safety determinations about those chemicals without notifying the FDA, while keeping the details about the safety of the chemicals secret. These chemicals are often known as “secret GRAS.”

Investigators report that companies have added thousands of food additives to the market since 2000, often without notifying the FDA. During the same time frame, the FDA only reviewed 10 new food additive applications and approved only seven through the official pre-market system.

The EWG analysis of voluntary notifications to the agency since 2000 indicates nearly 99% of new food chemicals have exploited the GRAS loophole to be allowed on the market. For example:

• Teavigo is a green tea extract used in more than 900 food products, including water, smoked fish, candy, granola bars and other products.
• Qmatrix is an aloe vera chemical used in more than 400 products including fruit and vegetable juices, tea bags and yogurt.
• BioVin 20 is a grape skin extract used in hundreds of sodas, juices, cooking sauces, candies and salad dressing products.
• Chocamine is a cocoa extract used in brown sugar and powdered sugar, coffee, cereal and cookies.
• Cinsulin is a cinnamon chemical used in honey, cereal, dessert toppings, popcorn, alcohol, powdered drinks, fruit juices and puddings.

Aloe vera is a safe natural ingredient but the FDA banned its use in laxatives in 2002 due to concerns of cancer, kidney injury and other health problems. However, companies continue to use aloe vera chemicals in many food products under the secret GRAS loophole.

In 2022, nearly 500 people became ill after consuming products made with tara flour, an ingredient that had been treated as a secret GRAS substance. The FDA only became aware of the potential danger after consumers reported severe gastrointestinal injuries, liver damage and gallbladder problems, prompting a nationwide Daily Harvest recall in June 2022.

Identifying the source of the illnesses took about a month and required an extensive investigation involving the FDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, three independent laboratories, and multiple physicians, microbiologists and toxicologists. The mystery was ultimately resolved when the manufacturer determined that tara flour, which had never undergone an FDA safety review, was the likely cause of the outbreak.

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

Lawyers involved in federal AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits put forward a plan last week to select 18 claims to serve as potential bellwether trials, with guidelines on how each side will nominate particular ones that are most representative of the litigation as a whole.

AngioDynamics manufactures a line of implantable port catheter systems used to provide long term access to a patient’s bloodstream for the delivery of medications, fluids or chemotherapy. These devices, commonly known as totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVADs), consist of a small injection port placed beneath the skin that connects to a flexible catheter delivering treatment directly into a vein.

The company’s products include the Vortex Port, Smart Port, Xcela Port and other similar systems used in hospitals and cancer treatment centers nationwide.

However, recipients of the devices have now filed nearly 350 port catheter injury lawsuits against AngioDynamics, each alleging the devices were improperly designed and manufactured, causing them to fracture, migrate, develop infections or otherwise fail prematurely after implantation. As a result of these alleged failures, many individuals required additional medical treatment and surgical procedures to remove the devices and address resulting complications.

According to allegations raised in the complaints, a key problem involves AngioDynamics’ use of barium sulfate within the catheter material. While the substance is intended to make the devices visible during imaging scans, plaintiffs argue it weakens the polyurethane structure of the catheter over time.

The lawsuits claim this design makes the implants more susceptible to cracks and fissures that can allow bacteria to enter the bloodstream or cause fragments of the catheter to break off and travel through the body, potentially resulting in pulmonary embolism or damage to veins and surrounding organs.

Shared facts and applicable laws common to all of the claims led to the creation of a federal AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in the Southern District of California, where they are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Ohta has ordered the parties to prepare to hold “bellwether” trials, which are early test cases designed to see how juries digest the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case. She has instructed both plaintiffs and defendants to select 18 cases, nine each, to serve as the initial bellwether pool, from which the first bellwether trial cases will eventually be selected.

In a joint statement (PDF) submitted on March 2, the parties outlined their proposed parameters for the case selections. Those selections are due by June 5, 2026, after which they will begin going through case-specific discovery.

The parties have agreed to a structured selection process for the cases that will be prepared for early discovery and potential bellwether trials, with parameters that include the following case types:

• Four of the nine cases selected by each side must involve port catheter infections exclusively, with no other types of injuries alleged.
• Two cases selected by each side must involve thrombosis injuries only.
• Two additional cases must involve catheter fracture injuries.
• The final case selected by each side may involve any type of injury, except wrongful death.

While the results of these bellwether trials are not binding on other claims, they will be closely watched to see how juries interpret evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits if they should go to trial.

It is hoped that the results of the bellwether trials will lay the groundwork for an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit settlement agreement or other resolution. If not, Judge Ohta is likely to remand the remaining cases back to their originating federal district for individual trials.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

AngioDynamics is not the only manufacturer facing litigation over the design of port catheters. Bard Access Systems is also defending thousands of similar Bard PowerPort lawsuits, with more than 2,800 complaints currently consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell.

Although the Bard and AngioDynamics cases are proceeding in separate courts, the lawsuits involve many of the same allegations about port catheter failures. Plaintiffs claim the Bard PowerPort devices were defectively designed and prone to cracking, fracturing, infections and other complications after implantation. Similar to the AngioDynamics claims, plaintiffs also allege that the inclusion of barium sulfate in the catheter material weakens the structure of the polyurethane device over time, making it more susceptible to breakdown and increasing the risk of serious injuries.

As part of the coordinated proceedings, Judge Campbell has also ordered a group of Bard PowerPort lawsuits to be prepared for early bellwether trials, which are designed to help gauge how juries may respond to evidence presented in the litigation.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial is scheduled to begin April 21, involving claims brought by Robert Cook, who alleges he developed a Bard PowerPort infection that required intravenous antibiotic treatment. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled to begin July 7, August 18, October 13, and December 1 of this year, as well as February 2, 2027.

A trial is underway in a Chicago courtroom involving claims brought by four families, each alleging that their children developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed Similac infant formula following their premature births.

The trial will serve as an important bellwether for many other Similac NEC lawsuits currently pending in state and federal courts nationwide, each involving similar claims that Abbott placed profits ahead of the safety of newborns by failing to warn families and the medical community about the potential risks associated with feeding the cow’s milk-based formula to premature infants. Mead Johnson also faces similar Enfamil lawsuits for its own infant formula products.

NEC is an often-fatal condition caused by harmful bacteria in the lining of a newborn’s intestines, which is particularly prevalent in prematurely born infants whose gastrointestinal tract may not be fully developed at birth. The devastating infant formula injury can cause inflammation, necrosis and death. Infants suffering from NEC often require emergency surgery, and many infants do not survive the condition.

In hundreds of lawsuits now being pursued nationwide, families argue that the manufacturers have known that their cow’s milk-based products increased the risk of NEC, yet provided false and misleading information to the medical community while promoting their products for use among vulnerable premature infants.

Two Similac NEC lawsuits have already gone to trial in Missouri state court, one of which resulted in a nearly $500 million verdict, and the other, against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, ended in a defense verdict. In March 2024, a trial over similar claims against Mead Johnson, also held in Illinois state court, resulted in a $60 million decision.

The latest trial began this week in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago. All four plaintiffs indicate their premature newborns were fed Similac in the hospitals’ neonatal intensive care units (NICU) and were later diagnosed with NEC. All claim the children have suffered permanent and life-altering injuries.

Abbott argues that the “failure to warn” claims are unfounded, because the parents never saw the labels when the infants were fed in the NICU. Thus, they would not have made any different choices. The company argues that three of the families were given information about NEC risks and nutrition by medical staff, and in three of the cases Similac was the only option available.

Federal Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

While this latest trial is being held in Chicago state court, nearly 800 Similac and Enfamil infant formula NEC lawsuits are currently consolidated in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois under U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Pallmeyer has been working with parties for the last several years to prepare a series of bellwether trials to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Originally, the first federal infant formula NEC lawsuit trial was expected to begin in April 2025. However, it and several other bellwether cases were thrown out by the judge due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

The court is now preparing a second wave of potential bellwether selections, each involving injuries linked to Similac. Those trials are expected to begin in August 2026.

All of these trials, including the one under way in Chicago, are being closely watched, as any jury awards are likely to influence how much Abbott and Mead Johnson may need to pay in NEC infant formula lawsuits settlements to resolve the litigation. However, if the parties fail to reach a settlement before the federal bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are concluded, Judge Pallmeyer could start remanding the federal cases back to their originating districts for separate trial dates.

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

A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that an Ethicon Harmonic Scalpel fractured during a routine hysterectomy at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, leaving a metal fragment embedded in her pelvis that remains there today.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Sage Phoenix, formerly known as Jeanette Phoenix, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 2. It names the United States of America, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and Ethicon US LLC as defendants.

The Ethicon Harmonic Scalpel is a surgical instrument that uses ultrasonic energy, rather than electrical current, to cut tissue and seal blood vessels during open and minimally invasive procedures. The device creates rapid vibrations at the metal tip, allowing surgeons to cut tissue and control bleeding with limited heat spread. It is commonly used in gynecologic, colorectal, urologic and general surgeries.

However, if a surgical instrument malfunctions, it can create serious risks for patients. Potential complications may include damage to surrounding tissue, failure to properly seal blood vessels, or in certain cases fracturing of metal components that could remain inside a patient’s body and require additional treatment or corrective surgery.

In her lawsuit, Phoenix indicates she underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy and cystourethroscopy at the Dallas VA Medical Center on April 1, 2024. The procedure was performed by Dr. Mark Griffo, a VA-employed obstetrician-gynecologist.

During the operation, Dr. Griffo used an Ethicon Harmonic Scalpel, model HP054, for bladder dissection. While in use, the scalpel allegedly fractured, and a portion of its metal active electrode broke off inside Phoenix’s abdominal cavity.

After noticing the instrument appeared shorter, the surgeon summoned an Ethicon representative into the operating room, who confirmed the device had fractured and indicated he would address the issue with the manufacturer, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit states the surgeon was unable to locate the broken metal fragment during the procedure. Although staff performed imaging on the removed uterus to determine whether the fragment was present, no intraoperative imaging was conducted on Phoenix’s abdomen before the surgical site was closed.

The complaint alleges the surgical site was closed despite knowledge that a portion of the scalpel remained inside her body.

A CT scan conducted on June 11, 2024, reportedly confirmed the presence of a retained metal fragment in Phoenix’s pelvis, located behind her bladder.

While the operative note estimated the fragment to be approximately 2 millimeters long, the CT report allegedly measured the object at approximately 6 mm by 4 mm by 4 mm, suggesting it was significantly larger than originally believed. The scan also identified an umbilical hernia. The complaint states it is currently unknown whether the hernia is related to the retained scalpel fragment.

Phoenix alleges she continues to experience persistent pelvic pain in the area where the metal fragment remains. She also claims ongoing emotional distress and anxiety over the possibility that the sharp object could migrate and damage internal organs.

According to the lawsuit, physicians have advised that removal of the fragment would require additional surgery, which carries significant risks to her internal organs and future recovery.

“The United States’ negligence was the direct and proximate cause of Ms. Phoenix’s injuries. But for Defendant’s failure to locate and remove the fractured scalpel fragment prior to closure of the surgical site, the metal fragment would not have remained embedded in Ms. Phoenix’s pelvic region.”

— Sage Phoenix v. United States of America et al

The complaint raises allegations of medical malpractice against the United States, as well as strict products liability — manufacturing defect and negligent manufacturing against Ethicon.

Phoenix is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, physical pain, emotional distress and the potential need for corrective surgery.

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

Federal safety officials are urging consumers to immediately stop using certain Junsyoung heated insoles sold on Amazon, warning that the internal lithium-ion battery may overheat and catch on fire during use.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Junsyoung heated insole warning on March 5, following at least four reports of the products igniting, catching fire or causing other thermal incidents that resulted in burn injuries, including second and third degree burns requiring skin grafts.

Heated insoles are wearable warming devices designed to generate heat inside shoes or boots during cold weather. The products typically contain thin heating elements embedded in the sole that are powered by small rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, allowing users to maintain warmth while working, hiking or spending extended time outdoors in freezing temperatures.

However, because the devices operate inside enclosed footwear and remain in direct contact with the bottom of a user’s foot, any battery malfunction or overheating event can quickly lead to serious injuries before the wearer has time to remove the shoe.

The newly reported incidents are not the first safety concerns involving battery powered heated insoles. Similar products sold through Amazon and other online retailers have previously been linked to burn injuries, prompting safety warnings, product recalls, and a growing number of heated insole lawsuits filed by consumers who claim defective designs caused serious burns to their feet.

According to the warning, officials are instructing consumers to stop using Junsyoung heated insoles that were manufactured in China and sold on Amazon from July 2023 through March 2024. 

The insoles are black and red and contain a lithium ion battery in the heel area that is operated by a remote. The brand name “Junsyoung” or the seller name “JAMRIC” can be found on the purchase receipt.

Despite the reports of fires and severe burn injuries, the CPSC indicates that the manufacturer has been unresponsive to requests for additional information and has failed to respond to the agency’s request to issue a formal recall.

To prevent additional injuries, the CPSC is urging consumers to immediately dispose of the defective heated insoles and follow local household hazardous waste disposal procedures, warning that the lithium-ion batteries should not be thrown in the trash, placed in standard recycling bins, or dropped in retail battery recycling boxes due to the increased fire risk posed by damaged batteries.

Heated Insole Lawsuits 

The latest safety warning adds to a growing pattern of safety concerns involving battery powered heated insoles sold through Amazon, which have been linked to fires and severe burn injuries in multiple incidents reported to federal regulators.

Federal safety officials have previously issued similar warnings involving other heated insole products. In July 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission warned consumers to immediately stop using iHeat heated insoles sold on Amazon after receiving 11 reports of fires, explosions and other thermal incidents involving the products. At least eight of those reports involved burn injuries, including second and third degree burns. 

The agency later issued another warning in September 2025 involving Tajarly heated insoles, which were linked to multiple ignition incidents that resulted in burn injuries, including cases that required extended hospital stays. In both situations, the manufacturers were reported to be unresponsive to CPSC requests for safety information or voluntary recalls.

As reports of burn injuries have continued to emerge, consumers are now filing heated insole burn injury lawsuits, alleging the products were defectively designed, lacked adequate temperature controls or automatic shutoff protections, and were sold without sufficient warnings about the risk of burns while being worn inside enclosed footwear.

Heated insole injury attorneys are reviewing claims on behalf of consumers nationwide. Investigations focus on incidents where these battery-powered products allegedly malfunctioned during ordinary use, leading to serious injuries, including:

• Burns to the feet or toes
• Overheating, igniting or catching fire during normal use
• Emergency medical treatment or hospitalization for burn injuries
• Surgery or skin grafts related to foot burns
• Ongoing pain, scarring or mobility limitations

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

In recent years, various manufacturers have sold breast mesh implants, which are now widely used by cosmetic surgeons as long-term “internal bra” support systems. However, as a growing number of women report experiencing painful complications, questions have emerged about whether manufacturers may face liability for failing to adequately disclose the full extent of breast mesh complications linked to their products.

Breast mesh is used in certain reconstruction, augmentation and revision procedures as a way to reinforce weakened tissue and provide added support for implants. Often described as an internal mesh bra, the material may be synthetic or biologic and is implanted beneath the breast to act as a structural scaffold. Surgeons may recommend mesh when natural tissue is thin, prior procedures have failed, or additional stability is desired.

Patients are often told the mesh will integrate with surrounding tissue and create lasting internal stability. Because it is placed permanently and not intended for routine removal, many women understand the procedure as a durable solution designed to prevent future complications.

However, complications with breast mesh have been reported by women across the U.S., and some cosmetic surgeons now warn against the use of breast mesh due to problems they say may outweigh the intended benefits.

Reported issues have included persistent pain, recurrent swelling, fluid buildup, infection, visible distortion and tissue breakdown requiring medical treatment. In some cases, conservative care has failed and additional procedures became necessary.

Amid the increasing number of adverse events, breast mesh lawsuit investigations are now underway questioning whether these outcomes were simply surgical risks or whether the potential for infection, chronic inflammation, tissue damage or corrective surgery should have been more clearly disclosed by manufacturers.

Breast Mesh Complications Reported

Women who received breast mesh implants during reconstruction, augmentation or revision procedures have reported complications that extend beyond routine postoperative discomfort. While some symptoms resolve with conservative care, others persist and require further medical evaluation.

Diagnosed breast mesh implant complications reported in medical evaluations and published literature have included:

• Persistent infection diagnosed weeks or months after implantation
• Recurrent seroma, or fluid buildup, around the implant or mesh
• Chronic inflammatory response that does not respond to antibiotics
• Mesh exposure or erosion through thinning skin
• Tissue necrosis, where surrounding tissue begins to break down
• Implant malposition caused by mesh detachment or structural instability
• Chronic nerve pain or hypersensitivity
• Visible breast distortion or asymmetry

These complications are not always immediate. Some women describe an initial recovery that appeared normal before symptoms gradually developed, leading them to question whether they are experiencing internal mesh bra failures rather than routine postoperative issues.

YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN…

Internal Bra Mesh Failure Stories Highlight Risk of Pain, Infections and Other Problems

Women are sharing alarming reports of pain, infections, and reconstruction failures caused by internal bra mesh implants like GalaFLEX, as the FDA confirms these devices were never approved for breast surgery and lawsuits now allege manufacturers failed to warn about the risks.

Read More

Warning Signs After Internal Bra Surgery

Not all breast mesh side effects appear immediately after surgery. While temporary swelling, tightness and firmness are common during early recovery, symptoms that persist, worsen or return after initial improvement may signal an underlying complication involving the mesh or implant.

Before a formal diagnosis is made, women often notice changes such as:

• Swelling that improves, then unexpectedly returns
• Increasing firmness instead of gradual softening
• Warmth, redness or drainage near incision sites
• Persistent localized pain
• Sudden asymmetry between breasts
• A sensation that the implant has shifted
• Skin that appears thin, shiny or strained

Because internal bra mesh is designed to integrate into surrounding tissue, complications may not always be externally visible at first. Imaging studies such as ultrasound or MRI may be required to identify fluid collections, inflammatory reactions or mesh migration.

Some women report that symptoms do not appear until months or even years after surgery, long after they believed healing was complete.

Breast Reconstruction Mesh Complications

Breast reconstruction mesh complications may differ from cosmetic internal bra cases, particularly among women who have undergone mastectomy or radiation therapy.

Reconstruction patients may face additional risk factors, including:

• Thinner remaining tissue coverage
• Reduced blood supply following mastectomy
• Prior radiation exposure affecting wound healing
• Increased susceptibility to infection

In these cases, complications may include delayed wound healing, persistent drainage, skin flap necrosis, inflammatory reactions around acellular dermal matrix materials or even implant loss.

While many reconstruction procedures are successful, complications in this population can be medically complex and may require additional monitoring or intervention.

Who Can File A Breast Mesh Implant Lawsuit?

Women who received breast mesh implant during reconstruction, augmentation or revision surgery and later required medical treatment beyond normal recovery may have grounds to pursue a breast mesh lawsuit.

Breast mesh lawsuit investigations typically focus on whether the condition involved more than routine healing, such as infection diagnosed outside the expected postoperative period, recurrent fluid collections requiring drainage, chronic inflammatory response, mesh migration, tissue damage, implant instability or the need for corrective procedures.

Not every adverse outcome results in liability. But when internal bra mesh problems lead to additional surgeries, prolonged pain, mounting medical costs or permanent cosmetic changes, the central question becomes whether those risks were adequately disclosed before implantation.

Under product liability law, manufacturers have a duty to warn about known or reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the intended use of their products. Current breast mesh investigations are examining whether the risks of infection, inflammatory complications, structural instability and potential reoperation were clearly communicated when these materials were promoted for implant-based breast surgery.

Key questions under review include:

• Whether risks specific to breast implantation were sufficiently disclosed
• Whether complication and reoperation rates were accurately communicated
• Whether long-term durability claims were consistent with observed outcomes

To determine whether your breast mesh implant complications may qualify for a lawsuit, contact an attorney handling breast mesh cases to evaluate your medical history and potential claim.

Documenting Breast Mesh Complications

Women who experience complications and later wish to pursue a potential breast mesh failure lawsuit should keep records of all injuries, appointments, procedures and side effects.

Important documentation can include:

• A timeline of symptoms and treatments
• The approximate date of the original surgery, particularly if performed since 2015
• The type or brand of mesh used, if known
• Operative reports and pathology findings
• Imaging results
• Medical records describing infection, abscess, seroma, mesh migration, rupture, tissue necrosis, nerve injury, chronic pain or disfigurement
• Records of antibiotics, drainage procedures, or revision and removal surgeries

It is important to note that this information will be critical for your case, but is not needed to schedule a free breast mesh lawsuit case evaluation. Attorneys will help gather medical records and information relevant for your potential claim.

Additionally, women who experience complications following breast mesh implantation may submit voluntary reports through the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program, which allows patients and healthcare providers to document serious device-related problems.

Breast Mesh Complication FAQs

What are the most common complications linked to breast mesh implants?

Reported breast mesh complications include infection outside the normal recovery window, recurrent seroma or fluid buildup, chronic inflammation, mesh erosion, tissue necrosis, implant displacement and persistent nerve pain. Some women require medical treatment or additional surgery when these complications do not resolve with conservative care.

How do I know if my symptoms after internal bra surgery are normal or a complication?

Temporary swelling and tightness are common after breast surgery. However, symptoms such as worsening pain, fluid accumulation, redness, drainage, visible distortion or swelling that returns after initial improvement may indicate a complication. Imaging studies such as ultrasound or MRI are sometimes used to confirm issues like seroma or mesh migration.

Were breast mesh products approved by the FDA for cosmetic breast augmentation?

Surgical mesh products used in breast procedures were generally cleared through the FDA’s 510(k) process for soft tissue reinforcement applications, such as hernia repair. They were not specifically approved for cosmetic breast augmentation or implant-based reconstruction as permanent structural support devices.

What does a breast mesh failure-to-warn claim involve?

Failure-to-warn allegations focus on whether manufacturers adequately disclosed known or reasonably foreseeable risks associated with breast mesh use. These claims typically question whether patients and surgeons were sufficiently informed about complication rates, long-term durability concerns and the potential need for corrective procedures.

When should I consider speaking with a lawyer about breast mesh complications?

Women often seek legal review when complications extend beyond routine recovery and require antibiotics, drainage procedures, hospitalization or additional corrective surgery. An attorney can review medical records and determine whether the circumstances may meet investigative criteria.

A $7.25 billion deal that seeks to resolve all current and future Roundup cancer lawsuits received preliminary approval from a Missouri state judge on Wednesday, even as Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary continue to pursue an appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking immunity from the failure to warn claims.

The companies have faced one of the largest mass tort litigations over the past decade, since a report was issued in March 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, which warned that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was likely a cancer-causing substance for humans. 

Although Monsanto has disputed those findings, more than 120,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed in both a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and in state courts across the United States, with plaintiffs alleging long-term exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers.

Roundup Cancer Trials

Of the cases that have proceeded to trial before juries, several have resulted in substantial verdicts against Monsanto and its parent company Bayer. In a number of those trials, juries determined the companies failed to adequately warn consumers about the potential cancer risks associated with Roundup.

The first Roundup cancer trial went before a California state court jury in August 2018, resulting in a $289 million verdict for a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That award was later reduced to $78 million. In 2019, the first federal bellwether trial in the Roundup MDL resulted in an $80 million verdict against Monsanto. That same year, another California state court jury returned a $2 billion verdict for a married couple who both developed cancer after long-term exposure to the herbicide, though the award was later reduced to $87 million.

Following a series of early trial losses, Bayer agreed to pay more than $10 billion to resolve a large group of Roundup claims about five years ago. However, thousands of plaintiffs declined to participate in the settlement program, and new lawsuits continue to be filed as former users are diagnosed with cancer years after exposure.

Last month, the parties announced a tentative Roundup settlement deal under which Bayer would make capped annual payments that decline over time for the next 21 years, totaling another $7.25 billion. The announcement also indicated that additional Roundup settlements have been reached, although the terms of those agreements were not disclosed.

On March 4, Missouri Circuit Court Judge Timothy J. Boyer issued a preliminary approval order (PDF), signing off on the deal. The order notes that the Court found the Roundup settlement terms to be fair and equitable and likely to receive final approval.

“The Settlement Class consists of, only for purposes of the Settlement: those U.S. Persons who, prior to the Settlement Date, have been Exposed to one or more Roundup Products and who: (i) Applied any Roundup Products; (ii) purchased or paid for any Roundup Products or for the Application of any Roundup Products; (iii) participated in, directed, or saw the Application of any Roundup Products; or (iv) otherwise had reason to know of their Exposure.”

– Missouri Circuit Court Judge Timothy J. Boyer

Details of the settlement agreement are slated to be posted on a settlement website some time today. Objections and requests to opt out of the proposed plan are due by June 4, 2026. The judge scheduled a Fairness Hearing for July 9, 2026.

Bayer Still Seeking Roundup Liability Protection

The preliminary settlement approval comes as Bayer continues efforts to limit its exposure to future Roundup lawsuits that are not covered by the agreement. The company has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal pesticide regulations override state laws requiring cancer warnings for products like Roundup.

In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and is expected to issue a decision before the end of its term in June. The federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general have filed briefs supporting Bayer’s position following a major lobbying campaign by the manufacturer.

Attorneys familiar with the case have said the settlement agreement would hold regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case, which has become known as Durnell v. Monsanto. It stems from an October 2023 verdict that awarded $1.25 million in damages to a plaintiff.

Prior reports have suggested that if the efforts to seek immunity under federal preemption had failed, Bayer was considering seeking liability protection for Monsanto through the U.S. bankruptcy process.

Previous indications from Bayer have suggested it plans to remove glyphosate from Roundup products sold in the U.S. However, last month the White House announced plans to encourage ramped up production, claiming the need for the herbicide was a matter of national security.

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

The City of Baltimore is asking a federal appeals court to keep its lawsuit against sports betting platforms FanDuel and DraftKings in Maryland state court, arguing the case involves issues that could affect the state’s law and public policy.

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore originally filed the lawsuit against FanDuel and DraftKings in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in April, alleging the online sportsbooks used tracking algorithms and aggressive marketing tactics to encourage compulsive gambling behavior among consumers.

According to the complaint, the companies violated Baltimore’s Consumer Protection Ordinance by targeting vulnerable users who were showing signs of gambling addiction.

DraftKings and FanDuel later sought to move the case to federal court, prompting the appeal now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a response brief (PDF) filed late last month, the city urged the court to reject that request and allow the case to proceed in state court.

Gambling Addiction Concerns

Since the state approved online sports betting in 2021, Maryland has seen an explosion in online wagering, particularly in urban centers like Baltimore. In fiscal year 2024 alone, Maryland residents wagered over $5 billion on sports betting sites. By January 2025, more than $457 million in bets were placed through DraftKings and FanDuel by users in Baltimore, according to figures cited in the original complaint.

The companies, as well as other online gambling apps, now face a growing number of sports betting lawsuits filed nationwide by individuals who say they developed gambling addiction due to the exploitative nature of the websites. Many of these users report racking up tens of thousands of dollars in losses and receiving repeated promotions even after requesting self-exclusion or help.

These lawsuits claim that the platforms ignored red flags and continued marketing to users who were clearly in distress. In addition, many claim the platforms engaged in false or misleading advertising through claims of “risk-free” promotions and “free bets” that turn out to have numerous strings attached.

In May, DraftKings and FanDuel had the Baltimore lawsuit removed to federal court, based on the fact that neither company is based in Maryland. DraftKings Inc. is based in Nevada, while Flutter Entertainment PLC, doing business as FanDuel Inc., is based in Ireland.

A federal judge rejected the removal, sending the lawsuit back to state court. However, DraftKings and FanDuel have appealed that decision to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the case should be handled like a consumer protection lawsuit.

In its response brief, the city urged the appellate court to uphold the earlier decision. The city indicates gambling regulation falls squarely in the jurisdiction of state police power. The response also notes that the city seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief, further differentiating it from a consumer civil lawsuit seeking compensatory damages.

“This case presents the paradigmatic scenario for federal deference: novel questions of state law at the intersection of consumer protection and gambling regulation—an area at the heart of state police power—where no court has addressed the issues presented and federal adjudication would disrupt Maryland’s efforts to establish coherent policy.”

– City of Baltimore

DraftKings and FanDuel Lawsuits

In addition to claims brought by states and municipalities, a growing number of sports betting addiction lawsuits have been filed by consumers in recent months against the two platforms. Many of the cases are brought on behalf of young adults and college-age users who say they suffered significant financial losses after developing compulsive gambling behavior.

Sports gambling addiction lawsuits are being investigated for individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who suffered significant financial losses after using online sportsbooks, often exceeding $10,000. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

Sports gambling lawyers are reviewing claims nationwide on behalf of young adults and college students who developed compulsive gambling behavior and experienced financial harm that may have been preventable.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for sports betting addiction lawsuit updates to be delivered directly to your inbox.

A recent case study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine Clinical Cases highlights the role pacemaker infections may play in causing pulmonary blood clots, after doctors traced a patient’s recurring clots in the lungs to his implanted cardiac device.

Pacemakers are small implantable medical devices designed to help regulate abnormal heart rhythms by delivering electrical impulses that prompt the heart to beat at a normal rate. The devices are typically placed under the skin in the chest and connected to the heart through thin wires, known as leads, which monitor heart activity and deliver stimulation when needed.

The devices are widely used in the United States, with about 200,000 implanted each year and an estimated 3 million Americans currently living with a pacemaker.

Pacemaker Concerns

Although pacemakers are widely used and often lifesaving, recent recalls, safety alerts and research findings have raised concerns about potential device malfunctions and infection risks associated with the implants.

A recall of Boston Scientific pacemakers was issued in December 2024 following two patient deaths that were linked to the devices malfunctioning from battery defects. Later, the recall was upgraded to a Class I designation, the most serious type of recall, following hundreds of injuries linked to the problem.

Boston Scientific was also involved in another pacemaker recall in October 2025 affecting more than 55,000 Accolade devices, after battery defects were found to reduce device performance and function, placing patients at risk of serious complications.

Research published last year concluded many individuals who have pacemakers or other implanted medical devices develop bacterial staph infections. Specifically, about 60% of infections associated with pacemakers are caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

Defective device designs, recalls and infection risks have led to a growing number of pacemaker lawsuits against manufacturers in recent years. Boston Scientific has been named in several claims alleging that recalled devices malfunctioned and caused life threatening medical emergencies. Many of the lawsuits indicate patients were forced to undergo additional surgery to repair or replace the implanted device.

In this latest report, a team of researchers, led by Dr. William Salibe-Filho at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, detailed the case of a 39-year-old man with a pacemaker who developed recurring pulmonary embolisms, which are dangerous blood clots that block arteries in the lungs.

The patient originally received the pacemaker in 2006, and the device battery was replaced in 2023 while the original leads remained in place. Shortly after taking a three-hour flight, he began experiencing shortness of breath and swelling in his legs, and a CT scan confirmed a pulmonary embolism.

Doctors initially prescribed the anticoagulant Xarelto, followed by warfarin and a third blood-thinning medication. However, the patient continued to suffer recurring pulmonary embolisms despite months of treatment.

After eight months without improvement, he was referred to a national center specializing in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease. Physicians then noticed that each episode was preceded by fever, fatigue, chest pain and shortness of breath, raising concerns that an infection may be triggering the clots.

Further testing suggested the presence of a low-grade inflammatory sepsis infection. During surgery, doctors discovered that a segment of the pacemaker lead had become firmly attached to a heart valve. Surgeons removed the lead and repaired the valve.

Physicians concluded that the pacemaker lead was likely the source of the infection that repeatedly triggered the blood clots. The patient was then treated with antibiotics for several weeks before and after surgery to eliminate the infection.

Researchers said recurring pulmonary embolisms while on anticoagulants is highly uncommon, only occurring in roughly two cases per 100 patient years. There is typically an underlying cause, often cancer. However, in this case, it was an infection caused by the leads of the pacemaker, the researchers determined.

They called for improved diagnostic testing for those with pacemakers to better detect infections.

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

As a growing number of women file Depo-Provera lawsuits indicating the birth control injection caused them to develop meningioma brain tumors, the U.S. District Judge presiding over the claims will meet with attorneys on Friday, to review the status of the litigation and progress preparing for the first test cases to go to trial in early December 2026.

Pfizer and several generic manufacturers face complaints brought by thousands of women nationwide, who claim that inadequate warnings were provided to consumers and the medical community about the risk that the Depo-Provera birth control shot may cause or accelerate the growth of brain tumors.

Concerns about the potential Depo-Provera brain tumor side effects first emerged after a French study linked the birth control injection to a 5.5-fold increased risk of developing intracranial meningioma, which are slow-growing brain tumors that can quietly develop before causing noticeable complications. Research has warned that as meningiomas grow, they may interfere with surrounding brain tissue and nerves, sometimes requiring surgical intervention or long-term medical monitoring.

Treatment of intracranial meningiomas may require one or more complex brain surgeries and, in some cases, the tumors are located in areas too critical to safely remove. Regardless of whether surgery is successful or even attempted, women often face lifelong fears that the meningioma could return or continue to grow, requiring ongoing medical monitoring to ensure it does not cause additional brain damage.

Since February of last year, all federal Depo-Provera lawsuits have been consolidated in the Northern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. 

Early in the litigation, Judge Rodgers selected five “pilot” cases to serve as bellwether lawsuit trials. These trials are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries will digest evidence and expert testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The parties are scheduled to meet with Judge Rodgers on March 6 to update the Court on the progress of discovery and other issues that need to be addressed before the first Depo-Provera bellwether trial, scheduled to begin on December 7, 2026. 

Ahead of the case management conference, plaintiffs and defendants released a joint status report (PDF) on March 2, indicating that there are now more than 4,000 Depo-Provera lawsuits pending nationwide.

In addition to 3,335 cases pending before Judge Rodgers in the Depo-Provera MDL, the lawyers indicate that there are hundreds of similar lawsuits pending in various different state courts, including 95 lawsuits involving 104 plaintiffs in New York state court and another 287 lawsuits, representing 405 plaintiffs, filed in Delaware state court.

Expert discovery in the federal MDL is currently underway, with depositions of expert witnesses beginning late last month and scheduled to continue through March 20. The parties have also asked the court to hold a hearing from May 26 through May 28 on motions seeking to exclude expert testimony that may be presented to juries during the upcoming bellwether trials.

In addition, Pfizer has indicated it plans to challenge the litigation on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not permit the company to add the warning labels plaintiffs claim were necessary, and therefore the manufacturer should be shielded from liability.

Despite these unresolved hurdles, the first bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin in December. Additional pilot trials are expected to follow in 2027. Once those early test cases are completed, if the parties are unable to reach a global Depo-Provera settlement, the remaining lawsuits may be returned to federal courts nationwide for individual trial dates.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all lawsuits claiming heavy metal contamination in baby food caused children to develop autism or ADHD has thrown out plaintiffs’ general causation arguments, excluding key expert witnesses from testifying at trial.

Over the past few years, nearly 400 product liability lawsuits have been brought throughout the federal court system against various baby food manufacturers, including Hain Celestial, Beech-Nut, Gerber and others. Each claim raises similar allegations that children developed autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) after consuming baby food products that were tainted with heavy metals, like lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium.

The litigation emerged after a 2021 Congressional report was released on the presence of heavy metals in baby food, which were found at much higher levels than expected. The report warned that infant exposure to these heavy metals may heighten the risk of serious developmental disorders, such as autism and ADHD, as well as other cognitive and behavioral issues that can affect a child’s development and long-term health.

As recently as 2024, another report found that popular baby food brands sold by Gerber, Beech-Nut, Sprout, Walmart and others still have potentially dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead, all of which can increase the risk of neurological side effects for children.

Baby food lawsuits filed by parents and caregivers accuse the manufacturers of placing profits ahead of the safety of the most vulnerable citizens, while actively concealing the presence of the contamination for decades.

Due to the common allegations and injuries raised in the claims, all federally filed toxic metal baby food lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of the MDL process, Judge Corley directed the parties to prepare a group of bellwether trials, which are intended to serve as test cases to help gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation. In preparation for those trials, each side was given the opportunity to challenge the reliability of expert witnesses expected to testify before juries.

These challenges are particularly important in product liability cases, where plaintiffs must present expert testimony establishing general causation, meaning reliable scientific evidence showing that a product is capable of causing the type of injuries alleged.

However, in an order (PDF) issued late last month, Judge Corley granted the baby food manufacturers’ motion to exclude all of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts from testifying at trial. The court determined that the experts failed to demonstrate through sound and currently accepted scientific methods that heavy metals in baby food can cause autism or ADHD.

In her decision, Judge Corley indicated that plaintiffs’ experts relied on unrealistic assumptions about how much baby food children consume, which resulted in inflated estimates of exposure to heavy metals. Since those same calculations were used by multiple experts in forming their opinions, the court found that the underlying methodology was unreliable. The judge also noted that:

“Even in an area of epidemiology marked by hundreds of studies, none has developed the data needed to support the causation conclusion Plaintiffs’ experts assert in this MDL.”

— Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, Order Re Defendants’ Motion To Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses

Judge Corley has scheduled a case management conference for April 2, during which the parties will discuss the next steps in the litigation, and whether any of the claims can move forward. She ordered the parties to submit a joint case management statement one week before the meeting.

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

A new study highlights the serious risks associated with driving while tired, indicating that it may be just as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, suggesting that there may be more than 10 times the number of drowsy driving deaths each year than are federally recorded.

The report was published by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) last month, showing that more than 6,300 people may have died in suspected drowsy driving crashes in 2023, compared to only 633 recorded in the federal database.

Prior research has found that individuals who sleep fewer than seven hours in a 24 hour period face a significantly higher risk of being involved in a crash, with the danger increasing further as sleep duration continues to decline.

Despite these well established risks, surveys indicate that nearly half of all Americans report driving while drowsy at some point. Federal safety officials warn that fatigue can slow reaction times, impair judgment and reduce attention in ways similar to driving while under the influence, contributing to thousands of crashes and deaths each year.

In the new report, GHSA, alongside General Motors (GM), analyzed multiple data sources, including the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Crash Investigation Sampling System. The analysis concluded that an estimated 17.6% of all fatal crashes between 2017 and 2021 involved a drowsy driver.

Using that percentage, researchers estimate that approximately 6,326 deaths in 2023 may have involved a drowsy driver. GHSA indicates this likely represents the best available estimate of the true prevalence of fatal drowsy driving crashes.

Researchers also estimate that about 1.57% of baseline driving at any given time is drowsy, meaning roughly three out of every 200 drivers on the road may be operating a vehicle while fatigued.

Prior research cited in the report found that staying awake for 17 to 19 hours can impair driving performance at levels comparable to a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05, further underscoring the similarity between fatigue and alcohol-related impairment.

Drowsy Driving Concerns

Certain groups appear to face elevated risk. The report notes that drivers ages 16 to 24 report higher rates of drowsy driving than older adults, and males are more likely than females to drive while fatigued. Studies also show high rates among college students, long-haul truck drivers and night-shift nurses.

Parents may also be particularly vulnerable. According to recent survey findings, 70% of parents with children under age 17 report having driven while drowsy at some point.

As a result of these findings, the report calls for:

• Later school start times to reduce teen crash risk
• Employer scheduling policies that prioritize adequate rest
• Expanded rest area infrastructure to allow fatigued drivers to stop safely
• Increased use of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), including driver monitoring technology that detects signs of fatigue

Vehicle systems that monitor eye movements, blinking patterns and lane positioning may provide alerts when drivers show signs of drowsiness. However, the report cautions that no technology can replace the driver’s responsibility to pull over and rest.

Researchers emphasize that healthy sleep habits are the first line of defense, recommending regular sleep schedules, reduced screen time before bed and avoiding alcohol or caffeine late at night.

Despite the mounting data, GHSA notes that drowsy driving rarely receives the same public attention as drunk or drug-impaired driving, even though the risks may be comparable.

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

With tens of thousands of individuals already pursuing lawsuits against the makers of Suboxone film strips, which have been marketed as a safe and effective treatment for opioid addiction, a growing number of former users continue to pursue new claims indicating that they were left with severe tooth enamel damage, resulting in dental injuries and tooth loss.

On March 1, a new joint complaint (PDF) was brought by 46 different plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, each indicating that they suffered dental injuries due to defective or inadequate warnings about damage the Suboxone film strips may cause to users teeth. The lawsuit seeks damages from Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc. and Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., formerly known as MonoSol Rx LLC.

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) is a prescription medication, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002, for the treatment of opioid use disorder. It is designed to help users avoid withdrawal symptoms while undergoing therapy to help them break their addiction.

While Suboxone was originally sold in tablet form, the drug makers later introduced Suboxone film strips, which users place beneath their tongue until they dissolve. However, after the design change, Indivior and the FDA began to receive tooth decay reports from patients, which ultimately led to a Suboxone dental side effects warning being added to the drug’s label in June 2022.

Since then, Indivior has faced thousands of Suboxone film lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, which claim the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings of the risks of Suboxone dental erosion, tooth damage and tooth loss.

Plaintiffs who signed on to this latest lawsuit are from across the United States, and all say they suffered damage to their teeth as a direct result of Suboxone film strip side effects.

Suboxone “Product-Hop” Allegations

According to the complaint, the shift from Suboxone tablets to film strips was not driven by improved safety or therapeutic benefit, but by an effort to block generic competition during a period of rising demand for opioid treatment medications.

Plaintiffs allege the drug makers engaged in a so-called “product hop,” introducing a bioequivalent film formulation that was not automatically substitutable for generic tablets, thereby preserving market exclusivity and higher-priced brand sales.

The lawsuit further alleges that the company discouraged physicians from prescribing the older tablet version by citing purported safety concerns before withdrawing the tablets from the market. Plaintiffs contend those actions were designed to delay generic entry and protect monopoly profits rather than improve patient safety.

The complaint alleges that FDA approval of the Suboxone film in August 2010 granted the company a three-year exclusivity period through 2013, and that subsequent patent litigation over the film formulation delayed generic competition until 2019. Plaintiffs contend this strategy effectively prolonged market protection and preserved monopoly profits beyond the original tablet’s exclusivity window.

Federal scrutiny later followed the company’s marketing of the film formulation. In 2020, former Indivior CEO Shaun Thaxter pled guilty to a misdemeanor criminal misbranding charge tied to representations that the film strips were less susceptible to pediatric exposure, a claim federal prosecutors alleged was misleading.

Suboxone Failure To Test and Warn Allegations

Plaintiffs allege that in the push to preserve market exclusivity, defendants failed to adequately test, study or monitor the dental risks associated with the oral-dissolvable film formulation, even as adverse event reports and published research began linking prolonged sublingual exposure to enamel erosion and decay.

“Indivior Inc. sought FDA approval for the Suboxone film on October 20, 2008. In support of the application for the film, Defendants submitted safety and efficacy studies for the tablets. Defendants should have properly analyzed (and/or reanalyzed based on subsequent developments) the data from these studies for FDA as to dental injuries.”

– Brian Adkins et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al

According to the complaint, defendants had a continuing duty to conduct post-marketing surveillance and update the warning label once evidence of a causal link to serious dental injuries emerged. Plaintiffs argue that mounting adverse event data and established knowledge about the effects of acidic compounds on dental health should have prompted earlier action.

Instead, the lawsuit contends the company continued marketing Suboxone film for long-term maintenance use without strengthening its warnings through the FDA’s Changes Being Effected process. The complaint asserts claims of failure to warn, negligent failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions, and pre-approval defective design, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Suboxone Film Lawsuits

The complaint will be added to thousands of other claims currently consolidated before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese as part of a Suboxone film lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Early in the litigation, Judge Calabrese announced that the Court would employ a bellwether trial process, which will prepare representative cases for early trial dates to help gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. 

Last month, he announced the selection of 100 Suboxone film lawsuits that will form the core discovery pool, some of which will eventually be selected for bellwether trials.

While the outcome of these bellwether trials will not be binding on any remaining claims, the average payouts awarded by juries may have a significant impact on future Suboxone settlements. However, if no settlement or other resolution is achieved during the pretrial proceedings, Judge Calabrese is likely to remand the cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

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

Novo Nordisk faces a new lawsuit brought by a Missouri woman, who alleges that injections of the diabetes drug Ozempic permanently damaged her vision and significantly impaired her quality of life, leaving her with a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Judy Mawhiney late last month in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, joining a growing number of former users of the popular diabetes drug now pursuing damages from Novo Nordisk, alleging that the drug manufacturer failed to adequately warn that side effects of Ozempic may cause sudden and permanent vision changes, including blindness.

Ozempic, Wegovy Vision Loss Lawsuits

With millions of Americans now taking or having taken GLP-1 medications, a concerning trend has emerged with users of Ozempic, Wegovy and similar medications reporting that they have been diagnosed with NAION, a rare eye condition that can cause sudden and potentially permanent vision loss.

In a study published earlier this month in JAMA Ophthalmology, researchers found that individuals treated with Ozempic, Wegovy or any semaglutide-based medication faced approximately twice the risk of developing NAION compared to those using SGLT2 inhibitor diabetes drugs.

As research continues to suggest a potential causal link, Ozempic and Wegovy NAION lawsuits are now being filed nationwide, each alleging that manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the risk of optic nerve injuries and resulting vision loss.

Given the growing number of claims, all federal GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in January. U.S. District Judge Karen Marston has been assigned to oversee coordinated discovery into whether the medications increase the risk of NAION and is expected to prepare a group of representative cases for early bellwether trials.

Ozempic Vision Loss After Several Months of Use

According to the complaint, Mawhiney’s doctor first prescribed her Ozempic in February 2024, for glucose control and to help with weight loss. However, she was only on the medication for a few months before her vision was permanently damaged, the lawsuit indicates.

Signs of a problem first emerged in July 2024, when Mawhiney visited her ophthalmologist after noticing a smudge in the lower portion of her visual field. She was subsequently diagnosed with NAION. Although she was advised in early August to discontinue Ozempic, she continued to experience worsening vision in her left eye, along with a sensation of increasing pressure.

“Plaintiff continues to suffer from significantly decreased vision in her left eye with blurry vision, which negatively affects her daily life including her job. As a result of using Ozempic, Plaintiff was caused to suffer from Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy OS and its sequelae, which resulted in blurry vision, visual disturbance, optic nerve swelling, and nerve pain.”

– Judy Mawhiney v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al

Mawhiney’s lawsuit indicates she suffered the injuries because Novo Nordisk failed to warn her or the medical community that Ozempic injections could result in blurred vision and vision loss. She argues that the manufacturer has known about the potential risk for years due to studies that have linked semaglutide to NAION but instead decided to place profits over patient safety.

She presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and marketing, breach of warranty, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

As the number of lawsuits alleging NAION-related vision loss continues to grow, a separate group of plaintiffs are also filing a series of GLP-1 lawsuits over gastrointestinal injuries allegedly linked to Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and others.

Those cases are being brought by individuals who claim the drugs caused gastroparesis side effects such as severe vomiting, intestinal blockages and other digestive complications. 

The gastrointestinal injury claims have also been consolidated into their own multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, separate from the NAION vision loss proceedings.

Judge Marston has indicated that the court plans to select a small group of representative cases as bellwether trials in the GLP-1 stomach paralysis litigation, allowing the parties to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to recur across thousands of similar claims. The court is expected to follow a similar bellwether process in the Ozempic NAION vision loss lawsuits.

While the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on other claims, they will be closely watched to see what kinds of payouts juries award to plaintiffs, which are likely to have a significant impact on negotiations. However, if no settlement is reached following the bellwether trials, Judge Marston is likely to remand the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

The family of a Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit against the makers of the HeartMate 3, saying the heart pump’s defective design led to his death.

The complaint was originally brought in California Superior Court in late January 2026, and subsequently removed (PDF) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 25. Filed by Julie, Emily and George Rodriguez on behalf of the estate of Renne Rodriguez, the lawsuit names Thoratec Corporation, Sum Thunder Holding Company and Abbott Cardiovascular as defendants.

The HeartMate Left Ventricular Assist System, or LVAD, is an implantable medical device used to help patients with advanced left ventricular heart failure circulate blood throughout the body. The system includes a surgically implanted heart pump that is controlled and monitored by an external controller, which is powered by a HeartMate Mobile Power Unit when the patient is away from a stationary power source.

HeartMate LVAD Pump Problems

Over the past few years, the device has been plagued with problems, patient injuries and deaths, which have resulted in a number of different recalls and safety warnings since the HeartMate LVAD was first introduced in 2001.

As recently as April 2025, the FDA announced a HeartMate 3 and Heartmate II recall, following reports of the devices suddenly losing power without warning. The problem was traced back to a faulty electrical component in the MPU. 

That followed a prior HeartMate 3 recall issued in May 2024, after reports of blood leaks and air embolisms, which increased the risk of hemorrhaging, stroke and heart failure. Leaks in the inflow cannula were found to compromise the device’s ability to circulate blood properly, often requiring emergency surgery.

At that time, the agency indicated the manufacturer had become aware of at least 81 incidents of blood leaks or air entering the devices, resulting in 70 injuries and two deaths linked to the HeartMate 3.

In previous years, the HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 accessories have been subjected to several other recalls over battery backup failures, controller communication errors and biological material buildup. These issues have been linked to hundreds of HeartMate LVAS obstruction problems and at least 14 deaths.

The Rodriguez’s wrongful death lawsuit now joins a number of similar HeartMate 3 recall lawsuits being pursued on behalf of individuals who suffered serious injuries, as well as by families who allege they lost loved ones due to defects or malfunctions involving the HeartMate devices.

According to the lawsuit, Renne Rodriguez was implanted with a HeartMate 3 device in November 2023, due to advanced heart failure. The LVAD was intended to help maintain continuous blood circulation and serve as a life-sustaining therapy.

However, his family, including his wife Julie and their two children, Emily and George, allege that the manufacturers knew for years that the HeartMate 3 was defective before it was implanted in Rodriguez. They claim the companies were aware of numerous reports of device problems and had already issued multiple recalls and safety corrections.

The lawsuit alleges that Abbott was aware of flow disruptions associated with the device but failed to properly report those issues to the FDA or take timely corrective action. According to the complaint, Rodriguez’s HeartMate 3 later experienced the same type of outflow obstruction, which the family claims ultimately led to his death on January 17, 2024.

Less than one month after Rodriguez’s death, the defendants began notifying customers about reports of obstruction involving the HeartMate 3 outflow graft.

“On February 14, 2024, Defendants began sending letters to customers warning of the risk that the outflow graft on the HeartMate 3 had been reported to be obstructed and this posed a risk of serious injury and death.”

– Julie Rodriguez et al v. Thoratec Corporation et al

The letter indicated that the problem was caused by a buildup of biological material between the outflow graft and the outflow graft bend, leading to loss of blood flow and potentially death. The FDA later classified the recall as Class I on March 22, 2024, its most serious designation, indicating a reasonable probability that the defect could cause serious injury or death.

The Rodriguez family presents claims of negligence and failure to warn, alleging that earlier corrective action or adequate disclosure may have prevented his death.

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

New research suggests that long-term lead exposure is linked to a higher risk of dementia and nearly triple the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

Lead exposure was widespread in the United States for decades before the 1990s, when lead based paint, leaded gasoline, contaminated drinking water systems and certain industrial emissions were far more common. As a result, millions of Americans were routinely exposed to elevated lead levels during childhood and early adulthood, often without knowing it.

Now, findings published on February 12 in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia indicate that individuals who grew up during that period of widespread lead exposure face a significantly higher risk of cognitive decline, including an increased likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease later in life.

Lead Exposure Risks

A wide body of research has linked lead exposure to numerous health problems, including learning disabilities and developmental delays, with even low level exposure during pregnancy and early childhood known to potentially cause lasting harm to children’s cognitive development.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) indicates there is no safe lead exposure level for children, warning that any level of exposure can increase the risk of injuries to the brain and nervous system. Supporting research published earlier this year also found that childhood lead exposure is associated with a higher risk of depression during adolescence.

For the new study, researchers from the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan examined blood lead levels in more than 8,000 people using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 1994 and 1999 to 2016.

Led by Dr. Xin Wang, the team then looked at the lead levels in bones, including the patella and tibia.

Researchers linked the data to Medicare claims and death records spanning up to 30 years. They then used machine learning algorithms to estimate bone lead concentrations, a marker of cumulative lifetime exposure. Unlike blood lead levels, which reflect exposure over roughly the previous 30 days, bone measurements provide a clearer picture of long term lead accumulation in the body.

People who had high bone levels of lead faced nearly twice the risk of developing all-cause dementia. Participants with the highest levels of lead in their bones faced three times the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

The data also showed that patients with patella bone lead levels in the lowest 25th percentile experienced an 18 percent reduction in dementia risk compared to those with higher concentrations.

Overall, the findings suggest that cumulative lead exposure over a lifetime is a significant risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. In contrast, current blood lead levels were not useful in assessing long term risk, since they reflect only recent exposure.

Instead, researchers found that bone lead measurements provide a more reliable indicator of exposure accumulated over years and decades. The team noted that lead stored in bone can later be released back into the bloodstream and migrate to vital organs, including the brain, potentially contributing to neurodegenerative damage.

“This finding suggests that circulating lead, as reflected by blood lead, may not be a relevant indicator of long-term cumulative exposure or suitable for assessing risk for chronic diseases such as (Alzheimer’s disease) and all-cause dementia.”

— Dr. Xin Wang, Exposure to lead and incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and all-cause dementia in the United States

With more than half a million Americans diagnosed with dementia each year, researchers concluded that reducing lead exposure and monitoring bone lead levels could prevent more than 900,000 future cases.

Wang’s team warned that it is important to continue efforts to eliminate remaining lead sources in communities, including old paint, old pipes, contaminated soil and lead producing industrial facilities.

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

Despite pending hearings on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs and defendants indicate that the first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial remains on track to get underway in July 2026, as the first in a series of test cases designed to help gauge how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout thousands of individual lawsuits.

The case set for trial centers on claims that the Covidien Symbotex hernia mesh was defectively designed, causing serious injuries and post-surgical complications.

However, the complaint is just one of more than 2,200 Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits, each alleging that various Covidien hernia mesh devices suffer from serious design problems that can cause chronic pain, infections, adhesions, hernia recurrence and the need for revision surgery.

Many of the complaints focus on the polyester and composite materials used in products such as Symbotex and Parietex, which plaintiffs claim can degrade, shrink or trigger inflammatory reactions after implantation.

Since June 2022, all Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits have been centralized in the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, who has been overseeing the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Under Judge Saris’s guidance, the parties have been preparing a small number of representative cases to serve as “bellwether” trials. These early test cases allow each side to present evidence before juries and evaluate how key legal and factual arguments are received, often shaping the direction of potential settlement discussions.

The process led to the selection of a Covidien Symbotex hernia mesh lawsuit, filed by Larry Patterson, of Alabama, to serve as the first bellwether trial. Patterson indicates he underwent surgery in July 2017 to repair an incisional hernia, at which time he was implanted with the mesh.

Over time, the mesh allegedly adhered tightly to his small bowel, contributing to a small bowel obstruction and a recurrent hernia, which required major corrective surgery in July 2020. During that operation, surgeons had to resect a segment of Patterson’s bowel at the point where it was stuck to the mesh.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Trial on Schedule

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial, known as the Patterson case, is currently scheduled to begin July 13, 2026, after it was previously postponed earlier this year. Before jurors are seated, however, the court must first rule on a pending defense motion that seeks to narrow or potentially dismiss parts of the case.

A motion for summary judgment asks the judge to decide certain legal issues in advance of trial, arguing that there are no factual disputes requiring a jury’s review. In some situations, such motions can end a case entirely. More often, they limit which claims or legal theories will be presented to jurors. Since the arguments raised may apply broadly across the litigation, the court’s ruling could influence how other Covidien mesh cases are tried going forward, even if it does not cancel this particular trial.

A hearing on the motion was initially set for February 17 and later moved to March 19, 2026. In a joint motion (PDF) submitted on February 11, attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants requested another short delay due to scheduling conflicts, asking that the hearing be rescheduled for April 2, 2026. The parties made clear they are not seeking to change the July trial date or any related deadlines.

On February 13, Judge Patti B. Saris granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.

Although the outcome of the Patterson trial will not be binding on the other pending Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits, it will serve as an important test case. Bellwether trials are designed to help both sides gauge how juries respond to the evidence, including whether they find the manufacturer liable and what level of damages, if any, may be awarded.

If the bellwether process does not lead to a global settlement or broader resolution, the court may eventually begin sending individual cases back to federal courts across the country for separate trials.

A federal judge has cleared a class action lawsuit against DraftKings to move forward, after determining that the popular sportsbook can not pursue an immediate appeal of an early ruling that allowed plaintiffs to pursue claims over the design of the app under Illinois product liability laws.

In January 2025, a group of plaintiffs filed a DraftKings class action lawsuit (PDF) alleging that the company used misleading advertising for its so called “risk free bets” and “No Sweat First Bets.” The lawsuit claims the promotions failed to clearly disclose key restrictions, which many users say they only discovered after depositing money into the app.

The complaint further alleges that DraftKings illegally targeted underage customers to sign up and gamble, which critics say has contributed to the growing sports gambling crisis among young adults.

DraftKings sought to have the case thrown out early in the proceedings, claiming that the app does not qualify as a “product” under state-specific laws in Illinois. After the Court rejected that argument, DraftKings sought permission to immediately appeal the ruling, which would have delayed progress in the case for years. However, the Court has also rejected that request, clearing the case to move forward.

DraftKings Lawsuit Centers On Sportsbook App Design

DraftKings has grown to be the dominant sports betting app in the U.S. following a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA, which overturned the federal ban on national sports betting. Since then, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized sports betting, with 30 jurisdictions allowing gambling through platforms like DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM and Caesars.

However, consumers across the country point to aggressive marketing, misleading promotions and app features designed to encourage constant betting as evidence that companies like DraftKings prioritize profits over consumer protection. Many also allege the platforms use real time data to identify and hook problematic gamblers.

According to mental health experts, these tactics accelerate financial harm to consumers beyond the risks of traditional gambling, as in-game betting, instant deposits and constant push notifications allow losses to mount quickly, while live odds and promotions create an illusion of control that fuels repeated attempts to recover losses.

As a result, companies like DraftKings and FanDuel now face a growing number of sports betting lawsuits, indicating the companies are manipulating consumers into gambling addictions that are both psychologically and financially devastating. Each claim alleges that the apps place profits well before consumer welfare and established gambling laws and restrictions.

The original DraftKings class action lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs James Beyer, Collin Smothers, Mateen Zafer and Corey Davis in Illinois state court in January 2025. It was then removed to the Northern District of Illinois, where it is now pending before U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gentleman.

After the Court denied DraftKing’s early Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit, a motion (PDF) was filed to certify an interlocutory appeal, which would halt the litigation while they challenged the ruling in a higher court.

In a court order (PDF) issued on February 26, Judge Gentleman rejected the request for the interlocutory appeal, indicating that for such an appeal to move forward prior to final judgment in the case, the question of law involved must impact a controlling issue, be contestable, and an issue whose resolution would speed up the litigation.

Judge Gentleman ruled that DraftKings’ interlocutory appeal request failed to meet that bar, saying the appeal’s outcome would not speed up the litigation. He explained in his ruling that the lawsuit involved four product liability claims, including:

• Design defect
• Failure to warn
• Negligent design defect
• Negligent failure to warn

The judge indicated that the appeal would not address the negligence claims.

“The court finds that interlocutory appeal does not promise to speed up the litigation. In addition to the likelihood of multiple layers of review, interlocutory appeal would fail to speed up the litigation for a more important reason: the question presented by defendants for appeal would resolve only two of the four products liability claims.”

– U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gentleman

Judge Gentleman ordered DraftKings to answer the complaint by March 18, 2026, with plaintiffs filing a joint status report by March 25.

Sports Betting App Lawsuits

The ruling comes as a growing number of sports betting lawsuits are being filed nationwide, particularly on behalf of young adults and college age users who claim they suffered significant financial losses after developing compulsive gambling behavior.

Sports gambling addiction lawsuits are being investigated for individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who suffered significant financial losses after using online sportsbooks, often exceeding $10,000. Platforms named in ongoing investigations include:

Sports gambling lawyers are reviewing claims nationwide on behalf of young adults and college students who developed compulsive gambling behavior and experienced financial harm that may have been preventable.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for sports betting addiction lawsuit updates to be delivered directly to your inbox.

A Minnesota woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective steering wheel airbag in her 2019 Toyota RAV4 failed to deploy during a head-on crash, leaving her with permanent injuries that could have been prevented if the safety systems had functioned properly.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Whitney Jo Dahlin on February 2 in Minnesota District Court, naming Toyota Motor North America Inc., Chester Berg Motors Inc. and Chester Berg Toyota as defendants. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for Minnesota on February 20.

Airbags are standard automotive safety features that rapidly deploy in a crash to create a protective buffer between occupants and hard interior surfaces like the steering wheel, dashboard or windows. Functioning as part of a vehicle’s supplemental restraint system, they work in conjunction with seat belts to help lessen the risk of serious head and upper body injuries.

Due to their role in crash safety, when airbags are defective or fail to deploy, serious injuries to drivers and occupants may occur. A U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) warning issued last month, announced an investigation into certain illegal airbag inflator devices manufactured in China, after reports of the products rupturing during crashes, leading to at least eight deaths and two severe injuries.

Failures involving airbag inflators have previously led to one of the largest automotive safety crises in history. More than 67 million Takata airbags were recalled in the United States after regulators discovered that certain inflators could rupture during deployment, blasting metal shrapnel into vehicle cabins. The defect was linked to at least 11 deaths and hundreds of injuries in the U.S., prompting multiple Takata airbag recall lawsuits, and ultimately driving Takata into bankruptcy.

According to Dahlin’s complaint, she leased a 2019 Toyota RAV4 in January 2020 from Chester Berg Motors, a Toyota dealership in Bemidji, Minnesota. She later purchased the vehicle in December 2023.

The lawsuit states that on March 29, 2024, Dahlin was driving to work when she experienced an epileptic seizure and lost control of her vehicle. The RAV4 veered off the roadway, crossed the shoulder and a field, and then crashed nearly head-on into a pine tree, with the impact centered on the front of the SUV.

Despite the severity of the collision, Dahlin alleges that the driver’s steering wheel airbag did not deploy. Instead, her head allegedly snapped forward into the steering wheel, causing significant trauma.

The complaint alleges that Dahlin suffered a fractured orbital bone, a chipped tooth and a head injury that left her with permanent blurred vision in her right eye. She contends that these injuries were preventable and would have been significantly reduced or avoided altogether if the steering wheel airbag had deployed properly during the crash.

“The defective steering wheel airbag manufactured by Toyota was defective at the time it was leased/sold to Ms. Dahlin, and Ms. Dahlin did nothing to cause or contribute to the defect.”

— Whitney Jo Dahlin v. Toyota Motor North America Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of defective manufacturing — strict liability and breach of warranties against Toyota Motor North America Inc., as well as similar claims against the dealership as an intermediary in the sale. Dahlin is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 against each defendant, along with other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

In support of the claims’ removal to federal court, Toyota Motor North America submitted an affidavit from Carol Kikuma, its senior manager of accounting and finance, asserting that Toyota Motor Corporation, based in Japan, was responsible for the design and testing of the 2019 model year RAV4.

The affidavit further states that the vehicle was manufactured and assembled, at least in part, by Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada in accordance with the parent company’s specifications.

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

A mother claims that Roblox’s failure to implement adequate safety measures resulted in her young daughter being psychologically scarred by an adult, who was using Roblox to target and sexually exploit minors.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by a mother identified only as Jane Doe Y.H., on behalf of her daughter, Jane Doe E.R., in California Superior Court on February 20, naming Roblox Corporation as the defendant. The plaintiffs are using aliases to remain anonymous.

Roblox is an online gaming platform launched in 2006 that allows users to create their own games and servers and invite other players to experience them. It allows interactions between players and communication through chat features.

Heavily marketed toward children, Roblox attracts millions of players worldwide every day. However, the game manufacturer has been named in hundreds of Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits filed by parents and young adult survivors, who allege the platform’s inadequate safety features allowed predators to pose as peers and groom users into sending explicit photos and videos. In some cases, these individuals have convinced children to meet them, resulting in sexual assault, rape, kidnapping and human trafficking.

Amid mounting pressure, Roblox began rolling out facial recognition software late last year, saying the technology can verify users’ ages and restrict adults from contacting children without parental consent. However, families argue the safeguards came far too late to protect many victims.

According to the lawsuit, E.R. was just 9 years old when she started playing on Roblox. Her mother indicates she was led to believe that Roblox was safe for children due to its marketing claims.

Soon after E.R. began using Roblox, she was targeted by an adult who falsely claimed to be a child her age. He groomed E.R. through the Roblox chat, earning her trust and sending explicit images and messages, convincing the child they were in a relationship.

When she resisted sending him nude images, the adult predator told the 9-year-old child she was being a “bad girlfriend.”

Her mother says the interactions led E.R. to suffer life-changing psychological and emotional harm, humiliation, shame and constant fear. The lawsuit says Roblox should have had mechanisms in place to prevent these kinds of interactions as soon as it launched, instead of 20 years after-the-fact.

“Had Defendant implemented even the most basic system of screening or age and identity verification, as well as effective parental controls, Plaintiff never would have interacted with these predators and never would have suffered the harm that she did. Plaintiff’s life has been devastated as a direct result of Defendant’s conduct.”

– Jane Doe Y.H. et al v. Roblox Corporation

The mother presents claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligence-failure to warn, negligence-unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, design defect and failure to warn.

Roblox Child Sex Exploitation Lawsuits

While this case has been filed in California state court, the majority of similar claims have been brought by families in the federal court system, where a Roblox child sex exploitation lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been established before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings out of the Northern District of California.

As the size and scope of the litigation continues to grow, it is expected that Judge Seeborg will move toward selecting a small group of representative cases to prepare for a bellwether process, allowing the parties to conduct case specific discovery and schedule a handful of claims for early trial dates. These “bellwether” trials are typically used to gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the claims.

However, if the trials conclude without the parties reaching a Roblox lawsuit settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Seeborg may be forced to later remand each individual claim back to the U.S. District Court where it originated for separate trials in the future, which will likely take many years.

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

According to a study published in the journal Burns on February 25, Swiss researchers found that women who suffer burn injuries develop bacteremia blood infections at nearly double the rate as men, leading to a greater risk of sepsis and death.

Severe burns destroy the skin’s natural barrier against bacteria, allowing germs to enter the body, bloodstream and airways. Although patients are typically given early antibiotics, infections can still develop or return.

When bacteria enter the bloodstream, the condition is known as bacteremia, which can cause fever, chills, rapid heart rate and fatigue, requiring immediate intravenous antibiotics. 

Without prompt treatment, the infection can escalate into sepsis, a dangerous condition triggered by an overwhelming immune response that damages the body’s own tissues. This cascade can lead to organ dysfunction, septic shock and death. Patients typically require emergency hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics and aggressive fluid resuscitation. Even with treatment, sepsis carries a high mortality rate, and survivors are often left with lasting physical and cognitive impairments.

For the new study, a team of researchers from the University Hospital Zurich, conducted a single center study of critically ill patients with severe burn injuries admitted to the hospital’s Burn Center between January 2017 and December 2021.

Led by Dr. Nicole J.M. Schweizer, the team looked at data on 269 patients who had severe burn injuries. Of those, 26% were women and had an average burn area across 19% of their body surface.

According to the data, bacteremia occurred in 61 patients overall, usually developing between five and 13 days after admission. However, roughly 30% of women developed bacteremia after suffering burn injuries compared to 20% of men.

As a result of these findings, researchers determined that women had a significantly higher risk of developing bacteremia from burn injuries than men, while also finding that women’s death rates were higher.

“Female sex was associated with a higher bacteremia risk, suggesting sex-specific vulnerability that warrants further investigation.”

— Dr. Nicole J.M. Schweizer, Impact of sex on the development of bacteremia in critically ill burn patients: A retrospective cohort study

Although the team pointed out that women’s immune systems are often better able to cope with pathogens, it appears that when suffering from burns, this is not the case. They noted it is unclear why this is, yet it is possible burn injuries may change how hormones are metabolized.

Schweitzer concluded that the findings “support a more tailored infection monitoring protocol and strategies in female burn patients during ICU care,” calling for more studies to analyze how sex hormones affect the immune system, skin, airways and the body’s microbiome.

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

An Illinois man says he suffered electric shocks due to problems with his Medtronic spinal cord stimulator (SCS), following adjustments made by company representatives who were not qualified medical personnel.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Steven Hughes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on February 23, naming Medtronic Inc. and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants. 

Spinal cord stimulators are devices that are surgically implanted to help treat patients with severe chronic back pain. The implant delivers electrical pulses to the spinal cord, which are meant to intercept and interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. 

Each device consists of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. Once implanted, the device is designed to be left in the patient’s body permanently.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators were first introduced in the early 2000s, and manufacturers have released multiple updated versions in the years since. Many of those newer models were cleared through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 510(k) process, which allows devices to reach the market if they are deemed “substantially equivalent” to an existing product, without requiring full clinical trials.

However, critics argue that significant design and programming changes have been cleared through that pathway with limited independent safety testing. In recent months, patients have reported sudden electrical jolts, burning sensations, worsening pain and new neurological symptoms, with some requiring revision or removal surgeries after devices allegedly malfunctioned or overstimulated nerves.

As a result, manufacturers are now facing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in courts nationwide, each alleging that inadequately tested design changes increased the risk of malfunction, including lead fracture or migration, electrical overstimulation, unsatisfactory pain relief and other neurological complications.

According to his lawsuit, Hughes suffers from cervical spondylosis with chronic back and neck pain. After traditional approaches failed, he was implanted with a Medtronic SCS as part of a medical trial, which was determined to be successful at the time in March 2018.

The complaint indicates the system consisted of a pair of Medtronic Vectris surgical leads (Model 977A260) and a Medtronic Intellis neurostimulator (Model 97716), with tunneling and implantation of the pulse generator in the lower back.

Following implantation, Hughes reported suffering persistent and worsening pain at the implantation site, leading to pain in his back and legs, and shocking sensations from unintended stimulation events. This led to trouble with sleeping, mobility and the performance of daily activities, he indicates.

“Throughout this period, Plaintiff had multiple interactions with Medtronic sales representatives, who were routinely present at his programming sessions and actively adjusted Plaintiff’s IPG without the supervision or input of licensed medical professionals. Medtronic’s sales representatives acted as technical authorities in the clinical environment, guiding programming decisions and advising on the device’s performance issues.”

– Steven Hughes v. Medtronic Inc. et al

Hughes states that whenever he complained about problems with the device, the Medtronic representatives told him to be patient while they tried to dial the device in, and failed to warn him of issues with the device that they knew existed. 

The lawsuit alleges that Medtronic failed to properly report adverse events and product problems to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. When reports were submitted, the complaint claims they were incomplete, delayed or minimized the severity of the device’s malfunctions and resulting patient injuries.

Hughes presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unauthorized practice of medicine, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Protection Act and of the Administrative Procedure Act.

SCS Injury Lawsuits

The complaint comes just days after a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), calling for the formation of an SCS injury lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation. They requested all federal lawsuits brought against Abbott Laboratories or Boston Scientific be centralized in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings before one U.S. District Judge.

At least 15 lawsuits have been filed against those two manufacturers in five different federal jurisdictions were currently pending when the motion was filed on February 20.

As the number of lawsuits being filed against Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and other manufacturers continues to grow, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are actively reviewing claims for individuals who suffered injuries such as:

• Lead wire fracture or migration
• Electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Sudden loss of pain relief
• Worsening chronic back or nerve pain
• Revision surgery or device removal
• Permanent nerve damage
• Long-term spinal cord complications

All spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits are handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs, and attorney fees are only paid if compensation is obtained through a settlement or trial verdict.

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

More than 11 years after receiving a Cook Celect IVC filter to prevent blood clots from traveling to her lungs, Sally Blommel indicates in a recently filed lawsuit that she was forced to undergo surgery to remove broken fragments of the device from her renal vein.

Blommel filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on February 24, seeking to hold Cook Incorporated and its subsidiaries liable for selling what she indicates is a defective and unreasonably dangerous device, which has left her and thousands of other patients with devastating injuries in recent years.

IVC filters are small, spider-like devices inserted into the vein to intercept blood clots that break free in the body and head for the heart and lungs. They are frequently implanted in patients at risk of pulmonary embolism who are unable to take, or are unaffected by, anticoagulants.

Over the past several years, several IVC filter designs have been linked to complications where the struts have punctured the vena cava or migrated out of position. In addition, the filters have been reported to fracture, sending small pieces into the lungs and heart and causing the very pulmonary embolism they were implanted to prevent.

As a result, tens of thousands of people have filed Cook IVC filter lawsuits and Bard IVC filter lawsuits in federal courts nationwide. Each of the claims raise similar allegations that the devices were defectively designed, and that the manufacturers either failed to adequately test them, or did not appropriately warn the medical community or patients of the potential risks.

Blommel indicates she was first implanted with a Cook Celect IVC filter in September 2013. She was told that it should be permanent but could be removed if necessary.

The implant was advertised as a safe and effective treatment for the prevention of pulmonary embolism, and there was nothing visibly wrong with the device when Blommel’s surgeon implanted it, the lawsuit states.

“On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff underwent a computerized tomography scan of her abdomen, which showed the filter fractured with a fragment extending into the right renal vein. It further showed multiple strut perforations with one strut into the vertebral body.”

– Sally Blommel v. Cook Inc. et al

According to her claim, Blommel underwent a “complex percutaneous retrieval procedure “ in January 2025. She indicates the doctor had to use forceps to retrieve the filter’s body, and a goose neck snare to retrieve the broken filter fragment.

The complaint states that Cook failed to conduct adequate clinical trials before the Celect IVC filter design was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through its controversial 510(k) fast-track approval process. Medical devices cleared through the 510(k) process are required only to show they are “substantially equivalent” to a product already on the market. Critics argue that some manufacturers stretch that standard, using it to win clearance for devices with new features or significant design changes that were never independently tested for safety.

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

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The complaint will likely be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where it will be consolidated with nearly 7,000 similar IVC filter lawsuits, which are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

To gauge how juries may respond to evidence common across the litigation, Judge Young has been preparing groups of representative cases for early trial. At the same time, the court has facilitated discussions between Cook Medical and plaintiffs’ attorneys aimed at resolving claims short of individual trials.

In recent months, Cook Medical has expanded those negotiations in an effort to reach broader settlements and avoid thousands of separate proceedings nationwide.

If no settlement agreements are reached after the negotiations or the bellwether trials, Judge Young will likely begin remanding large numbers of individuals claims back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for individual trial dates.

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

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that an Apple Watch Series 9 overheated while she was wearing it at work, causing a second-degree burn to her wrist and permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Letisha Saunders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on December 29, 2025, naming Apple Inc. as the sole defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24.

The Apple Watch is the company’s flagship smartwatch, marketed as a wearable device for health monitoring, fitness tracking and everyday communication. It tracks heart rate, sleep and activity levels, allows users to make calls, send texts and complete digital payments.

However, lithium ion batteries used to power the Apple Watch and other popular smartwatches have been linked to a series of injuries in recent years. In 2024, Apple agreed to pay $20 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that battery overheating and swelling in Apple Watch Series 0, 1, 2 and 3 devices caused screens to crack or detach, creating a risk of cuts and other injuries.

In March 2022, a FitBit Ionic smartwatch recall followed more than 115 reports of overheating batteries, with 78 confirmed burn injuries in the United States. A $12.25 million FitBit settlement over the company’s failure to properly report burn hazards to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was later reached with regulators.

Apple Watch Burn Lawsuit

In her complaint, Saunders alleges that she was wearing her Series 9 Apple Watch on October 31, 2025, when she suddenly felt a burning sensation beneath the device.

The lawsuit indicates Saunders quickly removed the watch, but not before suffering a second-degree burn to her wrist.

Saunders contends the watch was defective and unreasonably dangerous, asserting that a wearable device intended for everyday use should not be prone to causing severe burns or disfiguring injuries.

She alleges that Apple failed to properly test the smartwatch or conduct adequate post marketing safety monitoring before and after its release. The lawsuit further claims the company continued to sell the device without sufficient warnings, despite knowing of potential battery related safety risks.

“The defect in the Apple Watch was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries.”

— Letisha Saunders v. Apple Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, strict products liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty. It is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of lower courts for Saunders’ alleged injuries, which the lawsuit describes as severe and permanent.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a Texas couple to pursue a lawsuit against Whole Foods and Hain Celestial Group in state court, involving claims that they were sold baby food tainted with dangerous levels of toxic metals.

The case was originally brought by Sara and Grant Palmquist in Texas state court, alleging that their child, identified with the initials “E.P.” to protect the minor’s identity, developed physical and mental developmental problems due to consumption of baby food tainted with lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury. 

However, Hain Celestial Group removed the case to federal court and sought to dismiss Whole Foods Market Inc., which is headquartered in Texas. Hain Celestial Group then argued that the case should move forward in the federal court system instead of Texas state court, since it is not based in the state.

Baby Food Metal Contamination Concerns

The Palmquists’ complaint is one of several hundred similar tainted baby food lawsuits that have been filed against Hain Celestrial and other manufacturers since the release of a 2021 Congressional report, which found high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury in a number of popular baby food products. 

The report warned that infant exposure to heavy metals may heighten the risk of autism and ADHD, as well as other cognitive and behavioral issues that can affect a child’s development and long-term health. 

Follow up testing in the years since has found little improvement, with independent analyses revealing that baby food sold by Gerber, Beech-Nut, Sprout, Walmart and other brands continues to contain potentially dangerous contamination levels.

Tainted Baby Food Lawsuit Returned to State Court

When a plaintiff files a civil lawsuit, they have the choice of filing in state or federal court. However, if none of the defendants are based in the same state as the plaintiffs, the defendant can then have that case removed from a state court to federal court.

In the Palmquists’ tainted baby food lawsuit, they originally listed Hain and Whole Foods as defendants. Whole Foods is based in Texas, as were the Palmquists, and thus they filed in state court.

Hain then sought to dismiss Whole Foods from the lawsuit, alleging that the company was improperly added to the lawsuit just to keep the case in Texas. The manufacturer then convinced a district judge to agree, which allowed the company to move the case to federal court. The case then proceeded to trial in federal court and that court granted Hain a motion for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The Palmquists’ appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Hain and vacated the summary judgment, saying Whole Foods was wrongly removed from the lawsuit and that it should have been decided in state court.

In an opinion (PDF) written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on February 24, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit’s decision and ordered the case back to state court as the Palmquists originally intended. The Supreme Court also vacated the prior judgment.

“The District Court’s erroneous dismissal of Whole Foods did not cure the jurisdictional defect that existed when this case was improperly removed to federal court. The Court of Appeals therefore correctly vacated the judgment in Hain’s favor.”

– U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

The ruling means that the previous verdict has been overturned and the lawsuit will be sent back to state court to proceed anew.

Tainted Baby Food Lawsuits

While the Palmquists’ complaint is headed back to Texas state court, most of the baby food lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, and centralized in the Northern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who is presiding over a baby food lawsuit multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

To date, nearly 400 tainted baby food lawsuits have been filed in the federal MDL by families nationwide, each raising allegations that manufacturers exploited parents’ trust by marketing the products as safe, while concealing the presence of dangerous levels of toxic metals for years.

As part of the consolidated proceedings, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley is coordinating discovery and other pretrial matters across the claims. The court has also directed the parties to prepare a group of bellwether trials, which will serve as test cases to gauge how juries may respond to the evidence and testimony expected to be repeated throughout the trials.

In addition to the lawsuits consolidated in federal court, some families have filed claims in state courts, including the Palmquists’ case in Texas. Several cases are also moving forward in California state court, where the first trial is expected to begin later this year.

Although the cases are proceeding in different courts, the California trial is expected to be closely watched. Any jury verdict or damages award could shape settlement negotiations and influence how much manufacturers may ultimately pay to resolve the broader litigation.

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

Federal safety officials are warning consumers to stop using certain Dupray Neat steam cleaners due to a risk the boiler can rupture if it is overfilled, becomes corroded, or if the pressure release valve fails.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Dupray Neat steam cleaner recall on February 26 after receiving at least 15 reports of boiler ruptures, including four injuries involving minor burns, bruises, lacerations and a broken wrist, as well as at least seven reports of minor property damage.

Regulators are warning that in certain recalled models, pressure can build unexpectedly inside the unit, causing the boiler to burst and eject scalding water and steam, creating a serious burn hazard for users and anyone nearby.

The recall covers about 651,145 Dupray Neat portable steam cleaners sold in the United States and another 96,530 sold in Canada. Affected units carry model number DUP020WNA with batch or date codes ranging from 0118-01 through 0425-05, which can be found on the rating label on the bottom of the device.

The steam cleaners feature a white base connected to a black flexible hose and were sold with an accessory kit that includes brushes, tools, a Velcro pad and dust cloths. 

Manufactured in China, the units were sold from April 2018 through December 2025 for about $150 through Dupray’s website and major retailers including Home Depot, Lowe’s, Macy’s, Walmart and Amazon.

Consumers are urged to stop using the recalled cleaners immediately and visit Dupray’s website to request a free replacement safety boiler cap and sealing component designed to prevent dangerous pressure buildup. To confirm eligibility, customers must provide the batch code. 

Dupray USA can be reached at 800-881-9492 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, by email at recall@dupray.com, or online at dupray.com/recall for additional information.

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

According to a Pennsylvania woman’s product liability lawsuit, nearly 20 years of Depo-Provera injections caused her to develop a meningioma brain tumor, which has resulted in hearing problems and left her at risk of experiencing other long-term side effects.

Jennifer Yesensky filed the complaint (PDF) on February 24, naming Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC and Pharmacia LLC as defendants. She claims the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings to women who relied on the injections as a safe, trouble-free form of birth control.

Depo-Provera was first approved in 1992 as an injectable birth control containing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA. The injection provides long-term contraception through shots administered every three months and has been used by tens of millions of women worldwide.

Long-Term Depo-Provera Side Effects

However, concerns about the long-term side effects of Depo-Provera emerged after studies linked use of the Depo-Provera shot to a 5.5-fold increased risk of developing intracranial meningioma tumors, a condition that requires ongoing monitoring and in severe cases, surgical intervention.

Reports indicate that women diagnosed with meningioma are often unaware that the tumor, or accompanying symptoms, could have been caused by their Depo-Provera use, often leading many to continue receiving the injections for years.

Meningiomas are slow-growing brain tumors that can quietly develop before causing noticeable complications. As they enlarge, they may interfere with surrounding brain tissue and nerves, sometimes requiring surgical intervention or long-term medical monitoring.

These side effects and their implications have led to a growing number of Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits now being pursued in courts nationwide, each involving similar claims that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the increased risk of intracranial meningioma or the need for ongoing medical monitoring.

According to the complaint, Yesensky first began receiving Depo-Provera injections in 1999 for the purpose of birth control. She continued to receive Depo shots until 2017.

Through her years of use, Yesensky began noticing a feeling of fullness in her left ear and began to suffer significant hearing loss. Following an MRI in 2017, she was diagnosed with a meningioma. However, she indicates she was unaware of the risk of long-term Depo-Provera side effects until the French study was released in 2024.

“Through its affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff and her physicians the true and significant risks associated with DMPA use.”

– Jennifer Yesensky v. Pfizer Inc. LLC et al

The lawsuit notes that the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, DMPA, is linked to an increased growth of meningiomas. That association strengthens with long-term use.

Untreated or undetected, a meningioma can cause long-term Depo-Provera side effects as it presses against the surrounding brain tissue, resulting in seizures, vision problems, weakness, difficulty speaking, hearing loss and death. Treatment often requires invasive brain surgery.

Even after a successful surgery, the patient must continue to receive medical monitoring in case the tumor returns. In some cases the tumor is too dangerous to remove, leading to other life-long medical needs.

The lawsuit claims that Pfizer and generic manufacturers knew this since at least 1983, long before the injections were even placed on the market, yet they failed to provide proper label warnings.

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

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

The complaint will be consolidated with about 2,100 similar Depo-Provera lawsuits centralized in the Northern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for all federal claims involving the birth control injections.

Judge Rodgers has ordered the parties to prepare five representative “pilot” cases to serve as bellwether lawsuits in early test trials. These trials are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries will digest evidence and expert testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first Depo-Provera trial has been scheduled for December 7, 2026, involving a lawsuit filed by Donna Toney of Florida, who claims she suffered vertigo, dizziness and hearing loss due to a brain tumor caused by Depo-Provera injections. Additional trials will follow in early 2027.

If the parties are unable to reach a global Depo-Provera brain tumor settlement after the bellwether process, remaining cases could be sent back to their original federal courts for individual trial dates.

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

Following the centralization of all federally filed GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits, the U.S. District Judge presiding over the litigation has appointed several attorneys to serve in leadership positions throughout the consolidated pretrial proceedings, to help promote and protect the interests of a growing number of individuals now pursuing claims against the makers of Ozempic, Wegovy and similar drugs.

Dozens of lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers of GLP-1 medications in reach months, each raising similar allegations that the popular class of diabetes and weight loss drugs can cause a rare eye condition, known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The condition can result in the sudden onset of blurred vision, reduced vision or even blindness. Such injuries are often permanent and life-changing.

NAION has been primarily linked to Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy, with a recent study published earlier this month in JAMA Ophthalmology finding that patients taking the drugs faced roughly twice the risk of developing NAION compared to those treated with SGLT2 inhibitor diabetes medications. 

The vision loss lawsuits come as the drug makers already face thousands of other Ozempic lawsuits, Wegovy lawsuits and Mounjaro lawsuits filed by former users, which involve the development of severe gastrointestinal injuries, including stomach paralysis and intestinal blockages.

Plaintiffs in both GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits and the stomach paralysis claims raise similar allegations, indicating that the drug makers knew about the health risks associated with their medications, yet placed profits over patient safety by failing to adequately warn the medical community and the public about the potential risks.

In January, a panel of federal judges determined that all GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits will be centralized as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston who is already overseeing a separate GLP-1 stomach paralysis MDL.

While the two MDLs will remain separate, there will likely be significant overlap between stomach paralysis and blindness lawsuits, making it more efficient for Judge Marston to oversee both federal MDLs. In addition, many of the claims also involve the same attorneys and defendants.

As one of the first steps following the formation of an MDL, Judge Marston issued a case management order (PDF) last week appointing 16 attorneys to various leadership positions in the litigation. These include three to serve as Co-Lead Counsel, 11 appointed to serve as the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, and two to serve as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel.

The GLP-1 vision loss attorneys appointed to leadership roles will handle pretrial discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs in the MDL and take the lead in questioning witnesses and presenting evidence. They will also act as spokespersons during pretrial proceedings and perform other responsibilities intended to advance the interests of everyone involved in the consolidated cases.

February 2026 GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits Update

Now that Judge Marston has established the leadership structure, she is expected to order the parties to select a small group of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits that will be prepared for early trial dates, known as “bellwether” trials.

The preparation of these cases and the outcomes of any trials are designed to help the parties gauge how juries are likely to respond to similar evidence and testimony that will be presented throughout the litigation. While not binding on other claims, the results of these trials are often used to facilitate further settlement negotiations between the parties.

Once the pretrial proceedings and bellwether trials are completed, if the parties have still not reached a GLP-1 vision loss lawsuit settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Marston would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

Hospitals and health care providers are being urged to immediately identify and remove certain Impella heart pump purge cassettes from use, amid serious concerns the devices may malfunction and cause serious harm to patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an early alert on February 25, indicating that Abiomed’s Impella Generation 1 Purge Cassettes may experience a leak or failure that can interrupt purge flow to the heart pump system, which has already resulted in at least four serious injuries.

The Impella system is a temporary support device used in patients suffering from severe cardiac events or otherwise undergoing high-risk heart interventions. The purge cassette is designed to regulate and maintain purge fluid flow to the pump motor, which is critical for proper device function.

According to the FDA, if the purge cassette fails or leaks, it may cause the system to alarm, shut down or stop providing circulatory support. In patients who depend on the device for support, even a brief interruption may result in serious injury or death.

This is not the first high-profile alert or recall impacting Impella systems in recent years. Prior issues have resulted in a number of families now investigating potential Impella heart pump lawsuits, involving claims that the devices were sold with design defects that may result in heart-wall perforations and other severe complications.

In the new alert, the FDA is advising health care facilities to identify and remove all Impella Generation 1 Purge Cassette units from wherever they are currently in use. Providers are also being instructed to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for replacement and to closely monitor patients for signs of pump malfunction.

The agency warned that compromised purge flow can lead to thrombus formation, hemolysis and reduced pump performance. In some cases, clinicians may need to urgently replace the cassette or transition the patient to alternative circulatory support.

While the alert does not apply to newer-generation purge cassettes, like the Generation 2, the FDA emphasized that facilities should carefully review inventory and ensure that older components are not inadvertently used.

Patients or family members with concerns about an Impella device should speak with their treating physician about appropriate monitoring and management options.

The communication has been categorized as an early alert, which is issued to inform the public about potential safety issues before regulators have completed a full evaluation. Additional updates are expected as the investigation continues. The FDA indicates it will provide further information as it reviews available data and works with the manufacturer to address the purge cassette issue.

Any U.S. customers with adverse reactions, quality problems or questions may contact Abiomed Inc. at onemd-field-actions@its.jnj.com. Adverse events and other quality concerns may also be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Impella Heart Pump Recalls

In addition to concerns over the devices’ purge cassettes, Impella heart pumps have been subject to numerous warnings and recalls in recent years.

Earlier this month, federal regulators warned that certain devices may display inaccurate flow and positioning data due to a sensor malfunction, which could lead doctors to take unnecessary or inappropriate medical actions. According to the alert, officials have become aware of at least two dozen Impella heart pump injuries.

Federal regulators also announced an Impella RP and Impella RP Flex Heart Pumps with SmartAssist recall in February 2025, due to the risk of contact between guidewires and other medical instruments, which could cause the heart pumps to shut down unexpectedly.

In addition, Abiomed previously initiated a recall of certain Impella left-sided blood pumps in March 2023 after reports tied the devices to nearly 50 deaths and roughly 130 injuries, including cases involving perforation of the heart’s ventricle.

Another recall targeted Impella 5.5 pumps with SmartAssist technology following concerns that purge fluid leaks could cause device malfunctions, damage heart valves and result in serious patient harm, with 179 complaints reported in connection with the issue.

Following these regulatory actions, some patients have begun exploring potential Impella heart pump lawsuits, alleging that Abiomed was aware of safety concerns yet failed to adequately alert physicians and patients.

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

As a growing number of consumers begin to file Galaxy Gas lawsuits over severe injuries that resulted from inhaling gas from the flavored nitrous oxide canisters, the manufacturer now faces a lawsuit brought by its own insurance company, which seeks to invalidate coverage for the claims.

In a complaint (PDF) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on February 19, Gemini Insurance Company seeks to void or rescind its insurance policy with Galaxy Gas LLC, indicating that the company made “material and/or fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions during the application and underwriting process.”

The filing comes as Galaxy Gas, Amazon.com and other retailers face a growing number of nitrous oxide lawsuits brought by individuals throughout the U.S., each raising similar allegations that they suffered devastating injuries, including nerve damage, brain damage, B12 deficiency, paralysis and other complications after inhaling the gas.

Although nitrous oxide is traditionally sold for use as an anesthetic in medical settings or as a propellant for food preparation, the canisters have increasingly been marketed directly to consumers through smoke or vape shops, as well as through Amazon, Walmart and other major retailers.

Inhaling the gas can cause a brief euphoric high, resulting in the substance acquiring the street term “whippets,” and companies like Galaxy Gas introducing a variety of products in recent years that feature colorful packaging and sweet or fruity flavors, which are often sold with accessories designed to facilitate inhaling the gas.

Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a nitrous oxide inhalation warning, after health departments nationwide reported a surge of incidents and injuries linked to the products, and nitrous oxide injury lawyers are now pursuing claims for individuals throughout the U.S., attempting to hold Galaxy Gas and other companies accountable for marketing these dangerous products directly to consumers, as part of an effort to promote the illegal inhalation of the gas.

With its lawsuit, Gemini Insurance argues that it should not have to cover the cost of the growing nitrous oxide litigation against Galaxy Gas, claiming the company misled Gemini about its sales of the gas canisters.

According to the complaint, Galaxy Gas first submitted an insurance application to Gemini in August 2024. However, Gemini claims the company lied on the application by saying that its products had never been the subject of an investigation, enforcement action or notice of violation of laws or regulations.

Gemini indicates that Galaxy Gas knew it was under investigation in Louisiana as early as March 2024 as part of a probe into the company’s retail sales of nitrous oxide. In addition, news outlets had reported problems with Galaxy Gas’s nitrous oxide sales as early as November 2023.

“If Galaxy Gas had disclosed the prior, potential, or pending claims against it; investigations into Galaxy Gas’s products; Galaxy Gas’s complete insurance history; and/or material changes to its operations to Gemini during the underwriting process, Gemini would not have issued the Gemini Policies to Galaxy Gas as written.”

– Gemini Insurance Company v. Galaxy Gas LLC

Gemini says it is aware of several Galaxy Gas nitrous oxide lawsuits involving physical injuries and deaths suffered by consumers. The insurer claims that it should not have to cover any settlements or verdicts associated with the lawsuits, because the company allegedly misled the insurer when applying for coverage.

As a result, Gemini is asking the court to cancel the policy altogether and treat it as if it never existed, claiming Galaxy Gas concealed important information and made false statements during the underwriting process.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

Despite growing litigation and public health warnings, Galaxy Gas and other nitrous oxide canister brands, including Baking Bad, Cosmic Gas, HOTWHIP, InfusionMax, MassGass, Miami Magic and Whip-It!, continue to sell their products through Amazon.com, smoke shops, vape stores, gas stations and other online retailers.

Plaintiffs in nitrous oxide injury lawsuits claim manufacturers and distributors specifically sold the products for illegal use, marketing them with fruity and candy-like flavors, in colorful canisters, and in large volumes unnecessary for culinary use.

Plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits say they have suffered serious injuries, including:

Nitrous oxide attorneys are currently offering free consultations to individuals and families who may be eligible for compensation through a Galaxy Gas lawsuit, or lawsuit against another nitrous oxide canister manufacturer.

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

A recall impacting more than 400,000 Ford Explorer vehicles has been issued by the manufacturer due to rear wheel components that may break, causing a loss of steering control.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the Ford Explorer recall on February 23, warning that the rear suspension toe links in certain 2017 through 2019 models may fracture and fail, potentially compromising vehicle stability.

A rear suspension toe link is a small metal bar at the back of a vehicle that keeps the rear wheels aligned. It helps the car remain stable and move straight.

Federal regulators indicate that when a toe link fractures, the vehicle’s wheels may shift, causing it to pull or feel unstable, which could increase the risk of an auto accident, especially at higher speeds or when turning.

According to the NHTSA recall report, Ford is aware of at least two accidents and 26 incident reports related to the current issue.

The manufacturer first became aware of the potential problem in July 2021, following an approved Field Service Action for certain 2013 through 2017 Explorer vehicles addressing rear toe link fractures in regions where road salt is commonly used. 

Analysis of returned parts revealed corrosion in the vehicles’ cross-axis ball joint (CABJ), which is a ball-and-socket joint in the suspension that allows the rear wheels to move smoothly while keeping them properly aligned.

The subsequent investigation prompted a recall of nearly 775,000 Ford Explorers, finding that affected vehicles were equipped with a CABJ design prone to corrosion due to a sealing failure. Subsequent model years were built with an updated design to address the issue.

However, earlier this year, NHTSA informed the manufacturer that it had received at least five Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting a loss of directional control due to a failed rear toe link in 2018 Ford Explorers. 

These vehicles were not included in the prior recall and were expected to contain the improved CABJ design, leading regulators to open a new investigation after additional failures were reported. While investigators have not identified a definitive root cause for the fractures, some reports indicate damage patterns consistent with a seized CABJ.

On February 13, Ford approved a field action and issued a voluntary safety recall covering approximately 412,774 Explorer vehicles from model years 2017 through 2019.

Drivers are advised to watch for a clunking noise, unusual handling or a misaligned rear wheel, which may indicate a problem. Customers will begin receiving notification letters on March 9 with instructions on how to receive free replacement toe links at a local dealer.

The company’s number for the recall is 26S08. Customers can contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332 or the company’s contact for this recall, Dusty Gardner, via email at dusty.gardner@dot.gov. 

Owners with any additional questions can also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 888-275-9171), or go to www.nhtsa.gov.

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

As the severe consequences of uterine cancer and ovarian cancer caused by hair relaxers continue to claim the lives of women pursuing lawsuits against the manufacturers of widely used chemical straighteners, the federal judge presiding over the litigation has outlined steps that must be taken for families to continue with their claims.

L’Oreal, Revlon, Strength of Nature and other cosmetics manufacturers currently face more than 11,000 product liability lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system, each involving similar allegations that manufacturers of products like Just for Me, Dark & Lovely and Optimum failed to warn women that regularly applying the hair relaxers may cause cancer to develop.

The litigation emerged after a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study was published in late 2022, which warned that women using chemical hair straighteners more than four times a year faced twice the risk of uterine cancer when compared to women who did not. Since then, further research has warned the products often contain phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing agents linked to hormonal disruption and tumor growth in reproductive tissues.

Uterine cancer primarily develops as endometrial cancer or the more aggressive uterine sarcoma. About 3% of women will be diagnosed with uterine cancer during their lifetime, resulting in roughly 65,000 new cases each year in the United States. 

While many cases are caught early, survival rates drop sharply once the cancer spreads beyond the uterus, and thousands of women die from the disease annually. Treatment often involves a hysterectomy, requiring removal of the uterus and cervix and permanently ending a woman’s ability to have children.

Unfortunately, as the litigation continues to move forward, many women are dying after filing a hair relaxer cancer lawsuit, leaving questions about what happens to the claim after their death.

Since 2023, all lawsuits brought by women who developed cancer from hair relaxer products have been consolidated as part of a federal MDL, or multidistrict litigation, where U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois.

Last year, Judge Rowland directed the parties to select a group of 32 hair relaxer lawsuits to serve as bellwether cases, which are being prepared for a series of early trial dates in the MDL. These trials are designed to give plaintiffs and defendants a sense of how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation. However, the first trials are not expected to begin until at least 2027.

In a case management order (PDF) issued on February 18, Judge Rowland acknowledged that many women are dying after filing a hair relaxer lawsuit, and outlined procedures for how the Court will address these deaths.

According to the order, the deceased plaintiff’s family or estate will have the opportunity to step into the case, by filing a motion for substitution. Once the court is notified of the plaintiff’s death, the estate has 90 days to formally take over the lawsuit. If no motion is filed within that time, the case will be dismissed.

Judge Rowland further directed plaintiffs’ counsel to notify the court of any prior deaths within 30 days of the order, and to report future deaths within 20 days of learning about them. A formal suggestion of death must then be filed and served on all parties and relevant nonparties within 90 days.

For families who have lost a loved one while a hair relaxer lawsuit was pending, it is important to act quickly. A surviving spouse, child or court-appointed estate representative may be able to continue the claim, but strict deadlines apply. Families should contact the hair relaxer cancer lawyer handling the case as soon as possible to discuss whether a motion for substitution must be filed and what steps are required to preserve the claim.

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

According to a newly filed lawsuit, a Nevada man indicates he developed a rare form of cancer from Dupixent side effects less than a year after beginning treatment with the eczema drug.

David Luchsinger and his wife, Cheryl, brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on February 10, pursuing damages from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, arguing that the drug makers should be held liable for failing to warn about known cancer risks associated with Dupixent.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a treatment approved for atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema, as well as for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammatory diseases affecting the respiratory tract and skin.

First approved in 2017, Dupixent has been given to more than 1 million patients. However, recent studies have suggested that Dupixent side effects may cause the development or progression of T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that impacts the body’s white blood cells, which are a key part of the immune system. Studies have linked the drug to an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

The Luchsingers’ complaint now joins a growing number Dupixent cancer lawsuits being pursued nationwide, each involving similar allegations that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the drug’s cancer risks, yet failed to provide adequate warnings to the medical community or patients.

In the lawsuit, David Luchsinger indicates that he began receiving Dupixent injections in October 2024, and continued to receive them until March 2025, after being diagnosed with eczema. Before the injections, he had never been diagnosed with any form of lymphoma.

After five months of Dupixent injections, Luchsinger’s eczema allegedly worsened. About a year after beginning treatment, in October 2025, he was diagnosed with a form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma known as mycosis fungoides, which the lawsuit claims was caused by Dupixent side effects.

According to the complaint, continued injections contributed to a rapid progression of the disease, and the cancer was not identified until it had advanced to a late stage.

Luchsinger states that the manufacturers failed to conduct adequate testing of Dupixent before it was placed on the market, failed to supply adequate warnings to users, and intentionally downplayed the risks to ensure profits rather than patient safety. In addition, the lawsuit indicates that the manufacturers knew that doctors should monitor patients for the development of T-cell lymphoma, yet failed to pass that information on to the medical community.

“Despite the fact that peer-reviewed case reports, case series, epidemiologic articles and studies emerged providing evidence of the carcinogenic dangers of Dupixent, Defendants failed to adequately test Dupixent to investigate the risks, including the potential of exacerbating or accelerating the progression of pre-existing T-cell lymphoma or increasing susceptibility to its development.”

– David Luchsinger et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

The lawsuit describes Luchsinger’s prognosis as “grim.”

The couple presents claims of failure to warn, negligence and loss of consortium. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

Due to common questions of fact and law raised in similar complaints now being pursued throughout the federal court system, several plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all Dupixent cancer lawsuits before one U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of Georgia, as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

If centralization is established, the lawsuit filed by the Luchsingers and other plaintiffs will be coordinated for discovery and pretrial proceedings, as we as a result of early bellwether trials to gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. However, each case would remain an individual lawsuit, and plaintiffs would retain their own counsel to prove that their injuries were directly caused by the medication’s side effects.

Dupixent lawyers provide no-cost consultations to review medical records, discuss possible claims and determine whether individuals may be eligible for a Dupixent lawsuit settlement. These claims are handled on a contingency basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and attorney fees are only paid if a settlement or verdict is obtained.

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

Researchers are warning that using social media for more than 16 hours a week can increase a person’s likelihood of experiencing loneliness and depression, especially among vulnerable college-aged young adults.

In a study published in the Journal of American College Health on February 15, researchers indicate that regular social media use greatly increases the likelihood of being lonely, with that risk increasing the more social media is consumed.

Social media addiction has been associated with significant negative health effects, including increased anxiety, depression, suicide risk and persistent feelings of loneliness.

Researchers say these risks may be amplified by platform features designed to maximize engagement, including algorithm-driven feeds, autoplay functions and continuous scrolling. Mental health experts warn that adolescents are particularly susceptible to compulsive use patterns, as their developing brains are more responsive to social validation and reward-based stimuli.

These findings come as a number of social media addiction lawsuits continue to move forward in courts across the United States, each raising similar allegations that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube intentionally design algorithms to maximize engagement, particularly among children, who experts say are more vulnerable to addiction and related mental health problems.

For the new study, researchers from the University of Cincinnati School of Human Services studied nearly 65,000 undergraduate college students aged 18 to 24 years old from more than 120 colleges across the U.S., analyzing how many hours per week students used any social media.

Led by Dr. Madelyn J. Hill, the team then looked at data from the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment to determine loneliness, which was measured using surveys that asked how often the students felt left out, lacked companionship or felt isolated.

The data indicated 13% of students reported using social media platforms for more than 16 hours per week, which is considered excessive. That averages to a little more than two hours per day. The more social media they consumed, the higher their odds of feeling lonely.

When compared with students who did not use social media at all, those who used it for:

• 16 to 20 hours per week were 19% more likely to feel lonely
• 21 to 25 hours per week were 23% more likely to feel lonely
• 26 to 30 hours per week were 34% more likely to feel lonely
• 30 or more hours per week were 38% more likely to feel lonely

More than half of all students, 54% overall, reported being lonely. Women and Black students reported feelings of loneliness more than other groups. However, students doing hybrid courses were less lonely than those doing in-person classes. Researchers said this is likely because they were still able to see their old friends and maintain established relationships. Those who lived at home were lonelier than those who lived on campus.

Students who belonged to fraternities and sororities were among the least likely to be lonely. This may be because they have more opportunities to socialize with other students, the team suggested.

Researchers determined that excessive social media use can decrease the amount of time a person spends socializing face-to-face, warning that feeling lonely can increase the risk of depression and early death, and that widespread social media use may be replacing meaningful interactions which protect mental health. They called for strategies to help strengthen supportive relationships, recommending that academic institutions educate students on the effects of social media use and encourage them to set time limits.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

As research continues to highlight the risks associated with excessive social media use, a growing number of social media addiction lawsuits have been filed against platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube. 

The complaints allege that addictive algorithms designed to maximize user engagement have contributed to serious mental health problems among children and young adults, including loneliness, depression, eating disorders, suicide attempts and completed suicides.

Social media platforms currently face more than 2,300 lawsuits pending in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, where the court has been presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings over the past few years. The first two federal social media addiction bellwether cases are scheduled to go to trial in the summer of 2026.

However, the first state social media trial is already underway in California court involving claims by a woman identified as K.G.M., who alleges that TikTok, Meta, Snap and Google knowingly designed their platforms in ways that encouraged compulsive use and failed to protect young users from foreseeable mental health harms.

Although an independent state court case, the trial represents the first time a jury will evaluate claims that social media platform design and recommendation systems contributed to addiction-related mental health injuries.

While the outcomes of these early bellwether trials will not have any binding impact on other claims, they may help determine how much the platforms end up paying in social media addiction settlements to resolve the litigation.

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

Federal safety officials are warning consumers to immediately stop using certain Gourmia pressure cookers from Best Buy after reports that the lid can open while the unit is still pressurized, causing scalding hot contents to eject onto users and others nearby.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Gourmia pressure cooker alert on February 24, following at least five reports of incidents involving the forceful expulsion of hot contents, including four reports of severe burn injuries.

Pressure cookers are designed to cook food quickly by sealing in steam, which increases both internal pressure and temperature far beyond what is possible with conventional stovetop cooking. To prevent accidental openings, modern units are marketed with multiple safety mechanisms intended to keep the lid locked until all internal pressure has safely dissipated. 

However, if those locking systems malfunction or fail to properly detect pressure levels, the lid can open prematurely, releasing built-up steam and boiling food with explosive force and creating a serious risk of burn injuries.

In the wake of similar alleged failures involving other brands, Gourmia has now joined a growing list of manufacturers facing pressure cooker lawsuits, each raising allegations that the safety features marketed to consumers were defective and failed to function properly, resulting in severe injuries.

Gourmia Pressure Cooker Explosion Warning

The new CPSC warning impacts approximately 43,500 Gourmia pressure cookers labeled with model GPC625. The devices were manufactured in China and sold at Best Buy and other retailers between 2017 and 2020, with prices ranging from $50 to $80.

The affected Gourmia products are digital pressure cookers featuring a six-quart cooking chamber, stainless steel and black plastic finishes, a locking pressure lid, a digital temperature and function display, and front-mounted button controls.

Like many modern pressure cookers, the units are equipped with a float valve designed to rise when the appliance is pressurized and drop once pressure has fully released, signaling that it is safe to open the lid. However, in the Gourmia models at issue, the float valve is positioned inside the handle and is not easily visible to users. Safety officials warn that this design may create confusion and could lead consumers to believe the pressure has dissipated when the cooker remains pressurized, increasing the risk of sudden lid release and expulsion of hot contents.

In addition, the pressure cookers have incorrect volume markings on the inner pot, which can lead consumers to overfill the devices, causing hot food and liquids to be ejected when the cooker is vented using the quick-release method or opened while pressurized.

The CPSC urges consumers to immediately stop using the pressure cookers and dispose of them. They should not be sold or given away. Any incidents involving injury or product defect can be reported to federal regulators at www.SaferProducts.gov. 

Gourmia has objected to the CPSC’s announcement, and the importer, Steelstone Group LLC, which does business as Gourmia, along with retailer Best Buy Co. Inc., have declined to agree to an acceptable recall to address the alleged safety hazard.

Pressure Cooker Lawsuits

Numerous recalls and lawsuits have been filed in recent years over similar alleged pressure cooker design defects involving explosion risks in products sold under major brands such as Farberware, Ninja Foodi and Instant Pot.

In 2023, nearly one million Best Buy Insignia pressure cookers were recalled due to lid safety failures linked to seven burn injuries from explosion incidents.

Two years later, a Missouri man filed a product liability lawsuit claiming he suffered severe burn injuries when a Sensio pressure cooker exploded after the lid detached without warning that the hot contents were still pressurized.

Within the following two weeks, a Kentucky couple brought a lawsuit, claiming they suffered serious burn injuries when a Crock-Pot Express pressure cooker unexpectedly released scalding contents during use.

In addition, a product liability lawsuit brought last month alleged that a Farberware-branded pressure cooker sold through Walmart exploded during normal use, causing an Illinois woman to suffer severe injuries that required medical treatment.

Consumers injured by similar defects may be entitled to financial compensation. Pressure cooker injury attorneys are offering free case evaluations to help individuals determine whether they qualify to file a lawsuit.

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

While legal sports betting has become one of the fastest growing sectors in American entertainment, mounting data shows that young adult men are experiencing a disproportionate share of the harm caused by gambling addiction.

Sportsbooks are marketed as strategy, skill and fandom rolled into one sleek mobile experience. Ads highlight data, analytics and the idea that knowledgeable fans can gain an edge. Yet research, investigative reporting and a growing number of sports betting addiction lawsuits increasingly point to one group experiencing outsized harm: young men.

This pattern is not about personal weakness. It reflects how modern sports betting apps intersect with age, behavior, technology and constant access. As legal sports wagering expands across the country, understanding why young men are disproportionately affected helps explain the rise in sports gambling addiction concerns and the litigation now targeting major platforms.

In this featured post, AboutLawsuits examines the research behind modern sportsbook app design, how it interacts with documented psychological vulnerabilities in young men, and why sports betting addiction can develop rapidly in a mobile environment built for constant engagement.

Why Sports Betting Apps Appeal so Strongly to Young Men

Sports betting apps resonate with young men because they align closely with documented psychological and social motivations.

In a study published in Leisure Sciences titled “What motivates young men to participate in sports betting?“, researchers Matthew Lamont and Nerilee Hing examined men aged 18 to 34 and found that participation is driven by a complex web of interrelated factors tied to competence, identity and belonging.

The researchers identified nine recurring themes, which fall into three broad categories:

1. Social and Cultural Influences

• Reference Group Influence: Young men often bet to fit in with friends or bond with male family members such as fathers or brothers.
• Sociability: Betting provides a shared topic for competitive discussion and strengthens peer interaction.
• Cultural Normalization: In some environments, sports betting is viewed as a rite of passage or standard part of masculine culture once a man turns 18.

2. Psychological and Identity Factors

• Competence and Skill: Many participants were motivated by the desire to demonstrate sports knowledge and analytical ability. Winning reinforced a sense of achievement and social status.
• Masculine Identity: Betting was used to align with traditional masculine traits such as competitiveness and risk taking.
• Heightened Involvement: Placing a bet increased emotional investment in the game and intensified the viewing experience.

3. Practical and Environmental Drivers

• Monetary Gain: The possibility of earning extra money with perceived low effort was a significant motivator.
• Excitement and Relief of Boredom: The suspense and adrenaline of risk taking created a “buzz” that alleviated boredom.
• Marketing and Inducements: Promotions and advertising normalized betting and reduced perceived barriers to participation.

Modern sportsbook apps amplify these same motivations. Gamified dashboards reinforce competence, social sharing features strengthen relatedness, and constant promotional offers mirror the inducements described in the study. When these psychological drivers are embedded inside a mobile platform that operates continuously, wagering can feel like a natural extension of sports fandom rather than a high risk financial activity.

At the same time, access has never been easier. With legal sportsbooks available in many states, young people and gambling are now connected through a device that rarely leaves their hands: the smartphone.

The Role of Mobile Betting Apps in Accelerating Harm

Traditional gambling environments imposed natural constraints. Visiting a casino required intention, travel and often a predetermined amount of cash. The experience was time-bound and social. When money ran out or the venue closed, betting stopped. Those structural limits created friction.

However, mobile sportsbooks have largely eliminated those barriers.

Today, wagering is available continuously through smartphones, allowing bets to be placed from virtually any location. Live or in-game betting enables users to wager on outcomes within seconds as events unfold, increasing the number of betting opportunities within a single game.

Research reviewed by the National Council on Problem Gambling indicates that online sports bettors demonstrate higher rates of problem gambling indicators than those who gamble in traditional land-based settings, with speed, convenience and accessibility identified as key risk factors.

The promotional structure of mobile platforms further intensifies engagement. A 2025 report by the National Consumers League found that 93 percent of push notifications sent by major sports betting apps were promotional in nature, and more than half included direct calls to action encouraging immediate wagers. These prompts can be triggered by prior betting activity and delivered repeatedly throughout the day.

Without the physical, financial and social limits that once contained gambling sessions, betting can shift from a discrete activity to a continuous digital presence. For some users, particularly younger adults accustomed to constant app engagement, this structure increases exposure and may accelerate patterns associated with harmful gambling behavior.

YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN…

DraftKings Micro-Betting Causes Addiction Risks in Vulnerable Users, Critics Warn

Lawsuits over gambling addictions are being brought against DraftKings, as regulators and health experts warn the platform’s push into micro-betting could heighten risks for vulnerable users.

Read More

Why Addiction Risk Can Escalate Faster in Younger Users

Risk tolerance and impulse control continue developing into the mid twenties.

Younger users may be more likely to take larger risks or make rapid decisions, particularly in high emotion situations such as close games or rivalry matchups. Financial consequences may also feel abstract, especially when losses occur through digital transactions rather than cash.

Loss chasing is another factor. After a losing bet, some users attempt to recover money quickly through larger or riskier wagers. App mechanics that make it easy to place consecutive bets can reinforce this pattern.

Early losses are often dismissed as temporary setbacks. A bettor may believe that better research, smarter strategies or a lucky break will reverse the trend. Over time, however, patterns consistent with sports gambling addiction can develop.

Research into young people and gambling consistently shows higher rates of risky behavior and problem gambling indicators among younger male populations compared to older adults.

When Sports Betting Harm Stops Looking Like “Just Betting”

For many young men, the transition from entertainment to harm does not happen overnight. It often begins with manageable losses and small deposits, then gradually escalates into sustained financial instability.

Lawsuits filed in 2025 describe plaintiffs who lost $57,000 in a matter of months, $153,000 in four months and more than $350,000 over several years. Court filings allege repeated deposits, escalating wager sizes and continued betting despite mounting losses. In some cases, plaintiffs claim they requested account closures or were enrolled in self-exclusion programs, yet continued receiving access or promotional incentives. These complaints portray a pattern of increasing deposits, loss-chasing and debt accumulation long before outside intervention occurred.

Financial strain is typically the first visible impact. Credit cards are used to fund deposits. Cash advances are taken. Savings accounts are depleted. Some users borrow from friends or family to continue wagering or to cover prior losses. Because transactions are processed digitally and often across multiple apps, the cumulative scale of losses may not become fully apparent until reviewing statements or confronting collections notices.

The consequences frequently extend beyond finances. Plaintiffs and online accounts describe late-night betting sessions that disrupt sleep, constant monitoring of live scores during work or class, and emotional volatility tied to game outcomes.

Anxiety before events, distress after losses, irritability, secrecy and withdrawal from relationships often appear well before the behavior is identified as addiction. By the time the individual recognizes the pattern as harmful, financial damage and psychological stress may already be significant.

The Connection to DraftKings and FanDuel Lawsuits

As reports of financial and emotional harm have increased, so has litigation against major sportsbook operators.

Multiple sports betting lawsuits filed in recent months allege that platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel failed to implement meaningful responsible gambling safeguards, ignored warning signs of compulsive behavior, or continued marketing to users who had demonstrated problematic betting patterns. Complaints describe repeated deposit prompts, VIP programs, bonus offers and targeted promotions allegedly sent to users after substantial losses or even after attempts to self-exclude.

In Fischer v. DraftKings (S.D.N.Y.), the plaintiff placed more than 60,000 bets and made 446 deposits totaling over $208,000 while receiving VIP treatment and promotional incentives despite alleged signs of addiction. In Setton v. DraftKings (E.D. Pa.), the complaint alleges the platform failed to close an account after repeated requests, during which time losses exceeded $350,000. Other filings claim platforms allowed users on self-exclusion lists to continue wagering, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in additional losses.

Several lawsuits also focus on marketing practices, including deposit match promotions, “risk-free” bet advertising and targeted inducements delivered through push notifications and personalized email campaigns. Plaintiffs argue that these tactics lowered perceived risk while encouraging continued betting, particularly among younger users already demonstrating escalating behavior.

Why Many Young Bettors Don’t Realize Harm Until It’s Advanced

For many young men, sports betting does not feel dangerous. It feels normal.

When friends are betting on the same games and sportsbooks are integrated into broadcasts, group chats and social media feeds, wagering becomes part of the shared experience. Wins are posted. Big parlays are celebrated. Losses are rarely discussed. The result is a distorted perception of risk, where mounting debt can feel like temporary bad luck rather than escalating harm.

Unlike substance misuse, gambling addiction produces no visible physical symptoms. There are no outward signs that something is wrong. Deposits happen digitally. Bets are placed privately. Losses accumulate quietly across multiple apps and accounts.

By the time warning signs become visible — maxed-out credit cards, drained savings, strained relationships, anxiety or sleep disruption — the financial damage may already be severe. What looked like entertainment can, in retrospect, reveal a sustained pattern of compulsion that went largely unnoticed until it was advanced.

Why This Matters for Sports Betting Addiction Claims

The concentration of harm among young men is not just a public health concern. It is central to the legal arguments now unfolding in courtrooms across the country.

If internal data shows that younger users were statistically more likely to escalate deposits, chase losses or respond to inducements, plaintiffs argue that those vulnerabilities were foreseeable. The lawsuits do not claim that gambling itself is unlawful. They focus instead on whether sportsbook operators used behavioral data, promotional targeting, VIP programs and app design features in ways that amplified predictable risk.

In many cases, complaints allege that platforms tracked user behavior in granular detail — frequency of deposits, wager size, session length, response to bonuses — while continuing to send inducements even after signs of compulsive use emerged. The legal question is not whether losses occurred. It is whether operators had the information and capacity to intervene, yet chose continued engagement over meaningful safeguards.

For individuals evaluating potential claims, documentation becomes critical. Relevant records may include:

• Complete account histories and detailed betting logs
• Financial statements reflecting cumulative losses, credit card balances or cash advances
• Promotional emails, push notifications or bonus offers received during periods of escalating activity
• Statements from family members, partners or coworkers describing behavioral changes

Establishing a clear timeline — when betting intensified, when losses accelerated, when inducements were sent — can be essential in assessing whether platform practices contributed to the harm.

The broader issue extends beyond any single plaintiff. As mobile sportsbooks continue expanding and targeting younger demographics, sports betting addiction lawyers are asking manufacturers and courts where entertainment ends and responsibility begins. For young men who experienced significant financial or emotional consequences tied to sports betting apps, the emerging litigation represents one avenue for accountability.

FAQs

Why are young men more affected by sports betting addiction?
Research indicates that younger men may be more likely to engage in risk taking behavior, use mobile betting apps frequently, and view wagering as a social activity tied to sports fandom. Combined with app based design features and constant access, these factors can increase vulnerability to sports gambling addiction.

Can sports betting apps contribute to gambling addiction?
Mobile sports betting apps provide 24 hour access, live wagering and promotional incentives that may increase betting frequency. Some lawsuits allege that certain design features and marketing practices contributed to compulsive gambling patterns in vulnerable users.

Are DraftKings or FanDuel facing lawsuits over gambling harm?
DraftKings and FanDuel have been named in lawsuits alleging failures related to responsible gambling safeguards, warnings and marketing practices. Outcomes vary by case, and litigation is ongoing in multiple jurisdictions.

How does sports betting addiction usually start?
It often begins with casual wagers tied to sports events. Over time, increased frequency, loss chasing and reliance on bonuses or promotions can escalate behavior, leading to financial strain and other consequences consistent with gambling addiction.

Plaintiffs involved in Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits are asking the U.S. District Judge recently appointed to preside over the federal litigation to name a special master to assist with settlement negotiations, in hopes of establishing an early framework for resolving cases without the need for prolonged litigation, which will just compound the harm experienced by minors involved in the claims.

More than 100 families have already filed lawsuits against Roblox, alleging that children have suffered severe trauma after being exposed to sexual predators through the gaming platform. However, it is widely expected that several thousand claims will be brought in the coming weeks and months.

Roblox was first launched in 2006, and widely promoted as a safe platform for children, which allows users to build custom games, interact with other players, communicate through chat features and explore virtual worlds created by others.

It has grown to include millions of regular users worldwide, with heavy use by children and teens. However, the lawsuits indicate that Roblox failed to include critical safety features, which allowed sexual predators to prey on young children, often posing as other minors to gain their trust.

Once the relationship is established, the predators often take the conversation to another chat app, like Discord or Snapchat, where the sexual exploitation is escalated to include video and picture exchanges, and in some cases face-to-face meetings that end in sexual assault, rape, kidnapping or human trafficking.

Amid mounting pressure, Roblox began rolling out facial recognition software late last year that it says can help identify the age of users and prevent adults from communicating with children without parental permission. However, families indicate that these safeguards come far too late for many children.

As the number of claims being brought throughout the federal court system grew at a rapid pace, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all Roblox child exploitation lawsuits before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in December 2025. The claims were centralized in the Northern District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

In the Roblox MDL, it is expected that Judge Seeborg will move toward selecting a small group of representative cases to prepare for a bellwether process, allowing the parties to conduct case specific discovery and schedule a handful of claims for early trial dates.

However, lawyers representing families involved in the litigation are asking the Court to seek a quicker, less grueling process to explore the potential for a settlement early in the litigation.

According to a status report (PDF) submitted late last week, in advance of a case management conference scheduled for February 27, plaintiffs have asked Judge Seeborg to appoint a special master or mediator to assist the parties in early Roblox settlement talks.

“Given that the plaintiffs in this MDL are minors who have suffered severe trauma, prolonged litigation carries a significant risk of compounding that harm. Accordingly, establishing an early and proactive resolution framework is critically important.”

– Plaintiffs’ Status Report

Plaintiffs propose that the settlement master should be given the power to order the parties into face-to-face, serious negotiations and construct an efficient procedure to do so.

Lawyers for Roblox, on the other hand, issued their own status report (PDF) the same day, objecting to the appointment of a special master at this early stage of the litigation, indicating that none of the required conditions have yet been met to justify the appointment, and that it is too early in the discovery process. Despite the objection, defendants indicate they have exchanged a list of potential mediators with the plaintiffs.

If the Court agrees that early Roblox settlement talks should be held, it may avoid the need for a lengthy pretrial discovery process and preparation for a series of “bellwether” trials, which are typically used to gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the claims.

Following the MDL process, if the parties are unable to reach any global settlement for the Roblox lawsuits, Judge Seeborg may be forced to later remand each individual claim back to the U.S. District Court where it originated for separate trials in the future, which will likely take many years.

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

A new class action lawsuit alleges that a defect in certain powered front seats used in Dodge and Chrysler vehicles can cause the seat to suddenly collapse during rear-end collisions.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Richard and Evelyn Alexander in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on February 5, naming FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, and seat manufacturer Lear Corporation as defendants.

The Alexanders allege that an electric seat height adjuster manufactured by Lear Corporation and installed in millions of Chrysler and Dodge vehicles can fail during low speed rear end collisions, causing the seat to suddenly collapse beneath the occupant and increasing the risk of serious injury to drivers and passengers.

The dangers of seat collapse incidents have been well-documented in a series of similar lawsuits brought against other vehicle manufacturers. A Hyundai seat collapse lawsuit filed in December 2025 alleges that defects in the driver’s seat, headrest and seatbelt system of a 2023 Hyundai Kona caused catastrophic spinal injuries that left a New Jersey man paralyzed.

A prior Hyundai Tucson lawsuit claims that a front seat collapse during a rear end collision resulted in the death of a Pennsylvania man’s wife and his own paraplegia. In addition, a Kia Sorento lawsuit brought in April 2025 alleges that a woman was paralyzed when the front passenger seat in her vehicle suddenly collapsed, after being rear ended by a pickup truck.

Chrysler, Dodge Seat Collapse Allegations

The Alexanders allege that certain FCA US vehicles manufactured under the Chrysler and Dodge brand names are equipped with a defectively designed electric front driver and passenger seat height adjuster, which is a motorized component that raises and lowers the seat using a lead screw, nut and welded bracket assembly. 

According to the complaint, the bracket is structurally inadequate and can permanently deform or fail during a rear-end collision, particularly when the seat is positioned higher.

When the adjuster fails, the lawsuit claims the seat can abruptly collapse downward, leaving the occupant suspended out of position relative to the vehicle’s restraint system. Plaintiffs allege this sudden movement undermines the effectiveness of seat belts, airbags and head restraints at the exact moment they are needed most, increasing the likelihood of serious injuries.

The lawsuit focuses on the following vehicle years, makes and models:

• 2011–2023 Dodge Charger
• 2011–2023 Chrysler 300
• 2011–2023 Dodge Challenger
• 2011–2017 Chrysler 200
• 2013–2016 Dodge Dart

The complaint cites testing conducted by engineers retained by plaintiffs’ counsel, which allegedly demonstrated that the seat height adjuster failed during rear-impact testing at approximately 25 mph.

According to the lawsuit, this type of seat collapse can increase the risk of head, neck and spinal injuries, including whiplash, cervical spine trauma and other orthopedic injuries, as well as a heightened risk of serious or fatal harm due to improper occupant positioning during a crash.

The Alexanders claim FCA and Lear knew or should have known about the defect for years but failed to disclose it to vehicle owners, regulators or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They allege the companies continued to manufacture, market and sell vehicles with the defective seat system without issuing a recall or providing adequate warnings.

“Defendants knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks of injury or death resulting from the failure of the Defective Seat Height Adjuster before selling the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and Class members.”

— Richard Alexander et al v. FA US LLC et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of implied warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment. It is seeking nationwide class action status with a special subclass for residents of Texas, as well as damages for diminished vehicle value, out-of-pocket repair costs and other economic losses, as well as injunctive relief requiring the defendants to remedy the alleged defect.

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

A number of unexpected side effects have been linked to popular drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro, including stomach paralysis and vision loss, yet a new study suggests concerns over an increased risk of thyroid cancer may be unjustified.

A report (PDF) released this month by the Clayman Thyroid Center in Tampa, Florida indicates there is no sign the use of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists raise the risk of a thyroid cancer diagnosis, nor do they accelerate the growth of existing thyroid cancer cells.

GLP-1 medications include both diabetes treatments like Ozempic, Mounjaro, Trulicity and Rybelsus, as well as weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound. The drugs have become popular over the last couple years for their weight loss effects.

GLP-1 Side Effects

As use of the drugs has become more widespread, concerns have emerged about GLP-1 side effects and whether manufacturers fully researched all of the potential health risks. There are also questions as to whether patients and the medical community were fully warned about what those health risks were.

Along with the blockbuster sales have come reports of serious health risks that were not fully described on the initial drug labels, including gastrointestinal problems like stomach paralysis and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a rare but serious form of optic-nerve damage that can cause permanent blindness.

The manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly now face a growing number of Ozempic lawsuits, Mounjaro lawsuits and Wegovy lawsuits, each raising similar allegations that a desire for profits led to a lack of adequate testing and safety warnings.

GLP-1 drugs currently carry a boxed warning based on animal studies that suggested a potential risk of thyroid disease. In preclinical testing, rodents developed C-cell hyperplasia and experienced accelerated tumor growth after repeated exposure to the medications.

The report, led by Drs. Gary L. Clayman and Rashmi Roy, looked at clinical trial data on humans, adverse event reports and postmarketing surveillance studies. However, the researchers say none of that data contained any indication that drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro increased the risk of thyroid cancer.  

The researchers explained previous signs as the result of rat and mice cells responding more intensely to GLP-1 exposure than the same cells in humans. In addition, they noted that some previous human studies suggesting increased thyroid cancer risks appear to be the result of detection bias, with patients taking the drugs being screened more regularly than those who are not.

“The best available human evidence does not show that GLP-1 receptor agonists cause common thyroid cancers or even has an effect if you have developed a thyroid cancer. The FDA warning specifically addresses a rare type called medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) and is based primarily on rodent studies, not human data.”

– Clayman Thyroid Center Hospital for Endocrine Surgery researchers

The report concludes that patients with a history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2 (MEN2) should still avoid taking GLP-1 medications. However, those with more common forms of thyroid cancer do not have to worry about GLP-1 medications impacting the disease, the researchers noted.

The report states the use of drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro and Wegovy do not require additional thyroid monitoring.

Data in the report backs up similar findings published in January 2025 by researchers from the Mayo Clinic and Yale School of Medicine, who found that increases in thyroid diagnosis detected in other studies disappeared after the first year of treatment.

GLP-1 Injury Lawsuits

The report was released amid increased scrutiny of GLP-1 medications, which have led to more than 3,000 product liability lawsuits. Most of the claims focus on gastrointestinal issues like stomach paralysis but also include claims of vision loss.

Both the GLP-1 stomach injury lawsuits and vision loss lawsuits have been consolidated into two separate MDLs, or multidistrict litigations, before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Judge Marston is leading both sets of litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, and indicates she plans to select a small group of representative “bellwether” cases to serve as early test trials for both types of claims. These will allow the parties to see how an actual jury responds to evidence and testimony that would probably be repeated throughout thousands of similar claims.

However, before those trials can move forward, Judge Marston has ordered both sides to resolve several issues that could have broad implications for the litigation, including preemption and general causation. Once those matters are addressed, the MDLs are expected to proceed with preparing the first sets of cases for jury consideration. While the verdicts will not directly determine the outcome of other GLP-1 claims, they are likely to shape settlement negotiations.

If the parties do not reach GLP-1 settlement agreements after the bellwether trials, Judge Marston is likely to begin remanding the cases back to their original courts for individual trial dates.

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

A new study shows that nearly three-fourths of U.S. baby food products could be classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs), raising concerns about what many infants and toddlers are eating during a critical window of development.

The findings were published in the journal Nutrients on February 10, indicating that most baby food products contained one or more additives, including flavor enhancers, thickeners, emulsifiers and colors.

Ultra-processed foods include a wide range of packaged snacks, beverages and convenience meals that rely heavily on added sugars, unhealthy fats, salt and other additives to boost flavor, extend shelf life or improve texture, while offering minimal nutritional benefit. 

With consumption of these products climbing in recent decades, especially among children under age 3, researchers have warned that diets high in ultra-processed foods may significantly increase the risk of metabolic disorders such as prediabetes and Type 2 diabetes, as well as certain cancers. A growing body of research has specifically cautioned that exposure during childhood may carry heightened and longer lasting health risks.

As a result of these concerns, attorneys nationwide are investigating potential processed foods lawsuits against major food manufacturers, alleging the companies deliberately engineered products with highly palatable combinations of sugar, fat and salt designed to stimulate addictive eating behaviors and secure brand loyalty among young consumers.

In the new study, researchers analyzed 651 infant and toddler food products sold by the 10 largest U.S. grocery stores in 2023. They identified ultra-processed foods using the widely accepted NOVA classification system and calculated both the number of ultra-processed ingredients per product and the proportion of items that met the classification.

Led by Elizabeth Dunford, the team found:

• 71% of products were classified as ultra-processed foods, with additives identified as the most common ingredient type
• 36% contained flavor enhancers
• 29% contained thickeners
• 19% contained emulsifiers
• 19% contained added colors

Ultra-processed baby food options contained higher sodium and nearly twice as much sugar as non-ultra-processed products, with added sugars found exclusively in UPFs. The largest difference was seen in snack and finger foods, where ultra-processed items had two and a half times more sugar per serving when compared to non-ultra-processed options.

“Given the central importance of early nutrition for lifelong health, and the growing evidence linking UPFs with adverse health outcomes, efforts to reduce the availability of UPFs and increase transparency in complementary food product formulations should be considered a public health priority.”

— Elizabeth K. Dunford, Tiny Tummies, Big Questions: Unpacking Ultra-Processed Ingredients and Additives in Complementary Foods in the United States

Researchers warned that better labeling and stricter regulation of UPF ingredients and additives are needed to make healthy products more readily available to the youngest consumers.

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuits

As scientific evidence tying ultra-processed foods to serious health risks continues to mount, individuals across the U.S. are now filing ultra-processed foods lawsuits against major food and beverage manufacturers, alleging that these companies knowingly put public health at risk by producing and promoting products associated with long-term health problems.

According to these lawsuits, food companies followed a playbook similar to the tobacco industry, prioritizing profits over consumer safety, downplaying or failing to disclose health risks and aggressively marketing their products to children and teens. Plaintiffs allege that UPFs were deliberately formulated with high levels of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats to increase cravings, encourage repeated consumption and foster dependency despite known health concerns.

The complaints also allege that manufacturers used misleading marketing strategies that disproportionately targeted children, including cartoon characters, branded toys and media tie-ins intended to attract young consumers and foster lifelong eating habits.

Ultra-processed food attorneys are reviewing potential lawsuits for individuals or families who began consuming these products at a young age and were diagnosed with childhood Type 2 diabetes or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

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

As reports of device failures and neurological injuries linked to Abbott and Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators continue to mount, a group of plaintiffs is asking a federal panel of judges to consolidate the growing number of lawsuits now being filed, indicating that they should be centralized before one U.S. District Judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Spinal cord stimulators are surgically implanted devices designed to help patients living with severe, chronic pain. The systems deliver small electrical pulses to the spinal cord, interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain. For many individuals suffering from failed back surgery syndrome, nerve damage or persistent lower back pain, the devices are marketed as a last-resort treatment when medications, injections and additional surgeries have failed.

Each system typically includes a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. Once implanted, the device becomes a permanent part of the patient’s body.

While various different spinal cord stimulator models have been introduced by Abbott and Boston Scientific since the early 2000s, over time both companies allegedly made substantial design changes to the devices’ stimulation modes, leads and battery systems, which lawsuits now claim increased the risk of failure.

Over the last several months, a series of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been filed against Abbott and Boston Scientific, each alleging that inadequately tested design changes increased the risk of device malfunction, including lead fracture or migration, electrical overstimulation, unsatisfactory pain relief and other neurological complications.

Individuals have reported sudden jolts of electricity, burning sensations, worsening pain and new neurological symptoms, while others say the devices stopped working altogether. In many cases, patients were required to undergo painful spinal cord stimulator revision or removal surgeries.

Boston Scientific and Abbott SCS Lawsuits Raise Similar Claims

Due to the common questions of fact and law raised in each of the SCS lawsuits, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer (PDF) with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on February 20, requesting that all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought against Abbott and Boston Scientific throughout the federal court system be centralized in the Northern District of Illinois, as part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

According to the motion, at least 15 lawsuits are pending across five federal jurisdictions, including five cases in the Central District of California, five in the Northern District of Illinois, and individual cases filed in the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi and the Western District of Michigan. Attorneys indicate that hundreds of additional injured patients have already retained counsel, signaling that the litigation could expand significantly in the coming months.

Although the cases involve different product lines, the motion argues that over time, the devices evolved into products that were materially different from their original versions, without undergoing the same level of regulatory scrutiny required for brand-new Class III medical devices.

Many of the Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits focus largely on design changes introduced through successive generations of its devices, with plaintiffs alleging that newer versions incorporated redesigned leads, expanded stimulation capabilities and updated internal components without adequate long-term safety testing. According to the complaints, these changes increased the risk that implanted leads could fracture or migrate, resulting in painful electrical shocks, loss of pain relief and the need for additional surgeries.

Similarly, Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits raise parallel concerns, with plaintiffs contending that the company’s updated stimulation technology and modified lead designs altered how electrical impulses are delivered along the spine. The lawsuits allege that these design changes contributed to lead instability, device malfunction and neurological complications. In many cases, patients report that the stimulators either failed to control pain as promised or caused new and worsening symptoms.

The motion also cites prior FDA safety communications noting tens of thousands of adverse event reports associated with spinal cord stimulators in recent years, including reports of device malfunctions and inadequate pain control. Plaintiffs argue that despite these reports, the companies failed to fully warn physicians and patients about the risks associated with the evolving device designs.

FDA Named in Many Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

In addition to claims against the manufacturers, many of the lawsuits also raise allegations against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its approval and oversight of the devices.

Most of the complaints assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that allows courts to review certain agency decisions. Plaintiffs argue that the FDA permitted substantial design changes to be introduced through supplemental approval pathways, rather than requiring entirely new applications supported by independent clinical testing.

According to the lawsuits, successive updates to stimulation modes, lead configurations and internal components by both manufacturers were approved without sufficient scrutiny, allowing devices that were materially different from earlier versions to remain on the market under prior approvals.

While the claims against the FDA do not seek monetary damages, plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the agency properly followed federal law when reviewing and approving the devices and subsequent design modifications.

Attorneys argue that these regulatory claims are nearly identical across the pending cases, which they say further supports consolidating the litigation before one judge to ensure consistent rulings on both the product defect and regulatory issues.

The motion also notes that the manufacturers have already begun asserting federal regulatory defenses in several cases, contending that because the devices received FDA premarket approval as Class III medical devices, certain state law claims are preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs argue that allowing different courts to rule on these issues separately could lead to inconsistent decisions that shape the future of the litigation.

While the JPML has not yet scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on whether the cases should be centralized, if the panel grants the motion, the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits would be consolidated before one U.S. District Judge, who would oversee coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and, if necessary, a series of early bellwether trials.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawyers Reviewing New Cases

As the number of lawsuits being filed against Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and other manufacturers continues to grow, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are actively reviewing claims for individuals who suffered injuries such as:

• Lead wire fracture or migration
• Electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Sudden loss of pain relief
• Worsening chronic back or nerve pain
• Revision surgery or device removal
• Permanent nerve damage
• Long-term spinal cord complications

All spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits are handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs, and attorney fees are only paid if compensation is obtained through a settlement or trial verdict.

A plaintiff selected to serve as one of the first Bard PowerPort lawsuits to go before a jury in the federal court system has died, casting uncertainty over whether the summer trial date will proceed as planned.

The case is one of a series of Bard PowerPort bellwether trials scheduled to begin over the next year, with the first lawsuit still expected to go before a jury in April 2026, involving claims brought by a different plaintiff.

The claims were selected as representative bellwethers to gauge how juries may respond to similar evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout more than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits being pursued in the federal court system. Each of the lawsuits involve allegations that design defects with the implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) increase the risk of port catheter infections, fractures and migration injuries.

The Bard PowerPort, also known as a port catheter, has been marketed as a safe and effective way to give physicians a reliable means for delivering drugs directly into a patient’s bloodstream when repeated injections are expected, such as during chemotherapy. The system consists of a small injection port where the needle is inserted, which connects to a polyurethane catheter that delivers medication. 

However, plaintiffs now claim that the use of barium sulfate in the construction of the port catheter systems has caused premature breakdown of the implants, resulting in catheter fractures and migrations, as well as infections, blood clots, vascular damage and, in some cases, death.

Similar claims over the use of barium sulfate have also been presented in more than 300 Angiodynamics port catheter lawsuits.

Given common questions of fact and law, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits are consolidated in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Early in the litigation, Judge Campbell ordered the parties to prepare a series of “bellwether” cases for early test trials, to help the parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, evidence and expert testimony, as well as promote potential Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlements that may resolve the claims.

Last year, the court selected six Bard PowerPort bellwether lawsuits that have been undergoing preparations for a series of trial dates set to begin between April 2026 and February 2027. One of those cases was a lawsuit filed by Wanda Miller, whose case was scheduled to go to trial on July 7, 2026.

However, Miller’s death was announced in a joint memorandum (PDF) issued last week. Lawyers involved in the case met with Judge Campbell for a case management conference held on February 19, to discuss the impact of the death.

According to a memorandum submitted in advance of the meeting, Miller’s health took a “significant downturn” in late January, and she was placed in hospice due to cancer. She died on February 2.  

Plaintiffs’ leadership indicates that they were unable to perform a preservation deposition before Miller’s death because she was uncommunicative due to the advanced state of her cancer. Bard PowerPort lawsuit attorneys indicate they will consult with Miller’s family “to inquire whether an estate will be opened and a representative appointed, and whether that representative wishes to continue Mrs. Miller’s case.”

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

The first PowerPort lawsuit scheduled to go to trial involves claims by Robert Cook, which is still expected to begin on April 21, 2026. In addition to the Miller trial scheduled for July, additional bellwether trials are scheduled to begin on August 18, October 13 and December 1, 2026, and another trial is scheduled to begin on February 2, 2027.

In addition to the federal lawsuits, an additional 211 claims are centralized as part of a multicounty litigation (MCL) in New Jersey, with another 25 lawsuits filed in Arizona state court. A claim involving a Bard PowerPort lawsuit brought in Arizona is scheduled to go to trial on August 3.

While the outcomes of these early bellwether trials in both federal and state courts will not have any binding impact on other cases pending, the average jury awards are expected to have a major impact on future Bard PowerPort settlement negotiations.

However, if the bellwether trials do not result in a global agreement to settle Bard PowerPort lawsuits, Judge Campbell may begin remanding hundreds of individual claims to various U.S. District Courts nationwide for separate trials in the future.