Four individuals have filed a lawsuit alleging that certain Abbott spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are prone to battery problems that can cause painful malfunctions and device failures, leading to worsening symptoms and additional surgeries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Stephanie Giacovelli, Pamela Diamond, Billy Wright and Leticia Ramirez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 5, naming Abbott Laboratories as the sole defendant.

Plaintiffs claim Abbott substantially modified its spinal cord stimulator systems through hundreds of regulatory supplements over the last two decades, altering device components, firmware, battery systems and stimulation programming without conducting new clinical testing to validate the changes. They allege those modifications introduced new risks that were never adequately disclosed to patients or physicians.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Battery Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable devices used to treat chronic pain, consisting of electrodes placed near the spinal cord and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted beneath the skin. The battery supplies the electrical stimulation intended to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain, with the systems marketed as long-term solutions for patients suffering from persistent pain conditions.

However, an increasing number of reports have linked spinal cord stimulator battery problems to device failures requiring revision surgeries or complete removal of the implants. Patients have alleged that battery malfunctions can lead to loss of therapy, painful electrical shocks, charging failures, unexpected shutdowns and worsening pain symptoms.

These complaints have fueled a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits claiming manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with device failures and other complications.

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Giacovelli underwent implantation of an Abbott spinal cord stimulator in April 2025 after a trial device reportedly provided pain relief. However, the permanent system allegedly failed to control her pain, and she experienced problems within months, requiring surgery to replace the battery. She later underwent another battery replacement procedure after the first replacement unit was damaged during a separate surgery.

The lawsuit alleges the device remained ineffective despite the additional procedures. During a later explant surgery, physicians allegedly discovered the spinal cord stimulator had never been properly connected to her spine.

The three other plaintiffs describe similar battery failures, ineffective pain relief, worsening symptoms and additional surgeries. 

Diamond alleges her Abbott spinal cord stimulator worsened her pain and caused numbness, dizziness, urinary incontinence, balance problems, neuropathy and cardiac issues. After multiple reprogramming attempts, she ultimately underwent surgery to have the system removed.

Wright claims the device caused worsening pain, electric shock sensations, numbness, urinary retention and an infection that required emergency hospitalization. He later underwent surgery to remove the system.

Ramirez alleges she required revision surgery after the implanted battery caused pain in her buttock. She claims the device later produced worsening pain and electric shock sensations, ultimately leading to removal of the system.

“During all times relevant to this Complaint Abbott fraudulently concealed from Plaintiffs the truth regarding the safety and efficacy of the SCS devices, and Plaintiffs could not have, with reasonable due diligence, determined such truth. In fact, to this day, Abbott continues to insist that its SCS devices are safe and efficacious.”

—  Stephanie Giacovelli et al. v. Abbott Laboratories

The complaint further alleges Abbott sales representatives played a direct role in programming and adjusting the spinal cord stimulators before and after implantation, often without meaningful physician oversight. Plaintiffs contend they relied on representations that the devices were safe, effective and capable of providing long-term pain relief when deciding to proceed with permanent implantation.

The lawsuit raises allegations of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses allegedly caused by the Abbott spinal cord stimulator systems.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuits

Due to overlapping allegations raised in lawsuits filed nationwide, plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in February 2026 to establish a spinal cord stimulator MDL that would coordinate all federal claims involving Boston Scientific and Abbott devices before a single judge.

After hearing arguments in May, the JPML issued a transfer order on June 5 creating an MDL for the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. However, the panel declined to include filings involving other manufacturers.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review claims over Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro implants for individuals who experienced spinal cord stimulator battery problems or other complications such as:

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

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

A product liability lawsuit claims that side effects of the weight loss drug Wegovy caused a rare disorder that led to a Massachusetts man losing vision in his left eye.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by John A. Smith on June 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Novo Nordisk Inc., Wegovy’s creator, is listed as the defendant.

Smith indicates use of the drug led him to develop a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), which damages the optic nerves, leading to vision loss.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Risks

Wegovy (semaglutide) is a popular weight loss injection that originally started out as the diabetes drug Ozempic before being specifically reformulated for those seeking to lose weight. It belongs to a class of medications known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which also includes Ozempic, Mounjaro, Zepbound, Trulicity, Rybelsus, Saxenda and Victoza.

A number of studies published over the last year have contributed to a growing body of scientific evidence linking GLP-1 medications, particularly Wegovy and Ozempic, to an increased risk of NAION. The condition can cause sudden and irreversible vision loss, ranging from blurred vision to total blindness.

As GLP-1 medications have exploded in popularity, a growing number of Wegovy vision loss lawsuits, as well as NAION lawsuits involving similar drugs, have been filed in courts nationwide, each indicating that the manufacturer failed to adequately test Wegovy side effects and warn patients of the potential risks of vision loss.

Wegovy Vision Side Effects Allegations

According to the complaint, Smith was prescribed Wegovy in July 2024 for weight loss after Novo Nordisk promoted the drug as safe, effective and suitable for that purpose.

About a year later, in August 2025, Smith experienced sudden blurred vision in his left eye, the lawsuit states. Doctors were initially unable to determine the cause, but he was eventually diagnosed with NAION in that eye.

Smith was then referred to a specialist who was aware of a potential link between GLP-1 drugs and NAION. The specialist allegedly told Smith that Wegovy may have caused his vision problems and recommended that he stop using the drug as his condition worsened. By that point, however, Smith had already suffered a severe loss of visual acuity in his left eye, which was later determined to be irreversible.

“As a result of Defendant’s actions and inactions, Plaintiff suffers from severe vision loss in his left eye, which impacts his activities of daily living, including his ability to work. He seeks damages associated with these injuries.”

– John Smith v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al.

The lawsuit argues that because of the lack of adequate label warnings, neither Smith nor his medical providers were aware of Wegovy NAION risks when he was prescribed the medication. This oversight, which Smith indicates was the result of Novo Nordisk placing profits ahead of patient safety, has “forever changed” his life.

Additionally, the complaint indicates the manufacturer continues to downplay the risks of Wegovy NAION, despite the scientific body of evidence, which could lead to more widespread vision problems as the drug is used by a greater amount of the population.

Smith presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and marketing, breach of warranty, and violation of Massachusetts General Law for the regulation of business practices for consumer protection. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

Smith’s complaint will be consolidated with dozens of similar GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits centralized in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Currently directing the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, Judge Marston is expected to schedule a series of bellwether trials to give parties the opportunity to see how juries weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their evidence and testimony. These cases will likely be representative of the litigation as a whole, meaning many of these same factors would be at play in a majority of claims.

However, there are still a number of pretrial motions and legal maneuvers the litigation must go through before those bellwether trials dates can be scheduled.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

Judge Marston is also overseeing thousands of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits as well, which began to emerge after the medications were linked to severe gastrointestinal side effects, including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), intestinal obstructions and other complications.

These lawsuits, though handled by the same judge and in the same court, are on a separate MDL track for pretrial proceedings. Much further along than the NAION complaints, GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits will most likely go before a jury long before the other arm of the litigation.

However, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end without a GLP-1 lawsuit settlement or other resolution, Judge Marston is likely to begin remanding the claims 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 delivered directly to your inbox.

A Missouri mother has filed a lawsuit alleging that Enamil’s EnfaCare infant formula caused her daughter to develop a potentially life-threatening intestinal condition while still in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Channing Henderson, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, B.H., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 12. It names Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company as defendants.

Henderson claims Mead Johnson knew for decades that medical research has linked cow’s milk-based formulas, like the company’s Enfamil products, to a substantially higher risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants. However, the manufacturer has continued to market the formula brands for preterm babies without providing warnings about the danger.

Enfamil Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis is a serious intestinal disease that disproportionately affects premature and low birth weight infants. The condition can destroy bowel tissue, leading to intestinal perforations, overwhelming infections, emergency surgery and, in some cases, death.

Mead Johnson and its competitor Abbott Laboratories currently face a growing number of Enfamil lawsuits and Similac Lawsuits filed by families who allege premature infants developed the condition after being fed those companies’ cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers. The lawsuits contend the manufacturers failed to adequately warn that these products posed a significantly greater risk of NEC than an exclusive human milk diet.

According to plaintiffs, decades of published medical research have associated cow’s milk-based feeding products with an elevated risk of NEC in premature infants. Despite that evidence, infant formula NEC lawsuits allege the manufacturers continued to market the products as appropriate nutritional options for preterm babies without disclosing the known dangers or promoting safer human milk-based alternatives.

Enfamil EnfaCare NEC Allegations

According to the lawsuit, B.H. was born prematurely at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis on April 19, 2023, and initially received donor breast milk and expressed maternal breast milk while in the NICU.

The complaint indicates hospital staff began feeding the infant Enfamil EnfaCare formula on May 5, 2023. Four days later, on May 9, she was diagnosed with NEC. While the child was treated with antibiotics and did not require surgery, the lawsuit alleges her NEC diagnosis was caused by exposure to Mead Johnson’s cow’s milk-based formula.

The complaint further contends the company promoted the products as safe and necessary for premature infant growth while failing to disclose that human milk-based alternatives were available and associated with a significantly lower risk of NEC.

“Based on Defendants’ marketing of its formulas and fortifiers, including Defendants’ marketing of the Product as specifically intended to address premature infants’ needs, B.H.’s mother believed the Product was safe for B.H. to consume and necessary for her growth and nutrition as a premature infant.”

— Channing Henderson v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC et al.

The filing raises allegations of strict products liability, negligent products liability, defective design and failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions. It seeks economic and non-economic damages for losses suffered.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

As families across the country continue to file lawsuits over premature infants who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed cow’s milk-based formula, all federal claims have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidation allows the parties to conduct coordinated discovery and resolve common pretrial issues while avoiding inconsistent rulings in cases involving similar allegations against Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories.

To help move the litigation forward, Judge Pallmeyer has scheduled a series of bellwether trials based on representative claims. The first federal trial is set to begin on July 6, with a lawsuit filed by Alexis Inman. A second trial is scheduled to start on August 10, focusing on claims brought by Mary Kelton.

Although the bellwether verdicts will apply only to the individual families involved, they are expected to provide insight into how juries may evaluate the evidence presented throughout the litigation and could influence future settlement discussions.

Infant Formula NEC Verdicts

While the federal MDL continues to advance, a series of NEC lawsuits have also been filed in state courts, where several have already gone to trial. In one of the first state court trials, a Missouri jury awarded nearly $500 million to a family in 2024. Later that year, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

More recently, a Cook County, Illinois, jury awarded four mothers a combined $70 million in damages in a lawsuit involving Similac products. In a separate Cook County trial, another jury returned a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in a lawsuit involving Enfamil formula.

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

A Minnesota woman is pursuing a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered respiratory side effects caused by the accumulation of mold in a Midea U-shaped air conditioner.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Jessie Miller in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on June 9. The lawsuit names Midea America Corp., GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co. Ltd. and Amazon.com Services LLC as defendants.

Miller alleges the Midea air conditioner has a product defect that allows water to pool in the unit, creating a perfect environment for mold to grow. She indicates the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk and how to avoid it.

Midea Air Conditioner Recall

The Midea U-shaped air conditioner is intended for installation in a window or wall opening to cool individual rooms. The U-shaped design allows the window to close through the center of the unit, helping to keep the compressor outside and reduce indoor noise.

In June 2025, Midea recalled 1.7 million A/C units due to mold growth problems caused by pooled water failing to drain quickly enough. The recall affected A/C units sold at major retailers, including Amazon, Home Depot and Costco.

Several air conditioner mold growth product liability lawsuits like Miller’s have been filed nationwide following the recall, with consumers claiming they suffered severe respiratory side effects, including infections and allergic reactions.

Just last month, a couple filed a complaint alleging they began suffering from debilitating respiratory symptoms after using a U-shaped Midea A/C unit with the same design defect that allowed for pooled water and mold growth. The number of lawsuits could continue to grow as more consumers discover there may be a link between their respiratory problems and the recalled air conditioners.

Midea Respiratory Issue Allegations

In the complaint, Miller indicates she purchased a Midea U-shaped A/C unit, model MAW12V1QWT, on June 13, 2023. The lawsuit states that after she began using the unit, mold began to grow within due to the design defect preventing the water from draining fast enough.

As a result, Miller was diagnosed with severe respiratory issues and required medical care. Miller indicates she suffered disability, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Her injuries are permanent or ongoing.

Two years later, on June 5, 2025, Midea issued the recall for nearly 2 million A/C units due to the risk of mold growth inside the unit.

Miller’s lawsuit alleges Midea and Amazon knew, or should have known, about the design defect. It also claims that the manufacturers failed to do enough to ensure that owners were aware of the recall or the defect, potentially leading to health problems and injuries that could have been avoided.

“Defendants, at all relevant times, knew or should have known of the problems and defects with the Midea A/C Unit, and the falsity and misleading nature of Defendants’ statements, representations and warranties with respect to the Midea A/C Unit. Defendants concealed and failed to notify Plaintiff and the public of such defects.”

— Jessie Miller v. Midea America Corp. et al.

The complaint raises claims of violation of the New Jersey Products Liability Act, defective design, failure to warn and breach of express warranty. Miller seeks compensatory damages for past and future medical care, pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life and attorneys’ fees.

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

According to new court filings, lawyers have reached an agreement that may settle Depo-Provera lawsuits brought by women throughout the federal court system, involving the development of meningioma brain tumors from the popular birth control shot.

Depo-Provera is a long-acting contraceptive, which involves an injection of medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone, which is given every three months.

Although Depo-Provera has been widely used for decades, a French study published in 2024 revealed that women receiving the shot face a 5x increased risk of developing an intracranial meningioma, which is a type of brain tumor that develops in the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. While often non-cancerous, they can still cause serious complications when they grow large enough to press on the brain, nerves or other nearby structures. Many women diagnosed with meningioma require life-long monitoring or surgery to remove the brain tumor.

As a result of the drug makers’ failure to warn about these risks, more than 5,500 women are currently pursuing Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits against Pfizer and related defendants. The lawsuits claim the drug makers withheld information from women and the medical community about the potential brain tumor risks, leaving users without the warnings needed to weigh the long-term dangers of the injections.

Given common questions raised in the claims, all lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system have been centralized as part of a Depo-Provera lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation), with U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers presiding over coordinated pretrial proceedings out of the Northern District of Florida.

Judge Rodgers previously ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases for early trial dates, which are designed to give participants a chance to see how juries will interpret testimony and evidence in cases that represent the majority of circumstances throughout the litigation. However, new court orders indicate the first trial deadlines have now been vacated because the parties are working to finalize a Depo-Provera lawsuit settlement agreement.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

In a court order (PDF) issued on June 15, Judge Rodgers indicated that Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and defendants Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia LLC, and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC have reached a global agreement for a Depo-Provera meningioma settlement that may resolve thousands of lawsuits brought in the MDL.

Details about the Depo-Provera lawsuit settlement have not yet been publicly released, including:

• Eligibility requirements
• Potential Depo Provera settlement amounts
• How individual claims will be evaluated

Judge Rodgers noted that the parties are still working to memorialize the terms of the global MDL settlement, but indicates that only plaintiffs who meet the eligibility criteria agreed by the parties will have an opportunity to resolve their claims.

As a result of the agreement, Judge Rodgers vacated all trial and pretrial deadlines in Toney v. Pfizer Inc., one of the early cases that had been moving toward trial. The development may eliminate the immediate need for the first Depo-Provera bellwether trial, but a separate order issued the same day makes clear that the settlement agreement will not resolve every case in the MDL.

Depo-Provera Expert Hearing Still Moving Forward

In Pretrial Order No. 30A (PDF), also issued on June 15, Judge Rodgers postponed a highly anticipated ruling on Pfizer’s pending motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption, which asks the court to find that certain Depo-Provera lawsuits are barred because federal law allegedly prevented the drug makers from changing the warning label in the manner plaintiffs claim was required.

However, the court indicated that it still expects to move forward with a Rule 702 hearing over expert witness testimony on general causation, which addresses whether Depo-Provera is capable of causing meningioma brain tumors. That hearing had been scheduled for June 24 and 25, but has now been moved to July 27, 2026, in Pensacola, Florida.

The causation hearing remains important because Judge Rodgers said the global agreement, once finalized, will not resolve all cases in the MDL.

“The Court anticipates proceeding with that hearing and ruling on the Rule 702 motions in the ordinary course because the Parties’ global agreement, once finalized, will not resolve all cases in the MDL, given that only Plaintiffs who meet the eligibility criteria agreed to by the Parties will have an opportunity to participate.”

– U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, Northern District of Florida

Judge Rodgers also indicated that current MDL plaintiffs who did not seek permission to submit separate general causation experts or additional briefing will be bound by the court’s Rule 702 ruling on general causation. For cases filed or transferred into the MDL after June 15, the court will issue later orders addressing how those rulings apply, although cases filed by law firms serving in Plaintiffs’ Leadership will be bound without additional proceedings.

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

A Pennsylvania woman has filed a Lyft sexual assault lawsuit alleging she was attacked by a rideshare driver during a trip arranged through the company’s app, claiming Lyft had long known about similar assaults but failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect passengers.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 5, by a woman identified only as Jane SL104. Lyft Inc. is named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.

Jane SL104 claims she used the Lyft app on February 26, 2025, to request transportation from a friend’s home to her son’s school. During the trip, she alleges the Lyft driver sexually assaulted her after pulling the vehicle over and claiming there was a problem with the tire pressure.

In recent years, numerous passengers have raised similar allegations, claiming that Lyft failed to implement basic safety measures, such as conducting more rigorous driver background screenings, installing in-vehicle cameras, offering riders the option to select a driver by gender, or requiring sexual misconduct prevention training for drivers.

Those allegations have fueled a growing number of Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, which contend the company prioritized business growth over passenger safety. Claims indicate that those failures contributed to an environment in which riders, most often women, were subjected to sexual harassment, unwanted touching, assault, kidnapping and rape by drivers using the platform.

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

According to the complaint, the driver initially made Jane SL104 uncomfortable by asking highly personal and inappropriate questions. The lawsuit indicates the driver then stopped the vehicle, exited briefly and returned by climbing into the back seat where the plaintiff was sitting.

The woman alleges the driver grabbed her inner thigh, touched her breast over her clothing and attempted to place his hand beneath her shirt. The complaint further claims the driver demanded that she perform oral sex and pressed his body against her while she attempted to escape.

Jane SL104 indicates that she screamed, resisted and eventually escaped from the vehicle by climbing out of the rear door while kicking and fighting off the driver. She claims she suffered physical injuries, including swelling and redness to her legs, as well as ongoing emotional and psychological trauma.

The complaint alleges Lyft has known since at least 2015 that some female passengers were being sexually assaulted by rideshare drivers, but failed to implement reasonable safety measures that could reduce the risk of attacks. The lawsuit contends the company continued using inadequate driver screening procedures, refused to adopt fingerprint-based background checks and failed to effectively monitor rides despite having access to GPS tracking and other technology.

The plaintiff argues Lyft misrepresented the safety of its platform through advertising and public statements claiming that passenger safety was its top priority while allegedly concealing the frequency of sexual assaults reported by riders.

The lawsuit also claims Lyft routinely failed to cooperate with law enforcement investigations, deleted or restricted access to passenger complaints and deactivated victims’ accounts after reports of sexual assault were made, making it more difficult for survivors and investigators to identify drivers and pursue criminal cases.

In addition, the complaint accuses Lyft of employing policies designed to discourage victims from coming forward, alleging reports were often handled by inadequately trained personnel and that victims were frequently promised follow-up investigations that never occurred.

“LYFT’s actions were a substantial factor in the harm that JANE SL104 suffered. JANE SL104 suffered general damages of pain and\suffering, including but not limited to emotional distress, panic, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness.”

— Jane SL104 v. Lyft Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, intentional misrepresentation, common carrier negligence and product liability. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, emotional distress and other losses allegedly resulting from the assault.

Rideshare Sexual Assault Litigation

Jane SL104’s case joins more than 50 Lyft sexual assault lawsuits pending in the federal court sustem, where claims have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin as part of coordinated pretrial proceedings. The court is expected to establish a “bellwether” process involving a group of representative cases prepared for early trial dates.

A separate federal Uber sexual assault lawsuits MDL is also pending in the Northern District of California before another judge. That litigation currently includes nearly 3,600 claims and has advanced further through the bellwether trial process.

Earlier this year, the first Uber bellwether case resulted in an $8.5 million award to Jaylynn Dean, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2023. Although jurors rejected claims that Uber’s safety features were negligently designed or implemented, they found the company legally responsible because the driver was acting within the scope of his relationship with Uber at the time of the incident.

In a separate California state court proceeding concluded in September 2025, a jury found that Uber did not take sufficient measures to safeguard passengers from sexual assault. However, the panel stopped short of imposing liability or awarding compensation.

While bellwether verdicts do not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they are often viewed as important indicators of how juries may respond to key evidence and legal arguments. If settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, individual claims in both the Uber and Lyft MDLs could ultimately be returned to their original federal courts for separate trials.

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

A new class action lawsuit alleges Robinhood is illegally offering sports-related event contracts nationwide, allowing users to place wagers on game outcomes while marketing the products as regulated financial instruments.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Georgia resident Matthew Mazza in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 10, naming Robinhood Markets Inc. and Robinhood Derivatives LLC as defendants.

Mazza claims the defendants have attempted to bypass state sports betting laws and restrictions, by offering wagers on games in the form of event contracts, which are marketed as financial derivatives rather than gambling products. He argues the contracts are functionally identical to traditional sports bets and violate gambling laws in states where sports wagering remains restricted or illegal.

Prediction Market Gambling Risks

Robinhood first entered the prediction markets business in October 2024, by offering contracts tied to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. The company later expanded into sports-related contracts, launching markets tied to the Super Bowl and NCAA basketball tournaments before broadening offerings to professional and college football and other sporting events.

The lawsuit alleges Robinhood’s sports event contracts are available in all 50 states, including jurisdictions where traditional sportsbooks are prohibited or heavily regulated. According to the complaint, users can purchase “Yes” or “No” contracts tied to the outcome of sporting events, with payouts determined by whether their prediction proves correct. Mazza contends the system mirrors conventional sports betting despite Robinhood’s characterization of the products as investment opportunities.

Following a 2018 Supreme Court decision, sports betting rapidly expanded across the U.S., with platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel giving millions of younger adults the ability to place bets from their smartphones at any time of day.

However, that growth in popularity has also led to a wave of sports betting addiction lawsuits, which allege the companies used predatory marketing tactics, addictive app features and aggressive promotions to encourage frequent wagering.

The claims maintain that users were targeted with personalized incentives, deposit matches, bonus bets and repeated prompts designed to keep them gambling, even when companies knew or should have known they were showing signs of addiction or financial distress.

Prediction market platforms, such as Kalshi, have pushed that model beyond traditional sports wagering by allowing users to trade on the outcome of elections, economic indicators and other real-world events. According to Mazza’s complaint, Robinhood’s partnership with Kalshi brought those event contracts onto its investment platform, allowing the company to collect transaction fees and other revenue each time users placed trades.

The lawsuit alleges Robinhood presented prediction markets as investment products, even though users were effectively wagering on uncertain future events. Robinhood reportedly described prediction markets as its fastest-growing revenue-generating product line, with more than one million customers trading billions of contracts since launch.

Robinhood Gambling Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Robinhood’s prediction markets expose customers to gambling activity directly within their brokerage accounts, potentially allowing losses to affect investment portfolios and margin positions.

Mazza alleges Robinhood marketed the contracts as a sophisticated financial product while failing to adequately disclose the risks associated with highly speculative wagering. The complaint contends customers could suffer substantial losses, margin calls, forced liquidations and other financial consequences that were not prominently disclosed at the point of trade execution.

The lawsuit also claims Robinhood’s prediction markets may appeal to individuals who avoid traditional gambling platforms but maintain brokerage accounts with the company, exposing them to sports wagering opportunities through push notifications, advertising campaigns and in-app promotions.

Mazza says he lost roughly $400,000, including fees and commissions, wagering on sports event contracts through Robinhood during 2025 and 2026.

The complaint cites cease-and-desist actions and investigations involving prediction market operators in several states, along with warnings from regulators who have argued such platforms may operate as unregulated gambling enterprises without the consumer protections required of licensed sportsbooks.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Class and/or State Subclasses suffered substantial monetary losses through speculative contracts and wagering transactions that would not have occurred absent Defendants’ unlawful operation and inducement of gambling activity.”

— Matthew Mazza v. Robinhood Markets Inc. et al.

Mazza raises allegations of unjust enrichment and violations of gambling-loss recovery statutes, Georgia consumer protection laws and California unfair competition statutes. He seeks certification of a nationwide class and a Georgia subclass consisting of users who allegedly lost money trading sports event contracts through Robinhood. In addition, his filing is asking for restitution of gambling losses, disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, injunctive relief and a declaration that Robinhood’s sports event contracts constitute unlawful gambling transactions.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

The case joins a growing number of sports betting complaints filed across the U.S., including DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits alleging the platforms fueled gambling addictions among young users through aggressive marketing, bonus offers and app features designed to encourage repeated betting.

Lawsuits allege the sports betting companies used sophisticated algorithms to identify users who appeared vulnerable to developing gambling problems. Once flagged, those individuals were allegedly targeted with customized promotions, VIP incentives and, in some cases, dedicated account representatives. Plaintiffs claim this encouraged continued wagering while minimizing the risks of mounting financial losses.

As concerns about these practices continue to grow, sports betting addiction attorneys are evaluating potential claims on behalf of individuals who suffered substantial financial harm through online gambling platforms.

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

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

A West Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Walmart Farberware pressure cooker exploded after it malfunctioned and opened while still pressurized, ejecting scalding food and liquid that left her with severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Carol Moore in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas on June 8, naming Walmart Inc. as the defendant.

Moore claims the company knew or should have known about certain defects involving Farberware pressure cooker lids yet put profits over safety.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

The Farberware 7-in-1 programmable pressure cooker is a consumer kitchen appliance exclusively sold and distributed by Walmart. It uses high pressure to rapidly cook food. Like other electric pressure cooker brands, it is designed with a safety feature that is intended to prevent the lid from opening while the device is pressurized.

If the lid opens before internal pressure has been released, scalding liquid, food and steam can erupt from the pot with extreme force. As a result, users standing near the appliance may suffer severe burns to their bodies.

Hundreds of burns injuries have been reported by consumers after electric pressure cookers have failed. In light of these concerns, a growing number of pressure cooker injury lawsuits have been filed in recent years, each involving similar allegations of design defects and lid safety lock failures.

Farberware Pressure Cooker Injury Allegations

In the lawsuit, Moore indicates she was using the Farberware 7-in-1 pressure cooker on July 4, 2024, when the lid suddenly exploded off the pot during normal use. The complaint indicates the incident caused scalding contents to be ejected onto Moore’s body.

As a result of the pressure cooker explosion, Moore required immediate medical treatment and suffered partial thickness burns. She underwent several medical procedures, wound debridement and has permanent scarring.

The filing claims Farberware pressure cookers contain design defects that may allow the lid to be removed while the device remains pressurized, simultaneously giving users the false impression that pressure has been released.

Moore indicates this defect is unreasonably dangerous to consumers and that Walmart failed to take reasonable care in designing, testing and promoting the devices. Additionally, she claims the company has failed to redesign the Farberware devices even though there are safer alternatives.

“Defendant knew or should have known of these defects but has nevertheless put profit ahead of safety by continuing to sell its pressure cookers to consumers, failing to warn said consumers of the serious risks posed by the defects, and failing to recall the dangerously defective pressure cookers regardless of the risk of significant injuries to Plaintiff and consumers like her.”

— Carol Moore v. Walmart Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability for design defect, failure to warn and negligence. It seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

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

Abbott Laboratories faces a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit brought by a New Jersey man, who says he began experiencing serious complications that left him in more pain after the procedure than before.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Luis A. Lebron Cruz in New Jersey federal court on May 29. It names Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturer, as the defendant, as well as numerous unnamed individuals and affiliated companies expected to be identified during the discovery process.

Lebron Cruz claims Abbott knew the spinal cord stimulator device implanted in him was associated with battery failures, loss of stimulation, lead migration and other complications through adverse event reports, yet failed to adequately warn physicians, patients and regulators.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Concerns

Several medical device manufacturers, including Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro make and sell spinal cord stimulators, which are implants designed to treat chronic pain. They consist of a small, battery-powered pulse generator that is placed under the skin, thin electrodes implanted near the spinal cord and connected to the generator, and a remote control for adjusting stimulation levels to maximize pain relief. 

While spinal cord stimulators are supposed to be permanent implants, a growing number of recipients like Lebron Cruz are now pursuing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits nationwide, indicating manufacturers designed and manufactured a defective implant that has resulted in numerous reports of shocks, burns, lead migrations and other complications that often result in the need for revision surgery to have the device surgically removed.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Pain Allegations

According to Lebron Cruz’s lawsuit, he was implanted with a Proclaim XR 5, Penta 3MM Paddle and NeuroSphere system for the treatment of chronic back pain.

However, about a year after the procedure, Lebron Cruz began experiencing problems, including intense burning sensations and electric shocks that appeared to emit from the battery implantation site. These shocks and burning sensations then radiated out through his lower extremities. Additionally, the plaintiff reports that his chronic pain has increased instead of being alleviated.

Lebron Cruz argues that Abbott knew the design was defective after receiving adverse event reports that included battery failures, painful shocks, loss of stimulation, leads migrating out of position and loss of effectiveness. However, it failed to address these problems and downplayed them to federal regulators.

“In many instances, adverse event descriptions were incomplete, delayed, or internally coded in a manner that obscured the true nature of the malfunction or injury. These omissions deprived the FDA, implanting physicians, and patients of material safety information that would have altered the risk-benefit analysis associated with use of the System.”

– Luis A. Lebron Cruz v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

The filing indicates the spinal cord stimulator remains implanted and continues to cause debilitating side effects.

As a result, Lebron Cruz presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The lawsuit was filed just one day after the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) heard oral arguments over whether to consolidate federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving Abbott and Boston Scientific products.

At the time the complaint was filed, plaintiffs were asking the JPML to transfer all similar claims against both manufacturers to one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where the cases would undergo coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, the panel has since issued a transfer order that took a narrower approach.

Rather than creating a combined MDL for both manufacturers, the JPML centralized only the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, transferring those claims to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The panel declined to include Abbott cases in the new proceeding, leaving those claims to move forward separately for now.

As more individuals come forward who have experienced problems caused by Abbott, Boston Scientific and other SCS devices, spinal cord stimulator injury attorneys continue evaluating claims for those suffering serious complications, including:

• Lead wire fractures or migration
• Painful electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Unexpected loss of pain relief
• Increased back pain or worsening nerve symptoms
• Revision procedures or surgical device removal
• Permanent nerve injuries
• Long-term spinal cord damage

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

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

A Florida woman implanted with an AngioDynamics Xcela port catheter has filed a product liability lawsuit after suffering injuries from blood clots she says were caused by the implant’s defective design.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kimberly Daniels in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 1, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as the defendants.

Daniels claims the companies knew for years that Xcela catheters were associated with thrombosis, infections and other serious complications as the catheter deteriorated, yet the manufacturers continued to market the devices as safe and effective

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Problems

AngioDynamics is the manufacturer of several types of port catheters, such as the Xcela, Smart Port and Vortex Port, which are medical implants designed to give doctors long-term access to patients’ veins for repeated injections of fluids and medications, such as when undergoing chemotherapy. They include a port, implanted beneath the skin, and a catheter leading from the port into a blood vessel.

However, port catheters from AngioDynamics and other manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, have been linked to increasing reports of thrombosis, infections and other serious complications, as blood products and biofilm collect in the catheters’ cracks and across their degraded surfaces.

In light of these concerns, an increasing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits are being brought by patients who allege the manufacturers have been aware of problems with the devices for years, yet continued marketing them as safe and effective. These filings argue that the companies refused to change catheter designs to safer alternatives, and should have made sure that physicians and patients were adequately warned of the potential for device failure and health risks.

AngioDynamics Xcela Thrombosis Allegations

According to the Xcela lawsuit, Daniels was first implanted with the AngioDynamics port catheter in May 2022. However, before the end of that year it had already failed, exposing her to a dangerous occlusive thrombus. This condition is a kind of blood clot that blocks vessels, preventing blood from flowing past.

Daniels goes on to argue that had a clot broken free, it could have traveled to her heart or lungs. This could have caused a pulmonary embolism, which can be lethal.

The lawsuit indicates AngioDynamics knew, or should have known, about this problem for years, yet hid the evidence of a problem from patients and the medical community.

“Rather than alter the design of the Xcela port to make it safer or adequately warn physicians of the dangers associated with the Xcela port, Defendants continued to actively and aggressively market the Xcela port as safe, despite their knowledge of numerous reports of catheter infection and associated injuries.”

– Kimberly Daniels v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment. It seeks general damages for past, present and future medical expenses, as well as other relief.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Daniels’ complaint will be centralized with nearly 400 similar AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

During the course of the litigation, Judge Ohta will have the parties select several cases representative of claims as a whole to be prepared for “bellwether” trials. Given the large amount of similar evidence and testimony shared between cases, this is an opportunity to see how receptive juries will be to their arguments.

Although the verdicts of those trials are not binding on other cases, the outcomes will be closely watched by both parties, who could use the results as the basis for an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit settlement.

Comparable claims have been advanced in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending in the District of Arizona, where plaintiffs allege that C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton, Dickinson and Company, marketed implantable port catheters that were susceptible to cracking, thrombosis and other serious injuries.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial concluded last month with a defense verdict. Jurors rejected claims that the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings or engaged in consumer fraud. However, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on allegations that the devices were defectively designed or that the companies violated state unfair trade practices laws.

The mixed outcome is expected to increase attention on upcoming bellwether trials, which could provide further insight into how juries view the competing scientific evidence and legal arguments at the center of the litigation.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are currently scheduled for July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. If those proceedings fail to produce settlements or other resolutions, individual lawsuits may eventually be returned to federal courts nationwide for separate trial dates.

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

A California man has filed a Rezurock lawsuit, alleging the medication caused him to develop a severe skin disorder that has interfered with his ability to sleep, wear normal clothing and continue working as a nurse.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Philip Mizuno in San Joaquin County Superior Court on May 4, naming Sanofi Vaccines U.S. Inc. and Kadmon Pharmaceuticals LLC as the defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 9.

Mizuno claims the drugmakers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians that side effects of Rezurock could trigger severe dermatologic reactions. 

Rezurock Skin Condition Side Effects

Rezurock (belumosudil) is a prescription medication approved to treat chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which is a serious complication that can occur after stem cell or bone marrow transplants. When the condition occurs, donor immune cells attack the recipient’s tissues and organs, potentially causing skin rashes, diarrhea and liver problems.

However, in Mizuno’s case, the medication allegedly led to the development of prurigo nodularis, a chronic skin disease characterized by intensely itchy, firm and hard nodules appearing across the body.

One potential treatment for prurigo nodularis is Dupixent, another Sanofi drug. However, Dupixent has been linked to other serious adverse side effects, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), which is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin.

In light of these concerns, a series of Dupixent lawsuits have been filed in recent months, alleging that the drug’s manufacturers failed to adequately investigate and disclose evidence that it may cause, accelerate or mask symptoms of rare T-cell lymphomas.

Rezurock Prurigo Nodularis Diagnosis

According to the lawsuit, Mizuno began taking Rezurock in March 2024 after discussing treatment options with his physician for long-standing GVHD symptoms. At the time, medical records indicated his skin was normal, with no rashes or lesions present.

However, within weeks of starting treatment, the complaint claims Mizuno began experiencing worsening rashes, itching and pain that he attributed to the medication. During an April 2024 counseling session, he reportedly described a significant increase in symptoms that became severe enough for him to stop taking the drug.

The lawsuit states that Mizuno’s condition continued to worsen over the following months, with physicians documenting new skin lesions associated with burning pain and persistent dermatologic symptoms.

In July 2024, a dermatologist diagnosed him with prurigo nodularis, describing numerous excoriated papules and plaques across his back, chest and arm. The complaint indicates he continued taking Rezurock while doctors attempted to treat the condition with topical medications and other therapies, yet his symptoms persisted.

Medical records cited in the lawsuit indicate Mizuno later underwent treatment with Dupixent, Nemluvio, UV light therapy and other interventions in an effort to control the disease. Physicians eventually listed belumosudil under “Allergies” for Mizuno.

The lawsuit indicates the condition became so painful that Mizuno could not lie on his back, had difficulty sitting due to pressure on the lesions and often avoided wearing clothing because it aggravated the affected areas. These factors have prevented him from working, even part time, as a nurse. 

Mizuno says he was still suffering from widespread nodules in late 2025, with one physician documenting between 20 and 100 lesions. He claims he eventually underwent liquid nitrogen treatments to remove dozens of lesions.

Rezurock Skin Reaction Warning Allegations

The filing alleges Sanofi and Kadmon knew, or should have known, that Rezurock could cause prurigo nodularis or similar severe skin reactions, yet failed to disclose that risk in prescribing information, product labeling or patient warnings.

Mizuno notes that during a pharmacist consultation before treatment began, he was warned about a number of potential side effects, including low blood counts, fatigue, diarrhea, shortness of breath, swelling, nausea and high blood pressure. However, prurigo nodularis and comparable severe skin disorders were not among the risks disclosed.

“Each defendant aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to the other defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff. In taking action to aid and abet and substantially assist the commissions of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of, each defendant acted with an awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing.”

— Philip Mizuno v. Sanofi Vaccines U.S. Inc. et al.

The lawsuit claims adequate warnings would have allowed Mizuno and his physicians to consider alternative treatments, adjust therapy or more closely monitor for signs of severe dermatologic injury.

Mizuno raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability and breach of implied warranty. He seeks at least $500,000 in compensatory damages, as well as additional damages to be determined at trial.

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

A new report warns that the psychiatric community has not yet fully studied or developed strategies to address social media addiction, particularly among young people, even as the platforms play an increasingly large role in daily life.

A Psychiatric Times poll published on June 8 found that 164 of 197 respondents believed social media is definitely addictive, 29 said it is probably addictive, and only four disagreed. However, while other online pastimes such as gambling disorder and gaming disorder are formal clinical diagnoses, social media addiction is not.

Leah Kuntz, assistant managing editor of Psychiatric Times, suggests that social media addiction and similar behavioral addictions, including sports betting through online apps, may warrant a broader new category, such as “engineered addiction.” The term would reflect the role of technology-driven design features that are intentionally used to encourage compulsive behavior.

Social Media Addiction Risks

The lack of an official diagnosis has not stopped social media from being linked to significant negative mental health side effects, including increased anxiety, depression, suicide risk and persistent feelings of loneliness.

Last month, the U.S. Surgeon General’s office released an advisory (PDF) calling for a reduction in screen time due to social media’s potential psychological harm on children. The advisory indicates that nearly 50% of adolescents say they lose track of the amount of time they spend on their phone, which provide continuous, on-demand access to social media.

The warning states that screen time appears to increase with age, with pre-teens and teens spending an average of four hours per day. A study published earlier this year also found that regular social media use can increase the risk of loneliness and depression.

As the phenomenon has spread, parents, school districts and others have become more concerned about social media side effects, arguing that 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.

In light of these concerns, a growing number of social media addiction lawsuits have been filed against the creators of Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat and other popular sites in courts nationwide, saying those platforms are exploiting children’s vulnerability to maximize their engagement and increase profits.

Engineered Addictions

According to the report, gambling disorder and gaming disorder have formal clinical diagnoses, such as in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th edition, known as DSM-5. Such diagnoses give all mental health providers a basis for both diagnosing the condition and treating it.

However, Kuntz indicates that social media and some forms of gambling have different considerations due to being “engineered addictions,” which refers to the use of algorithms tailored to increase engagement. She says that mental health experts must calculate this factor into their treatment.

Social media reinforces existing beliefs instead of challenging them, meaning it tells those using it exactly what they want to hear, and that effect grows over time as the viewer watches more and provides more data to the algorithm. This could make the addiction more potent over time.

Further compounding the problem is that stripping social media away completely is not expected to work. Limited studies conducted so far indicate that some people are just as likely to overestimate their addiction to social media as they are to underestimate it.

The article suggests this required a different approach, calling for caregivers, therapists and others to approach those suffering from social media addiction sympathetically, showing empathy and understanding for the fact that children’s social media is a tool that links them to their peers, and absolute absence from it, which could ostracize and keep them out of the loop, can cause “real harm among peers.”

While an official diagnosis has yet to be announced, Stephen Mateka, Psychiatric Times’ child and adolescent psychiatric section editor, released a list of questions therapists should use when talking to child and adolescent patients about social media use:

• What platforms do you use?
• How do you engage with them?
• How often do you use them?
• What do you like about them?
• Tell me something you learned today from social media.
• Tell me what your favorite thing that you saw on social media was.

This could help normalize talking about social media with patients, and he said those dialogues should start even without an official diagnosis on the books.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

More than 2,500 social media addiction lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide, as concerns about the tactics used by tech companies grow. Additionally, there may be hundreds more claims that have been brought in state courts, with many filed in California.

All federal social media addiction lawsuits have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rogers has scheduled a series of “bellwether” trials designed to test the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ arguments and evidence before a live jury. The first trial was scheduled to begin on June 15, involving claims by Breathitt County School District. However, the parties announced last month that they had reached a settlement agreement, resolving the claims. The next bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on February 3, 2027.

Some state cases have already gone to trial, resulting in social media companies like Meta and Google being ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages. In March, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta and Google should pay $6 million in damages to a woman who said she suffered anxiety and depression due to social media addiction fostered by apps like Facebook and YouTube when she was a minor. 

Only a couple days earlier, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages to the state, after finding the company liable for mental health problems linked to social media addiction among teens. 

While all of these trials are being closely watched, the outcomes are not binding on other claims. However, their results could help the parties reach more social media addiction lawsuit settlements, preventing thousands of prolonged and expensive trials.

Following completion of the bellwether trials, if no global settlement or other resolution has been reached to resolve the litigation, Judge Rogers will likely begin remanding lawsuits back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

Federal regulators announced that the over-the-counter weight loss drug Alli will carry new label warnings instructing doctors and patients to be aware of the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and kidney stones, and to stop using the drug immediately if detected.

Officially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007, Alli (orlistat) is a 60mg OTC weight loss medication that is a lower-dose version of Xenical, which is a 120mg dose of orlistat. The medications are meant to be combined with a reduced-calorie diet, and work by preventing the absorption of fats, thereby reducing caloric intake.

Alli and Xenical Safety Concerns

Although sold as a safe and effective treatment, as early as May 2010, the FDA issued a drug safety communication about possible liver problems with Alli and Xenical, indicating that the agency had received at least 13 reports of severe liver injury among users. In two of the cases, the patient died, and three required liver transplants. However, only one of the reports involved the use of Alli, all of the others involved the much larger Xenical dose.

In 2011, a study warned that 2% of Xenical users were hospitalized for kidney problems after they began taking the drug. This led to the consumer watchdog group, Public Citizen, filing a petition that demanded a Xenical and Alli recall. The petition argued that the health risks were too high and the weight loss benefits were too low to justify putting the drugs on the market.

While Xenical already carries some kidney risk warnings, its over-the-counter version, Alli, had avoided the requirement until now.

Alli Kidney Risks Warning

On June 10, the agency issued an Alli drug safety communication, announcing the approval of new warnings on the drug facts label alerting doctors and consumers to the risk of acute kidney injuries and kidney stones.

The FDA determined that new warnings were needed after conducting periodic safety reviews over several years. Those reviews included searches of the FDA Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS) for reports involving acute kidney injury, oxalate nephropathy, hyperoxaluria and calcium oxalate kidney stones.

The agency identified 12 reports of kidney complications associated with Alli use, including nine submitted to the AEMS and three described in medical literature. The patients had a median age of 61. Among those with no prior history of kidney injury, complications developed anywhere from less than one month to 17 months after starting Alli, with an average exposure time of 2.5 months.

Eight of the reports involved acute kidney injury, two involved both an AKI with oxalate nephropathy, with two other cases involving hyperoxaluria with calcium oxalate kidney stones. The agency notes that the severity of the cases was “substantial,” with eight patients being hospitalized and two requiring dialysis.

Previously, FDA drug regulators believed that the risks of kidney injury were dose-specific, meaning Xenical carried a greater threat, but now they indicate that does not appear to be the case.

“Our data analysis also suggests that orlistat-associated oxalate nephropathy and kidney injury may not be dose-dependent, as the difference in dietary fat absorption inhibition between the 120 mg (Xenical) and 60 mg (alli) doses is 5%, indicating the risk exists at both prescription and nonprescription doses.”

— U.S. Food and Drug Administration Alli Drug Safety Communication

FDA Alli Use Recommendations

Since Alli is an OTC medication and not prescribed, the FDA urges consumers to read the label warnings carefully before beginning use, and to tell their healthcare professional if they have suffered any previous kidney problems when considering taking the drug.

The agency warns consumers to be aware of the symptoms of acute kidney injury or kidney stones, which can include:

• Back or groin pain
• Painful urination
• Blood in their urine
• Feet and leg swelling
• Less frequent urination

Consumers who experience these side effects should stop taking Alli immediately and consult a healthcare provider, the FDA warns.

The agency indicates that doctors should make sure patients they counsel about weight loss inform them of the kidney risks when discussing Alli, and should urge them to stop using the drug if any symptoms of kidney problems arise.

Both doctors and patients who experience side effects involving Alli use are urged to file a report with the FDA MedWatch adverse event reporting program.

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

Nine individuals from across the country have joined together to file a Suboxone dental erosion lawsuit, alleging they each suffered severe tooth decay and other dental damage after using the opioid treatment’s dissolvable film strips.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jason Bates, Bryce Bell, Curtis Carvell, Stephen Dixon, Renell Swain, Robert White, Kevin Wilks, Loni Williams and Terri Ziolkowski in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 5. It names Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc. and Aquestive Therapeutics, which was formerly known as Monosol RX LLC, as defendants.

Plaintiffs argue that Indivior knew about Suboxone dental erosion risks, yet failed to provide adequate warnings to the medical community or doctors. As a result, they join thousands of other Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. court system, each alleging the manufacturer placed profits before patients at the expense of their dental health.

Suboxone Oral Film Risks

Originally, Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) was approved for use in tablet form in 2002 for the treatment of opioid addiction by helping reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms. As the original patent protection was running out, Indivior, the manufacturer, introduced the oral film strip version. Critics say the move was more about maintaining exclusivity than providing a better way to deliver Suboxone to recovering addicts.

In June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Suboxone tooth decay warning, indicating the agency had received hundreds of complaints linking the film strips to severe tooth decay and dental damage. FDA investigators determined that the drug, particularly in film strip form, causes dental enamel erosion, leading to tooth loss, disfigurement and the need for extensive dental surgery.

Suboxone Dental Erosion Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Indivior intentionally designed one of the active ingredients, buprenorphine, to be acidic, which helps maximize the body’s absorption, making it more effective.

Even before Suboxone was introduced as a dissolvable film, the plaintiffs argue Indivior had received reports of dental erosion linked to the tablet form. However, they go on to claim the film strips remain in contact with teeth and gums for longer periods, increasing exposure to both the medication and substances that can damage dental enamel.

The lawsuit alleges Suboxone film strips can take up to 30 minutes to fully dissolve and may leave residue in the mouth for as long as two hours, extending the amount of time patients’ teeth and gums are exposed to acidic ingredients.

All nine plaintiffs state they were prescribed Suboxone to treat opioid addiction, and allege their doctors were never warned that the film strips could cause dental erosion, tooth decay or other permanent dental damage.

According to the complaint, each plaintiff developed lasting tooth injuries, often requiring substantial dental work to repair damage allegedly caused by Suboxone film.

The lawsuit claims that Indivior knew about the increased dental risks and the extended time needed for the strips to dissolve, despite representing in a patent that the film would dissolve in about three minutes. They also note that many patients are prescribed two or three doses per day, which may involve repeated daily exposure to multiple film strips.

“This design was specifically intended to secure Defendants’ monopoly on the brand name drug to the detriment of the generic equivalents that were entering the market. The film was not designed to be better or safer than the tablets, and Defendants could have continued marketing the FDA-approved tablets.”

– Jason Bates et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs present claims of failure to warn, negligent failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions, pre-approval defective design and pre-approval negligent design defect. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits

This complaint will be consolidated with thousands of other Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits, which have been centralized in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Judge Calabrese has been directing the parties to prepare a group of representative Suboxone claims for what are known as “bellwether” trials. These early test cases are designed to give the parties the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation.

Starting with a 500-lawsuit Records Collection Pool in May 2025, that pool was whittled down to 100 claims. In March, Judge Calabrese ordered the parties to select 20 random cases from the list for core discovery by June 10. The parties will then select 15 lawsuits to serve as a bellwether trial pool by July 13. Four of those cases will be selected to serve as bellwether trials by June 11, 2027.

The first trial is not expected to go before a jury until March 2028.

While the results of these trials will not be binding on other Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits, they will be closely watched, as the outcomes could play a significant role in any Suboxone lawsuit settlement negotiations. If no agreement is reached, Judge Calabrese will likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts to be prepared for individual trial dates.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all Lyft sexual assault lawsuits has given plaintiffs the ability to file new claims directly with the MDL court in the Northern District of California regardless of where they live, seeking to make consolidated management of the growing litigation more efficient.

Lyft currently faces more than 50 lawsuits brought by former passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted, raped, harassed or otherwise attacked by rideshare drivers. However, it is widely expected that hundreds of claims may be filed nationwide in the coming months.

Most of the plaintiffs are women who claim the company failed to implement basic safety measures that could have reduced the risk of assaults, including more thorough background checks, in-vehicle surveillance cameras, stronger driver monitoring and mandatory sexual harassment training.

The lawsuits allege Lyft promoted its service as a safe transportation option, particularly for women and passengers who needed a ride home after drinking, while failing to address known risks involving driver misconduct. Plaintiffs claim the company placed growth and profits ahead of passenger safety by allowing dangerous drivers to remain on the platform and by not adopting stronger safeguards after prior reports of sexual assaults.

Many of the complaints describe passengers being groped, threatened, sexually assaulted, raped or kidnapped during rides they ordered because they believed Lyft was safer than driving themselves or walking alone. The attacks allegedly left passengers with lasting physical injuries, emotional trauma, anxiety, depression and fear of using rideshare services again.

The plaintiffs maintain these incidents were not isolated or unforeseeable, but part of a broader pattern of safety failures at Lyft. They argue the company knew sexual assaults were being reported by passengers, yet continued marketing the rideshare service as a safe alternative without adequately warning users or changing policies to better protect them.

In February, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all Lyft sexual assault lawsuits into an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. It is expected that Judge Lin will eventually order the parties to prepare to hold a series of early test trials.

These “bellwether” test cases would be chosen from claims that are largely representative of the litigation as a whole, and will provide the parties with a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated in the majority of cases.

Lyft Sexual Assault Direct Filing Order

In complex product liability lawsuits, where large numbers of individuals are pursuing similar claims and allegations, it is common for the court to approve a master and short-form complaint, allowing plaintiffs to file future lawsuits through an abbreviated form, where they choose the allegations that are relevant to their specific claims.

In a pretrial order (PDF) issued on June 8, Judge Lin announced she was adopting a short-form complaint proposed by plaintiffs who filed a master long-form complaint, on which the short-forms will be based, last month.

The option to file directly with the MDL court will dramatically streamline the process for women bringing new lawsuits over sexual assaults by Lyft drivers. It will also reduce delays linked with transferring complaints from various different U.S. District Courts nationwide, and allow parties to standardize information gathered about each claim. This should help determine which lawsuits are the most representative of the litigation as a whole.

Each plaintiff with a case already filed with the MDL court will have 14 days to submit a short-form complaint, and any cases transferred to the MDL after the order will have 14 days to serve and file their short-form complaints.

Lyft Lawsuit Pretrial Case Schedule

The order comes only a couple weeks after Judge Lin issued a separate pretrial order (PDF) in late May, announcing key deadlines in the litigation. That order calls for Lyft to produce initial disclosures by July 6, 2026, to file any motions to dismiss on crosscutting issues by August 4, and to substantially complete production of discovery on documents sent to government entities by August 17.

Plaintiffs are to file opposition to the motions to dismiss by September 3, with Lyft’s responses due by September 24. The parties have been given a deadline of March 5, 2027, to meet and confer on proposing a bellwether selection protocol, which should be completed and submitted by April 5, 2027.

Case specific fact discovery for the first wave of expected bellwether trials will be due for completion by December 10, 2027, meaning the first trial would not happen before mid-2028.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

While Lyft faces dozens of such claims, its competitor faces about 3,300 Uber sexual assault lawsuits involving nearly identical claims about driver attacks and the lack of passenger safety concerns. Consolidated in the same district, those cases are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer and are much further along than the Lyft litigation.

The first Uber sexual assault bellwether trial was held in February, ending with an $8.5 million verdict for Jaylynn Dean, a former passenger who alleged she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. Jurors determined that while Uber was not liable for failing to provide additional safety features, it was responsible for the actions of the driver, who they saw as acting as an agent of the rideshare service at the time of the assault. The second bellwether trial ended in April, with plaintiff Brianna Mensing being awarded $5,000.

The outcomes of these bellwether trials are not binding on other claims, but the results are being closely watched for their potential impact on Uber sexual assault lawsuit settlement negotiations. Once the trials conclude, if there is still no settlement, Judge Breyer may begin remanding cases back to their original districts for individual trial dates.

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

An Arizona woman has filed a lawsuit alleging her Cartiva toe implant failed four years after it was placed in her foot, leaving her with serious complications before the device was ultimately pulled from the market two years later.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Andrea Valentine in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona late last month, naming Cartiva Inc. as the sole defendant.

Valentine claims her Cartiva implant was defectively designed and that its effectiveness was overhyped by a company placing profits ahead of patient safety.

Cartiva Toe Implant Risks

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) was designed to treat degenerative arthritis conditions including hallux limitus and hallux rigidus. Made from a polyvinyl alcohol-based gel and implanted in the big toe, Cartiva Inc. promoted the device as an alternative to big toe fusion, a standard treatment for such conditions that greatly reduces mobility. The company also claimed its toe implant had presented an 87% success rate in pre-market testing.

However, according to real-world data reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Cartiva implant’s success rate was only between 21% and 46%, meaning most patients’ devices failed. This resulted in a Cartiva implant recall in October 2024.

Since then, a growing number of recipients have begun filing Cartiva toe lawsuits in courts nationwide, indicating the defective design of the implants resulted in complications including chronic pain, loosening implants, fractures, bone erosion and total implant failures. This frequently requires a failed implant to be surgically removed and the big toe fused into place, which is usually what the patient sought to avoid.

Failed Cartiva Implant Allegations

According to her complaint, Valentine received a Cartiva implant in her left big toe in December 2018. At the time, Cartiva’s promotions claimed that her recovery time would be faster and less painful than if the toe were fused.

Instead, the lawsuit states Valentine experienced chronic pain, stiffness and limited range of motion. After four years of failing to provide the relief advertised, the Cartiva implant was surgically removed in May 2024, and Valentine’s big toe was fused in place.

The lawsuit indicates Valentine has undergone several additional surgeries related to the failed Cartiva implant, which caused toe deformity and bone loss.

Valentine alleges that Cartiva knowingly inflated the success rates of the device and refused to update its label when doctors and patients began reporting problems.

“Numerous surgeons and podiatrists informed Cartiva soon after device approval that the Cartiva device was failing at a high rate and not performing as intended. When these surgeons contacted Cartiva, they were told the device was safe and they simply needed to adjust their expectations for patient recovery and pain.”

– Andrea Valentine v. Cartiva Inc.

The complaint indicates that, to date, there are at least 144 Cartiva implant adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, which conducted its own analysis amid a flood of doctor and patient complaints. It was only then that the true failure rates came to light, and the device was pulled from the market, Valentine notes.

The filing presents claims of design, manufacture and failure to warn, negligence, misbranded and adulterated device, product liability and negligence for class II/class III medical devices, and breach of warranty. It seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Cartiva Implant Failure Lawsuits

Valentine’s claim will be consolidated with about 20 similar Cartiva implant failure lawsuits in the Eastern District of Arkansas before U.S. District Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Baker is expected to propose a bellwether trial plan, which would involve holding a series of early trials to test the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases before a jury. Although they are not binding on other lawsuits, the outcomes of these trials could help form the basis of a Cartiva implant settlement agreement.

If no agreement or other resolution is reached after the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are completed, Judge Baker would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating federal courts for individual trial dates.

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

Federal health officials are strengthening warnings about problems with the Hintermann Series H3 Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) system, advising surgeons and patients to consider other treatment options when possible.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the updated safety communication on June 3, warning that long-term data continues to show elevated rates of device failure among recipients of the Hintermann Series H3 TAR system. Risks include the possibility that the implant’s polyethylene component may fracture, potentially requiring additional surgery.

Hintermann Ankle Replacement System Concerns

The Hintermann H3 Total Ankle Replacement system received FDA approval in 2019 as a three-component implant consisting of metal tibial and talar components separated by a mobile polyethylene insert. The device is intended to relieve pain and preserve ankle motion in patients suffering from degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and post-traumatic arthritis.

Federal regulators first raised concerns about the system in February 2024, when post-approval study data revealed that 16.1% of Hintermann H3 ankle replacement recipients underwent revision procedures or removal of implant components. This was substantially higher than the 9.9% failure rate reported during the device’s premarket clinical testing.

In October 2025, an FDA safety update indicated that earlier projections significantly underestimated the long-term failure risk because they did not fully account for surgeries involving replacement of the implant’s polyethylene insert. After incorporating those procedures, regulators reported that nearly one-third of patients may require additional surgery within 10 years of implantation.

Hintermann Ankle Implant Warning Expanded

Following a review of additional postmarket data, scientific literature, adverse event reports and registry information, the FDA expanded its warning and now recommends that patients and physicians carefully consider alternative treatment options before selecting the Hintermann H3 system.

The agency is recommending that patients considering ankle replacement surgery discuss all available treatment options, including ankle fusion and alternative replacement devices, and specifically ask why the Hintermann implant would be the preferred choice over other options.

For patients who already have a Hintermann ankle implant, the FDA is not recommending preventive removal if the device is functioning properly and there are no new symptoms. However, regulators advise patients to seek medical evaluation if they experience worsening pain, swelling, weakness, inability to bear weight or unusual grinding noises in the ankle. Physicians may use X-rays or CT scans to evaluate whether implant components have loosened or fractured.

The expanded warning also highlights growing concerns that Hintermann H3 recipients may face a higher-than-expected risk of revision surgery, including procedures to replace or remove implant components. The FDA has identified polyethylene fractures, implant loosening, infection, instability, persistent pain and bone loss around the implant as factors that may lead to additional surgery.

According to the FDA, registry data from Australian health authorities showed polyethylene fractures occurred at substantially higher rates among Hintermann H3 recipients than among patients who received other total ankle replacement systems, raising concerns that the device may be more prone to certain failure mechanisms.

The Hintermann H3 is one of only two mobile-bearing total ankle replacement devices approved for use in the United States, alongside the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR) system, which received FDA approval in 2009. Federal regulators previously issued a separate 2021 safety communication for the STAR device, warning that fractures involving its polyethylene bearing component could increase the risk of ankle replacement failure and revision surgery.

The FDA has said it will continue reviewing required post-approval studies and other real-world data to better understand the long-term performance of the Hintermann Series H3 system and determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.

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

A Connecticut man has filed a lawsuit alleging he suffered serious injuries when his Little Giant adjustable ladder collapsed during regular use.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Richard Jennings in Connecticut Superior Court on May 12, naming Little Giant Ladder Systems LLC as the sole defendant. It was removed to the U.S. District Court of Connecticut on June 8.

Jennings claims the subject ladder’s lock tab design can create a dangerous “false lock” condition that allows the device to collapse unexpectedly.

Little Giant Ladders are a popular brand of ladder that adjust so they can be used in different positions, such as an extension ladder, step ladder or for scaffolding support. The ladders feature a locking pin design intended to secure the adjustable sections in place. However, if the pins or tabs fail, users can fall and suffer serious injuries.

Ladder Collapse Recalls and Lawsuits

Little Giant has faced prior safety concerns involving the same type of ladder components. In March 2017, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a Little Giant recall of about 37,000 multipurpose ladders after reports that the locking pins and rung fasteners could malfunction, creating a fall hazard for consumers.

In recent months, a number of complaints have been filed against Little Giant, alleging the company’s ladders contain defective designs that can cause them to fail during normal use. One lawsuit filed late last year alleged the locking pins failed while a Connecticut man was using the ladder, causing him to fall 10 feet and suffer a brain bleed, skull fracture and other serious injuries.

Other major ladder manufacturers have faced similar claims. In April, a Massachusetts man filed a lawsuit against Louisville Ladder and Home Depot after he fell more than 15 feet and suffered spinal injuries and nerve damage. Another complaint filed against Werner Ladders alleged a design defect caused one of the company’s extension ladder to collapse while a Missouri man was on it, resulting in fractures that required surgery.

Little Giant Design Defect Allegations

Jennings’ complaint indicates he purchased the Little Giant Model 17 ladder from Home Depot in 2017. Like other products from the manufacturer, these devices can be used in different configurations.

The ladder was being used as an extension ladder by Jennings on July 13, 2024, when the lock system suddenly malfunctioned and he fell to the ground, resulting in a fracture to his right hip and right elbow. Jennings required immediate medical treatment and suffered emotional distress.

According to the lawsuit, the Little Giant ladder suffers from a defective lock tab that creates a false lock on the ladder. This design defect may allegedly cause the ladder to collapse during use.

The complaint states that the design of the ladder is dangerous and cannot be used without unreasonable risk of injury to users. Moreover, Jennings argues that Little Giant failed to warn consumers about the danger or to lower the load limit on the ladder to prevent a collapse.

As a result, he says the company misrepresented the safety of the product to the public and failed to properly test the products prior to marketing them.

“The defendant is liable and legally responsible to the plaintiff for the plaintiffs injuries. . . in that the defendant was negligent in failing to properly and adequately test said product prior to marketing it; in that the defendant designed said product in a defective manner; in that the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous characteristics of said product yet continued its manufacture and distribution; and/or in that the defendant used improper materials in the construction of said product.”

— Brian Jennings v. Little Giant Ladder Systems LLC

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of certain Connecticut General Statutes, citing defective and dangerous product design, failure to warn, failure to disclose the danger, negligence, breach of merchantability and breach of express warranty. It seeks monetary damages and compensation for past and future medical care, pain and loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of income.

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

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial is set to begin next month, after the U.S. District Judge overseeing the litigation ruled that key injury claims involving the company’s Symbotex mesh can proceed before a jury.

Covidien, a Medtronic subsidiary, faces more than 2,400 hernia mesh lawsuits brought by individuals across the country who allege that various versions of the company’s mesh products are defectively designed, putting patients at risk of chronic pain, infections, adhesions, hernia recurrence and the need for revision surgery.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, in the District of Massachusetts, has overseen all Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits since June 2022, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Over the past months, Judge Saris has directed the parties through preparation of 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 first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial will involve a Symbotex lawsuit brought by Larry Patterson of Alabama, who underwent hernia repair surgery in July 2017 and later suffered adhesions, a bowel obstruction and a recurrent hernia. According to the court’s order, Symbotex is made from a non-absorbable polyester textile with an absorbable porcine collagen coating, which is intended to reduce tissue attachment if the mesh contacts organs or tissue in the abdomen.

Patterson alleges the collagen barrier degraded too quickly after surgery, exposing his bowel to the underlying polyester mesh before his body had time to heal. He required additional surgery in July 2020, during which doctors removed the mesh, repaired the recurrent hernia and resected part of his bowel where it had adhered to the old repair.

The Patterson trial is scheduled to begin July 13, following a postponement from earlier this year. Before the case could go before a jury, Covidien filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to narrow the claims or have the lawsuit dismissed.

However, in a June 2 memorandum and order (PDF), Judge Saris denied much of the request, finding that Patterson had presented enough evidence for a jury to consider whether Covidien failed to adequately warn about Symbotex’s risks.

“Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Covidien failed to adequately warn about Symbotex’s dangers.”

– U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris

Judge Weighs Evidence About Symbotex Warnings 

A key issue in the ruling was whether Covidien adequately warned doctors about how long Symbotex’s collagen barrier would remain in place after surgery. While the product’s instructions indicated the barrier would degrade in less than one month, and Covidien trained sales representatives that it would fully resorb in 30 days, Patterson presented internal evidence suggesting the barrier may break down much sooner. That included a Covidien animal study involving a similar mesh, which found the porcine collagen film was fully resorbed after seven days.

Judge Saris found that a jury could decide whether Covidien’s warnings understated the risk of adhesions, bowel obstruction and hernia recurrence if the barrier degraded before it finished protecting the bowel from the underlying mesh. The court also found that Patterson’s failure to warn claims could proceed even though his surgeon did not remember reading the Symbotex instructions, since a jury could determine he learned about the 30-day barrier claim from Covidien sales representatives or marketing materials.

Judge Saris denied Covidien’s request to dismiss most of Patterson’s claims, including those involving failure to warn, negligence, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty, loss of consortium and punitive damages. However, she reserved ruling on Patterson’s design defect claims, which remain tied to a separate expert testimony dispute.

Serving as a bellwether trial, the outcome of the Patterson case will not be binding on other Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits, but will be closely watched to see how the jury interprets evidence and testimony from both sides. Since the case is supposed to be broadly representative of circumstances shared throughout thousands of similar claims, it is hoped that the outcome of these bellwether trials will help the parties reach a Covidien hernia mesh settlement agreement.

If no settlement is reached once the bellwether trials have concluded, Judge Saris may begin remanding lawsuits back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit following the death of her husband, which she claims was due to his use of contaminated Nurse Assist SteriCare saline products that were recalled shortly after his infection developed.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Teresa Rudnick on behalf of herself and her deceased husband, Bruce, late last year in Cook County Circuit Court.

However, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 2 by the defendants, which include Nurse Assist LLC, I.V. Solutions LLC, IV Ventures Incorporated, Byram Healthcare Centers Inc., Tower Three Partners LLC, BPGC Management LP, Spinnaker International LLC and R Investments LLC.

Rudnick alleges that contaminated Nurse Assist SteriCare saline solution used by her husband to flush a PICC line and treat a foot wound repeatedly exposed him to bacteria, eventually leading to his death shortly after the FDA recalled the products.

Nurse Assist Recall

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Nurse Assist saline and sterile solution recall in November 2023, warning that the products’ packaging seals were defective and could fail, potentially allowing bacterial contamination. The agency called for healthcare providers and consumers to stop using the products due to the risk of infections, but for many others conducting wound care after surgery, the damage was already done.

Many plaintiffs who have lost loved ones or battled infections themselves, have since filed Nurse Assist SteriCare lawsuits in courts nationwide, alleging the manufacturers distributed defectively packaged sterile products that made wounds worse instead of helping them to heal.

SteriCare Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Bruce Rudnick began using SteriCare in September 2022 after being implanted with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for the administration of antibiotics. He used the defendants’ sterile saline solutions to flush the catheter after each injection of antibiotics.

In addition to the catheter, he also developed a wound on his left foot that was treated with SteriCare.

Over the remainder of that year and throughout 2023, he suffered repeated bouts of sepsis, although doctors were unable to identify the source of the infection. Each time, he was hospitalized and treated with antibiotics before being sent home, only for the infection to return and require another hospitalization.

In November 2023, Rudnick was again hospitalized with severe sepsis, bacteremia and suspected endocarditis, undergoing partial left foot amputation. That same month, the FDA announced the Nurse Assist SteriCare recall. Bruce Rudnick died of endocarditis, sepsis infection and multisystem organ failure on December 14, 2023.

One week before his death, his wife was notified of the Nurse Assist recall.

“On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff received notification from Byram Healthcare regarding the Nurse Assist recall, confirming the Product utilized by Decedent, which was manufactured, imported, sold, marketed, labeled, and distributed by Nurse Assist; sold, distributed, and supplied by I.V. Solutions and Byram Healthcare; and financially controlled by Tower Three, BPGC, Spinnaker, and R Investments, was subject to the voluntary recall initiated by Defendants.”

– Theresa Rudnick v. Nurse Assist LLC et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of wrongful death, failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, negligent design and manufacture, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. It seeks compensatory damages.

Nurse Assist SteriCare Lawsuits

As more infections and deaths are linked to the recalled sterile solutions, lawsuits continue to be filed against Nurse Assist and other distributors, pursuing claims that the manufacturers failed in their duty to make sure the products were sterile.

Individuals who developed infections after using the recalled products may qualify for compensation. Product liability lawyers are currently reviewing claims on behalf of individuals who experienced:

• Sepsis or septic shock
• Bloodstream infections
• Respiratory infections
• Organ failure
• Necrosis or serious wound-related infections
• Prolonged hospital stays or additional surgeries

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

A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit, alleging that design defects and inadequate safety protections on the Roblox and Snapchat platforms allowed an adult predator to groom and sexually exploit her when she was only 12 years old.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2, by a 19-year-old plaintiff identified only as AW-0012. It names Roblox Corporation and Snap Inc. as defendants.

AW-0012 claims the two platforms knowingly created environments that made it easy for adults to contact, manipulate and exploit children.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox has grown into one of the world’s largest online gaming platforms, attracting millions of daily users, most of which are children and teenagers. The platform allows users to create personalized avatars, interact with others through text and voice communications, and participate in a vast library of user-generated games and experiences.

However, child safety advocates, researchers and consumer watchdog groups have increasingly raised concerns that the platform’s communication tools and social features may expose minors to online predators. Critics contend that inadequate age-verification measures and insufficient safeguards may allow adults to pose as younger users, communicate directly with children and engage in grooming behavior.

Those concerns have resulted in more than 160 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits being filed in federal courts across the country. The complaints generally allege that the company failed to implement reasonable protections to prevent inappropriate interactions between adults and minors, despite knowing of ongoing risks associated with the platform.

According to the lawsuits, the alleged shortcomings have contributed to incidents involving online grooming, sexual coercion, sextortion and the exchange of explicit material involving minors. Some claims also involve allegations of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking linked to contacts first established through the platform.

Roblox and Snapchat Safety Allegations

In the lawsuit, AW-0012 claims she began using Roblox at about age 12 after her mother believed company marketing that claimed the online gaming platform was a safe environment for children and allowed her to play. In February 2019, the child was allegedly contacted through Roblox by an adult predator who falsely claimed to be a 13-year-old boy.

The complaint alleges the predator used Roblox’s chat features to establish trust and build an emotional connection before convincing the girl to communicate through Snapchat. Over the next year, the man allegedly groomed her through daily interactions on both platforms, gradually introducing sexual conversations, requesting explicit images and threatening to kill her if she disclosed the communications to anyone.

After gaining her trust, the predator allegedly coerced the plaintiff into sending images of herself and used Snapchat to send sexually explicit videos and photographs of himself. The filing indicates the girl eventually realized she had been communicating with an adult after receiving images depicting a bearded, bald man who clearly did not match the age and identity he had previously claimed.

The lawsuit claims Roblox and Snapchat repeatedly assured parents that their platforms were safe for children while failing to implement basic safeguards that could have prevented adult predators from accessing minors. The complaint specifically criticizes the companies for relying on self-reported ages, failing to require meaningful identity verification and allowing direct communications between adults and children.

According to the filing, Roblox and Snap prioritized user growth and engagement over child safety, despite knowing their platforms were being used by predators to locate and groom vulnerable minors. The lawsuit alleges both companies could have adopted stronger age-verification systems and other safety measures but chose not to do so.

The plaintiff claims her mother would never have allowed her to use Roblox or Snapchat had the companies disclosed the risks posed by predators on their platforms. The lawsuit further alleges that basic screening and verification measures could have prevented the predator from contacting her in the first place.

The complaint indicates AW-0012 continues to suffer severe emotional and psychological injuries from the exploitation, including anxiety, social withdrawal and academic difficulties that required an individualized education program at school. She also allegedly engaged in self-harm that resulted in extended inpatient hospitalization.

“Had Defendants implemented even the most basic system of screening or age and identity verification, as well as other commonsense safety measures, Plaintiff never would have been targeted by this predator and never would have suffered the devastating harm that she did. Plaintiff’s life has been profoundly altered as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct.”

— AW-0012 v. Roblox Corporation et al.

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

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

As the number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits has grown, federal courts consolidated the claims late last year before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, establishing a multidistrict litigation (MDL) designed to streamline discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

Judge Seeborg is expected to develop a bellwether trial process that will focus on a small group of representative cases selected for early trial dates. Those proceedings are intended to provide insight into how juries may evaluate common evidence, legal arguments and allegations that are likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

While any bellwether verdicts would apply only to the individual cases selected for trial, the outcomes often influence settlement negotiations by helping both sides assess the risks and potential value of unresolved claims.

In an effort to move the litigation toward resolution, plaintiffs earlier this year asked the court to appoint a special master to facilitate initial settlement discussions. If productive, those negotiations could provide a pathway for children and young adults to resolve claims without waiting through years of additional litigation.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers continue to review potential claims on behalf of families and individuals who allege they were harmed through interactions on the platform. Case evaluations are free and confidential, and no legal fees are charged unless compensation is recovered.

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

A West Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective 2017 Kia Rio lost brake function and caught fire while she was driving, causing a crash that left her with severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rebecca L. Williams in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on June 6. It names Kia Corporation, Kia America Inc. and Friendship Automotive Inc., doing business as Friendship Kia of Beckley, as the defendants.

Williams claims the Kia’s Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit (HECU) short-circuited while she was driving, causing the brakes to fail and sparking a fire in the engine compartment. The malfunction led to a crash that trapped her inside the burning vehicle and left her with severe burn injuries, requiring multiple surgeries.

The HECU is a component of the vehicle’s anti-lock braking system that helps regulate brake pressure and stability functions. An electrical short within the unit can cause it to overheat, increasing the risk of an engine compartment fire.

In 2023, more than 3.3 million Kia and Hyundai vehicles were recalled due to faulty anti-lock braking system (ABS) modules and HECUs that may be prone to electrical shorts, increasing the risk of vehicle fires.

Kia Brake Fire Allegations

According to the complaint, Williams was on her way to a maintenance and service appointment in her 2017 Kia Rio on November 24, 2025, when she applied the brakes near the bottom of a mountain. At that point, the vehicle began smoking and failed to respond, causing her to lose control and collide with an embankment. After the impact, fire rapidly spread from the engine compartment into the cab of the vehicle, where she was trapped.

After being removed from the burning vehicle, Williams indicates she underwent multiple debridement and skin graft surgeries on her legs due to the severity of her burn injuries. She says that she is expected to have permanent scarring and suffer from related comorbidities for the remainder of her life.

The complaint notes that Williams brought the defective vehicle to Friendship Kia of Beckley for maintenance on nine separate occasions after purchasing it. However, she alleges she was never informed about the recall or the fire risks associated with the defective HECU.

As a direct and proximate result of these occurrences Williams indicates she has incurred, and continues to incur medical expenses, lost wages and loss of future earning capacity. She also says that she has undergone and continues to undergo great pain and suffering.

“Neither the Kia Defendants nor Defendant Friends Automotive properly notified Plaintiff of the recall. Thus, Plaintiff was unaware of the extreme risk of fire associated with driving the subject vehicle with the defective, recalled HECU.”

— Rebecca Williams v. Kia Corporation et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

Years after an industry shake-up over duodenoscope infections changed the devices’ designs and how they are sanitized, a lawsuit filed by the widow of a Washington man links an Olympus scope to infections after an ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and her husband’s death.

Michelle Bruto Da Costa brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 5, pursuing claims against Olympus Corporation and multiple subsidiaries for designing and manufacturing a defective medical device, as well as failing to warn doctors or patients about the potential risk of ERCP infections from the endoscope.

According to the lawsuit, Bruto Da Costa’s husband, Mark Bruto Da Costa died on June 28, 2023, after being diagnosed with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). His infection and death was allegedly caused by a contaminated Olympus endoscope, which spread the infection to him during the procedure

Endoscope, Colonoscopy and ERCP Infections

Duodenoscopes and other endoscopes are reusable medical scopes used during procedures such as ERCP, colonoscopy, upper endoscopy and bronchoscopy. The devices, which are manufactured by Olympus, Fujifilm and others, contain small cameras, lights, long narrow channels and moving parts that allow doctors to examine internal organs, diagnose medical conditions and perform certain treatments without open surgery.

More than 22 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States every year, including roughly 15 to 19 million colonoscopies and more than 650,000 ERCP procedures. An estimated 50 million colonoscopies are performed annually around the world. Since these devices are often used on multiple patients, the scopes must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected and reprocessed after each procedure.

However, lawsuits and safety investigations have raised concerns that bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other debris may remain trapped inside the scopes, especially in narrow channels or damaged areas that are difficult to inspect, allowing infections to pass from one patient to another.

As a result, Olympus scope infection lawsuits are now being filed over allegations that contaminated reusable endoscopes were defectively designed, because they could not be reliably cleaned and sanitized even when hospitals followed the manufacturer’s reprocessing instructions. Plaintiffs claim these design and warning failures exposed patients to serious bacterial infections, sepsis, organ failure and in some cases, even death.

Olympus Scope Infection Allegations

The new lawsuit indicates Mark Bruto Da Costa underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, known as ERCP, on June 12, 2023, at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. The procedure involved the use of an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope.

Four days later, on June 16, Bruto Da Costa presented for paracentesis, and blood cultures were obtained showing gram-positive cocci. On June 18, an infectious disease specialist noted that Bruto Da Costa had taken “a definitive turn for the worse,” with significant weight loss, persistent leukocytosis and worsening hyperbilirubinemia.

The complaint alleges VRE was not present on any of Bruto Da Costa’s extensive bloodwork before the June 12 ERCP procedure using the Olympus duodenoscope. Plaintiffs claim he acquired VRE from the endoscope device, and that the infection could not be eradicated despite varied efforts and treatment.

Bruto Da Costa died on June 28, 2023. His wife’s lawsuit alleges he died due to organ failure and septic shock caused by VRE introduced by the Olympus endoscope device.

The lawsuit accuses Olympus of failing to address contamination issues and update the design of its endoscopes adequately enough to prevent infections, despite years of knowing there were problems with reusable scope devices.

The complaint notes that a 2022 post-market surveillance study ordered by the FDA found only 34.8% of sampled endoscopes contained no contamination at all.

“Defendants knew or should have known that available research has demonstrated that, using magnification and borescopes inspection, 100% of endoscopes with narrow channels, like Defendants’ Endoscope, showed visible damage, residue, and/or debris, requiring repair 76% of the time. In endoscopes, like Defendants’ Endoscope, channel shredding, scratches, and/or defects appear within a few uses, requiring repair. These grooves and defects allow buildup of biofilm and the proliferation of bacteria.”

– Michelle Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus America Inc. et al.

The lawsuit further alleges Olympus failed to recommend or require additional monitoring tools that could detect contamination, moisture or damage inside reusable scopes, including borescope inspections, dryness indicator tests, adenosine triphosphate testing and microbial culturing.

Plaintiffs claim the Olympus endoscope’s narrow channels, complex tip, forceps elevator and repeated use made it difficult to clean, allowing bacteria to survive reprocessing and transfer to later patients.

Olympus Endoscope Defect and Failure to Warn Claims

Bruto Da Costa’s wife presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, outrage, loss of consortium and wrongful death.

The lawsuit argues Olympus failed to warn doctors, patients and medical providers that its endoscope devices could harbor microorganisms, including multidrug-resistant organisms, even after users followed the company’s reprocessing instructions.

The complaint also alleges Olympus failed to disclose the severity of complications that could arise from contaminated endoscope use, including severe infection, sepsis, organ failure, septic shock and death.

According to the lawsuit, Olympus represented that its devices were safe and effective for endoscopic procedures, while allegedly minimizing or concealing the true risks. Plaintiffs argue that if Bruto Da Costa or his healthcare providers had been properly warned about the dangers, the Olympus device would not have been used.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other losses.

Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuits

Olympus scope infection lawsuit lawyers are reviewing claims for individuals nationwide who suffered serious infections after an ERCP or other endoscopic procedure involving a potentially contaminated reusable scope.

You may be eligible to file a claim if you or a loved one suffered any of the following after a colonoscopy, endoscopy, ERCP or bronchoscopy:

• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Pneumonia
• Organ failure
• Wrongful death
• Extended hospitalization
• Emergency medical treatment
• E. coli or other bacterial infections
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
• Blood-borne infections, including HIV or tuberculosis
• Exposure to drug-resistant bacteria or infectious diseases

All contaminated scope infection lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means there are no upfront costs to have a lawyer investigate your potential claim, and no legal fees or expenses are paid unless a settlement or recovery is obtained.

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

A panel of federal judges has determined that all Dupixent injection lawsuits brought over the risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) will be centralized before one U.S. District Judge in New Jersey for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, as part of a new federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a blockbuster medication sold by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., which was originally approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. However, its approved uses have expanded substantially in recent years, and Dupixent is now prescribed for a number of inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, and other conditions involving overactive immune responses.

The medication works by targeting certain immune system pathways involved in inflammation. While promoted as an important treatment option for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, a series of Dupixent lawsuits are now being filed, alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately investigate and disclose evidence that the drug may cause, accelerate or mask symptoms of rare T-cell lymphomas.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. Symptoms may resemble eczema or other inflammatory skin conditions, which plaintiffs allege can make the cancer difficult to diagnose in those being treated with Dupixent for atopic dermatitis. Some complaints claim individuals continued receiving Dupixent while their CTCL progressed, because doctors and patients were not adequately warned to monitor for signs that the drug may be worsening or revealing an underlying malignancy.

Since the release of the study, more than a dozen lawsuits over Dupixent T-cell lymphoma side effects have been filed in various U.S. District Courts nationwide. Each claim alleges that the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning about the cancer risks and also failed to instruct healthcare providers to take appropriate medical monitoring steps while their patients are using Dupixent.

Dupixent Injection Lawsuit MDL

In February, plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to establish a federal Dupixent injection lawsuit MDL in the Northern District of Georgia, so that one judge could oversee discovery and pretrial proceedings. The defendants agreed, indicating both sides believe consolidation would prevent contradictory rulings, duplication of discovery efforts, and serve the convenience of common parties, witnesses and the courts.

However, Regeneron and Sanofi disagreed with plaintiffs over where the cases should be transferred, suggesting that it would be more convenient if the claims were consolidated in the Southern District of New York.

Following oral arguments held late last month, the JPML issued an order (PDF) on June 4, indicating that the Dupixent injection litigation would benefit from consolidation into an MDL, determining that the lawsuits should be centralized before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the District of New Jersey. The panel noted that Sanofi’s principal place of business is in the district’s boundaries, and that Regeneron has corporate offices in New Jersey as well, and its headquarters are nearby in Tarrytown, New York.

“Relevant witnesses and evidence are thus likely to be in or near the District of New Jersey, which is also easily accessible for the parties and witnesses in this nationwide litigation.”

– Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The panel also addressed a dispute over how broadly the MDL should be defined. Defendants asked the JPML to limit the centralized litigation to lawsuits involving CTCL, excluding claims involving other lymphomas or malignancies. Plaintiffs agreed that the MDL should not include claims involving B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma or diseases that are not T-cell lymphomas.

However, they opposed limiting the MDL only to CTCL, arguing that scientific literature also links Dupixent to other T-cell lymphomas, including peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

For now, the JPML declined to decide whether future non-CTCL T-cell lymphoma claims should be included in the MDL. The panel noted that all lawsuits currently before it involve CTCL or a CTCL subtype, even though some complaints cite literature involving other T-cell lymphoma diagnoses.

If future Dupixent lawsuits are filed over peripheral T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other non-cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, the JPML indicated those cases can be considered through the conditional transfer process.

As part of the coordinated management of the Dupixent MDL, Judge Quraishi will handle the discovery process, pretrial motions, and is expected to direct the parties to prepare several cases representative of the litigation as a whole to serve as bellwether trials. These early test trials would give the parties a chance to see how juries interpret the evidence and testimony that would be key in claims throughout Dupixent injection lawsuits.

The results of these trials are not binding on other cases, but the outcomes could help the parties form the basis of a Dupixent injection lawsuit settlement agreement.

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

A Louisiana mother has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that cow’s milk-based infant products sold under the Similac and Enfamil brand names caused her premature child to develop a life-threatening gastrointestinal disease.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Merissa Mahan, individually and on behalf of Minor Child W.D., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 3. It names Abbott Laboratories Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company as defendants.

Mahan claims the manufacturers knew for years that premature infants fed cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers face a significantly increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) compared to infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet, yet continued to aggressively market the products as safe and beneficial.

Cow’s Milk-Based Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis is a severe gastrointestinal condition that primarily affects premature and low birth weight infants. The disease causes inflammation and destruction of intestinal tissue, which can lead to bowel perforation, life-threatening infections, the need for emergency surgery and death.

Over the last several years, a growing number of Similac lawsuits and Enfamil lawsuits have been filed against Abbott and Mead Johnson, alleging that the manufacturers failed to warn hospitals and parents that premature infants fed cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers face a substantially increased risk of developing NEC.

Across much of the infant formula litigation, plaintiffs claim that cow’s milk based products have been aggressively marketed as safe and beneficial for premature babies despite decades of scientific research linking these products to a higher incidence of NEC, when compared to an exclusive human milk diet.

Enfamil, Similac NEC Allegations

According to the lawsuit, W.D. was born prematurely at Lake Charles Memorial Hospital for Women in Louisiana in November 2017 and was fed cow’s milk-based infant formula while receiving treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit. The complaint alleges the infant developed NEC shortly after receiving the products, resulting in catastrophic injuries.

The filing accuses Abbott and Mead Johnson of marketing Similac and Enfamil as safe, medically endorsed nutrition options for premature infants, while failing to disclose research allegedly linking cow’s milk-based formula to an increased risk of NEC. The companies also allegedly promoted the products to parents and healthcare providers by emphasizing growth and development benefits for premature babies.

Mahan further alleges the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings on product labels, failed to recommend that parents be informed of NEC risks before the products were used in NICUs and continued selling the formulas despite the availability of safer human milk-based alternatives.

“As a direct and proximate result of the inadequacy of the warnings and the pervasive marketing campaigns suggesting the safety and necessity of their products, W.D. was fed cow’s milk-based products, which caused W.D. to develop NEC.”

— Merissa Mahan v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties and violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. Mahan seeks compensatory damages for past, present and future emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of consortium and other non-economic losses.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

Due to the growing number of NEC infant formula lawsuits filed by families nationwide, all federal claims have been centralized since April 2022 in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidation is designed to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings and unnecessary delays, since the lawsuits raise similar allegations involving cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers sold by Abbott and Mead Johnson.

The litigation now includes hundreds of claims brought by families who allege the manufacturers failed to adequately warn that products like Similac and Enfamil may increase the risk of NEC when given to premature infants. While each lawsuit involves a different child and set of injuries, the cases share common questions about what the companies knew, what warnings were provided to hospitals and parents, and whether safer human milk-based alternatives should have been recommended.

As part of the coordinated proceedings, Judge Pallmeyer has scheduled a series of early bellwether trials to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation. The first federal bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on July 6, involving claims brought by Alexis Inman. A second bellwether trial is scheduled for August 10, involving a lawsuit filed by Mary Kelton of California.

The outcomes of these early trials will not be binding on other families pursuing NEC lawsuits. However, they will be closely watched by both sides, since the verdicts may help shape future settlement negotiations and determine whether Abbott and Mead Johnson continue defending claims individually or move toward a broader resolution of the litigation.

Infant Formula NEC Verdicts

In addition to the federal litigation, a series of infant formula NEC lawsuits involving Similac products have also been filed in state courts, with several having already gone to trial.

In one of the earliest trials, a Missouri jury awarded nearly $500 million to a family in the summer of 2024. Later that year, a second Missouri case initially resulted in a defense verdict, but the trial judge overturned that outcome after finding that Abbott Laboratories introduced improper evidence and ordered a new trial. More recently, an Illinois state court jury in Cook County awarded four mothers a combined $70 million in damages.

In a separate case involving the Enfamil formula, another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict in 2024.

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

A product liability lawsuit filed against Amazon claims that an electric heated blanket sold through the online marketplace erupted in flames while an Ohio man slept, leaving him with severe burns and life-altering injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Douglas Lamb in the Knox County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas on April 29, naming Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on June 2.

Lamb claims Amazon negligently allowed an unverified third-party seller to use its online marketplace to sell a defective heated blanket, exposing himself, and other consumers, to the risk of electrical malfunctions, overheating and fire hazards.

Heated Blanket Recalls

Heated electric blankets are designed with built-in wiring that generates warmth, making them popular during colder months for consumers looking for added comfort or supplemental heat. However, the products can pose serious risks when electrical components are defectively designed, poorly manufactured or lack adequate safety controls.

In recent years, a number of heated blanket recalls have been issued after manufacturers identified defects that may cause the blankets to overheat, creating a risk of burns, fires or other serious injuries.

In November 2023, nearly 30,000 Berkshire Blanket heated throws and blankets were recalled due to a manufacturing defect that could cause the products to overheat and potentially ignite. That same year, about 43,000 Sunbeam heated blankets were recalled after reports that the products were overheating during use.

In June of last year, approximately 8,500 MaxKare electric blankets sold through Walmart were recalled following dozens of reports involving overheating incidents, including fires and burn injuries.

Those safety concerns have also led to product liability lawsuits against manufacturers, retailers and online marketplaces like Amazon, which have been accused of failing to prevent dangerous heated blankets from reaching consumers. In October 2025, a Washington woman claimed a Threshold Heated Throw from Target was defectively designed, reaching temperatures high enough to cause second-degree burns on her toes.

Heated Blanket Fire Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Lamb purchased a CHRUN twin-size electric heated blanket through Amazon’s online marketplace on April 21, 2023. He claims the blanket was used in a normal and intended manner after it was delivered and showed no signs of misuse.

The lawsuit indicates that on January 28, 2025, the blanket suddenly caught fire while Lamb was sleeping, causing fourth-degree burns to his right shoulder and both legs. The complaint states that the severe burn injuries ultimately left him paraplegic.

Lamb claims that the blanket was sold by a third-party seller identified as “CHRUN,” which the lawsuit describes as an unverified and effectively anonymous vendor operating through Amazon’s marketplace. The complaint alleges Amazon failed to adequately investigate the seller, verify the origin and safety of the product, or take reasonable steps to prevent potentially dangerous electrical products from being offered for sale.

The lawsuit argues that Amazon exercised substantial control over the sale of products offered through its marketplace, including approving sellers, managing product listings, processing payments, monitoring customer complaints and, in some instances, storing and shipping products through its fulfillment network. Lamb alleges those activities created a duty to protect consumers from unsafe products sold through the platform.

Lamb claims that Amazon knew or should have known electric heated blankets pose a significant risk of fires and burn injuries if defectively designed or manufactured. Despite those risks, the lawsuit indicates the company allowed the CHRUN heated blanket to remain available for purchase without adequately verifying its safety, compliance history or manufacturing controls.

“Specifically, had Amazon exercised reasonable care in screening sellers, verifying product safety, and preventing the sale of untraceable electrical products, the subject heated blanket would not have been made available for purchase through its platform, and the incident giving rise to this action would not have occurred.”

— Douglas Lamb v. Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence and negligent undertaking. It seeks damages for severe and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses allegedly resulting from the heated blanket fire.

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

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has announced that all Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system wil be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, similar claims brought against other stimulator manufacturers will not be included in the new MDL.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are widly used medical devices, which are surgically implanted to treat chronic and hard-to-manage pain by sending mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord, where they are intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

Boston Scientific is one of the most prominent manufacturers in the spinal cord stimulation market, offering several popular systems including the WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. The devices are advertised for patients with conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic low back pain, leg pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and other nerve-related pain disorders.

Despite the widespread adoption within the pain management community, serious questions have emerged over the past decade about the safety and long-term reliability of spinal cord stimulators, with tens of thousands of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, including problems where the devices failed to provide pain relief, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery.

In recent months, a growing number of individuals have begun filing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against Boston Scientific, as well as other leading manufacturers, including Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro.

Each of the claims raises similar allegations that the manufacturers relied on decades-old FDA premarket approvals while continuing to make substantial changes to the design, components and programming of their spinal cord stimulators. Plaintiffs claim those modifications were not adequately tested, and that patients and doctors were not properly warned about the new risks before the devices were implanted.

Many of these complications have allegedly required patients to undergo additional surgery to remove the spinal cord stimulators from their spines, despite them being designed for permanent implantation.

Due to the common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to establish a spinal cord stimulator MDL (multidistrict litigation) in February 2026, calling for the consolidated management of all current and future claims filed against Boston Scientific and Abbott.

The plaintiffs argued that consolidation is necessary to eliminate the risk of contradictory rulings from different judges and avoid duplication of discovery into common issues, while serving the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court.

In subsequent filings, some plaintiffs called for the creation of an industry-wide MDL, which would also include lawsuits against Medtronic and Nevro.

Manufacturers of the devices opposed consolidation, arguing that the lawsuits involve different products, different alleged defects and that several cases are already at varying stages of litigation.

Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuits Consolidation

Following oral arguments held at the end of May, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on June 5, consolidating the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. However, the panel determined that claims against Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro will not be included in the MDL.

At the time the original motion was filed, there were at least 10 Boston Scientific stimulator lawsuits and four Abbott stimulator lawsuits. However, the parties notified the Panel that the litigation has grown to include at least 46 related spinal cord stimulator actions pending in 14 federal districts.

By the time the JPML issued its order, there were 23 cases pending against Boston Scientific in nine districts, which the Panel found were similar enough to warrant centralization.

The Panel found that the Boston Scientific lawsuits share common factual questions involving allegations that the company:

• Relied on literature concerning competitors’ devices instead of independent clinical studies
• Used the FDA’s PMA supplement process to introduce substantially modified stimulators without additional testing
• Failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the devices

The JPML also pointed to shared allegations involving Boston Scientific sales representatives, who plaintiffs claim routinely participated in implantation procedures, advised surgical staff on lead positioning and stimulation testing, and helped program device settings. The lawsuits allege that this conduct amounted to the unauthorized practice of medicine, although the Panel acknowledged that the specific interactions may vary from case to case.

The Panel further stated that the FDA has been named as a defendant in more than 30 actions and potential tag-along claims involving spinal cord stimulators. However, the agency took no position on centralization and stated that it was improperly named as a defendant.

The litigation has been centralized before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who will preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery. As the cases move forward, the parties will likely identify a small group of representative claims to prepare for early bellwether trials, which are commonly used in mass tort litigation to help gauge how juries may respond to key evidence and testimony.

While the results of any bellwether trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they could play an important role in shaping the litigation. The outcomes may help the parties evaluate the strength of the claims, potential liability and the range of damages juries may award, which could eventually support settlement negotiations aimed at resolving large numbers of cases without the need for dozens of individual trials.

Why Abbott, Nevro and Medtronic Stimulator Lawsuits Were Excluded

Although plaintiffs had sought broader coordination involving multiple spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, the JPML found that an industry-wide MDL was not warranted because the cases did not involve coordinated conduct among the different companies.

“Proponents of an industry-wide MDL have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that creating an MDL with such a wide scope is appropriate here. While plaintiffs allege similar conduct on the part of each manufacturer, they do not allege the manufacturers acted in concert.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The Panel explained that each manufacturer has its own line of spinal cord stimulators and a separate regulatory history, which would limit overlap in discovery. It also declined to create an Abbott-only MDL at this stage, finding that the four Abbott cases included in the original motion were all pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

Since Section 1407 centralization requires actions pending in different federal districts, the JPML denied centralization of the Abbott claims, but indicated those lawsuits could still be centralized later if the litigation grows.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyers

As the JPML moves forward with centralizing the Boston Scientific claims, spinal cord stimulator lawyers are pursuing cases for those who received a Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott or Nevro spinal cord stimulator, and suffered any of the following injuries:

To find out whether you or a loved one may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information to receive a free case review by a lawyer. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

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

Three Louisiana residents have filed a tabletop fire pit lawsuit claiming they suffered severe burns when bioethanol fuel suddenly erupted in flames as they refilled a fire pit purchased at Walmart.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Reginald Valentine, Karman Valentine and Kelbie Green in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June 4, naming Walmart Inc. as the sole defendant.

The plaintiffs claim Walmart continued to market and sell ZIB Tabletop Fire Pits despite a federal safety warning that urged retailers to stop selling similar products because of the risk of “flame jetting” explosions.

Tabletop Fire Pit Safety Concerns

Tabletop fire pits have become increasingly popular in recent years as decorative products for patios, backyards and indoor living spaces. Many models use liquid fuels, such as ethanol or isopropyl alcohol, to produce an open flame in a compact, portable design.

However, safety experts have warned that certain liquid-fueled fire pits may present serious burn and fire hazards if they are not properly designed. In some cases, flammable vapors can ignite unexpectedly during refueling, triggering flash fires, flame jetting events or explosions that have resulted in severe tabletop fire pit burn injuries and deaths.

Those concerns have led to a growing number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits being filed in recent months, each raising similar allegations that certain products contain dangerous design defects, fail to comply with applicable safety standards and do not adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with their use.

Fire Pit Explosion Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Karman Valentine purchased the tabletop fire pit from Walmart.com on May 29, 2025. The plaintiffs claim the device was among a category of liquid-burning fire pits that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had already identified as hazardous because they require users to pour flammable liquid fuel into an open reservoir where it is later ignited.

The alleged incident occurred on June 15, 2025, while Reginald Valentine was adding bioethanol fuel to the fire pit’s reservoir. Plaintiffs claim a flame suddenly traveled out of the fuel container and into the surrounding area, striking Reginald, Karman and Kelbie.

Reginald suffered second-degree burns to his hands and right forearm, while Karman sustained second-degree burns to both forearms. The lawsuit indicates Kelbie suffered the most serious injuries, including second- and third-degree burns to her face, neck, chest and upper extremities, covering approximately 20% to 25% of her body. She continues to suffer facial scarring.

Plaintiffs contend the injuries were caused by a phenomenon known as flame jetting, which can occur when vapors from flammable liquids ignite during refueling, causing a sudden burst of flames to shoot from a container.

“The subject fire pit and its manual are devoid of any description of flame jetting; feature no depiction or illustration of flame jetting; and no warning regarding flame jetting can be found.”

— Reginald Valentine et al. v. Walmart Inc.

The lawsuit leans heavily on a December 2024 CPSC consumer alert that warned consumers and retailers about liquid-burning fire pits that use isopropyl alcohol, ethanol or similar fuels. According to the complaint, the agency warned that the products violate ASTM F3363-19 voluntary safety standards and present risks of both pool fires and flame jetting events.

The CPSC described the products as “extremely dangerous” and urged sellers to stop offering them for sale. The agency also noted that similar products had been associated with at least 60 injuries and two deaths since 2019, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege Walmart ignored those warnings and continued selling the fire pits through its online marketplace months later.

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. It seeks damages for physical injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life.

Tabletop Fire Pit Injury Lawsuits

As reports of accidents continue to emerge, attorneys are reviewing claims for tabletop fire pit lawsuits involving consumers who suffered burns and other injuries during incidents involving unexpected flare-ups, flash fires and flame jetting events.

Alleged injuries associated with these products have included:

• Second- and third-degree burn injuries
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Nerve damage and loss of mobility
• Smoke inhalation and respiratory injuries
• Burns affecting children and nearby bystanders
• Fires occurring while fuel was being added to the device
• Fatal injuries resulting from fire pit explosions
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Ongoing medical treatment, rehabilitation and reconstructive procedures
• Psychological trauma and emotional distress

Individuals who have suffered a tabletop fire pit injury may be eligible to pursue compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Attorneys investigating potential claims can help identify the product involved, determine whether it was subject to safety warnings or recalls, and evaluate available legal remedies.

Lawyers handling tabletop fire pit cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorney fees are only collected if a recovery is obtained.

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

A Nebraska man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the premature failure of a Trifecta GT tissue heart valve caused his wife’s rapid decline into congestive heart failure, ultimately leading to her death after emergency replacement surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Charles R. Warren, individually and as administrator of the estate of his wife, Jean Boletta Warren, in Nebraska District Court late last year. It names Abbott Laboratories Inc. and St. Jude Medical LLC as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on June 1.

Charles claims the defendants failed to properly monitor post-market safety data, investigate reports of premature valve failures involving the Trifecta GT valve or provide timely warnings to physicians and patients. As a result, he alleges his wife’s device failed prematurely, setting off a chain of events that included heart failure, repeat surgery, postoperative complications and her death.

Trifecta Heart Valve Complications

In 2017, Abbott Laboratories acquired St. Jude Medical, the original manufacturer of the Trifecta Heart Valve. This prosthetic device is used to replace diseased or damaged aortic valves, which regulate the flow of oxygenated blood from the heart to the rest of the body.

The original Trifecta valve received federal approval in 2011, followed by the next-generation Trifecta GT model in 2016.

However, Abbott halted sales and distribution of all Trifecta heart valves in the United States on July 31, 2023, amid growing concerns about premature structural valve deterioration (SVD). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that certain Trifecta devices appeared to experience early valve failure at higher rates than other commercially available bioprosthetic replacement valves.

According to federal regulators, nearly 3,000 adverse event reports involving Trifecta valves were submitted between 2011 and 2023, including more than 2,100 injury reports and at least 191 deaths.

Trifecta Valve Failure Risks

According to the lawsuit, Jean underwent surgical aortic valve replacement at Nebraska Methodist Hospital in Omaha on September 10, 2018, in which she  received a Trifecta GT Tissue Heart Valve. The complaint indicates the device functioned normally following implantation and was expected to provide long-term durability.

However, the lawsuit alleges the valve began to fail approximately five years later, causing severe stenosis and acute congestive heart failure. Warren was hospitalized in December 2023 and underwent urgent repeat aortic valve replacement surgery on December 22, 2023.

Following the procedure, she suffered cardiogenic shock, progressive hypoxia, multi-organ failure and other severe complications before dying on December 26, 2023, at age 78. Prosthetic aortic valve stenosis was identified on her death certificate as part of the chain of events leading to her death.

The lawsuit claims Abbott and St. Jude knew or should have known for years that Trifecta-family heart valves were susceptible to premature structural valve deterioration, or SVD, due to their externally mounted leaflet design.

Warren indicates that post-market data, adverse event reports and published medical literature revealed that some Trifecta valves were failing within three to five years of implantation, far sooner than physicians reasonably expected.

The filing cites a 2025 Cleveland Clinic study that found Trifecta valves demonstrated reduced durability and heightened susceptibility to premature deterioration compared to other surgical bioprosthetic valves. Researchers identified the externally mounted leaflet design as a factor associated with early failure.

“Defendants’ failure to timely translate known early-failure data and identified failure mechanisms into meaningful warnings, labeling updates, and risk-mitigation guidance was a substantial factor in causing Decedent’s injuries and death.”

— Charles R. Warren v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, manufacturing defect and breach of warranty. It seeks to recover all damages available under Nebraska’s survival statute, as well as wrongful death and other damages.

Trifecta Heart Valve Lawsuits

Following the withdrawal of Trifecta and Trifecta GT heart valves from the U.S. market, attorneys have been reviewing potential Trifecta heart valve lawsuits on behalf of patients who experienced premature valve failure, required revision or replacement procedures, suffered serious injuries, or lost a loved one after receiving one of the devices.

Individuals who believe they were harmed by an early Trifecta valve failure may qualify to seek compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Case evaluations are available at no cost, and attorneys’ fees are only collected if compensation is recovered on the claimant’s behalf.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burn injuries that required skin grafts and hospitalization, after a defective NuWave Nutri-Pot pressure cooker opened while still pressurized, causing the scalding hot contents to spew all over her body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Tanieka Manoloff in the U.S. District Court of Illinois on June 4, naming NuWave LLC as the defendant.

The NuWave Nutri-Pot Digital Pressure Cooker is a consumer kitchen appliance that uses high pressure to rapidly cook food. Like many other modern electronic pressure cookers, it is designed with a lid safety system that is intended to prevent the cooker from being opened while the contents remain under pressure.

When a pressure cooker lid opens before internal pressure has been released, superheated steam, liquid and food can erupt from the pot with tremendous force. Users standing near the appliance may have little time to react, often suffering burns to their face, arms, chest or other exposed areas.

Amid hundreds of reports involving severe burns suffered by consumers nationwide, a growing number of pressure cooker lawsuits have been filed in recent years, each involving similar allegations that design defects caused the lid safety feature to fail.

Pressure Cooker Burn Injury Allegations

According to Manoloff’s lawsuit, she was using her NuWave pressure cooker on September 7, 2025, when she was able to open the lid without any indication that the device was still under pressure.

The complaint indicates the lid’s Sure-Lock Safety System feature failed due to a design defect. As a result, she suffered severe second- and third-degree burns to her torso and breast, which required extensive medical treatment, hospitalization and surgical intervention, including a skin graft procedure.

Manoloff states that NuWave aggressively markets the pressure cooker for its safety features, and claims the lid cannot be opened while in use or while there is built up pressure in the device.

She goes on to claim the company knew or should have known about the design defect, yet continued to sell the product and failed to warn consumers or issue a Nutri-Pot recall. Instead, the defective Sure-Lock Safety System allowed the pressure cooker to be opened and spew scalding contents onto users.

The filing also alleges NuWave failed to redesign the pressure cooker and failed to properly test it despite claiming “safety is a core value” of the company.

“Defendant ignored and/or concealed its knowledge of these defects in its pressure cookers from the Plaintiff in this case, as well as the public in general, in order to continue generating a profit from the sale of said pressure cookers, demonstrating a callous, reckless, willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff and consumers like her.”

— Tanieka Manoloff v. NuWave LLC

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Manoloff is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life.

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

A Tennessee woman has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and other drug makers, indicating that she was left with permanent injuries after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections, which resulted in the development of a pituitary meningioma that required her to undergo brain surgery to remove the tumor.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maryann Turk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on June 1. It names Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC as the defendants.

Turk claims that scientific studies established a link between the ingredients and hormones in Depo-Provera and brain tumor development years before the injections reached the market. She goes on to allege that while she and other recipients of the shots did not know that, Pfizer did.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumors

Depo-Provera is a hormonal birth control injection containing medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. Approved in 1992, it was originally developed by Pfizer before being released by other drug manufacturers in generic form. The injections are supposed to work by inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to block sperm, thinning the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, and thus preventing pregnancy.

The injections are administered to recipients four times a year and have been used by tens of millions of women worldwide.

However, The BMJ published a French study in March 2024, which found that women receiving Depo-Provera injections faced a more than five-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma, a form of brain tumor that can grow when exposed to certain hormones commonly used in birth control products.

That study, and others, have sparked a wave of Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits from women across the United States. Each complaint indicates Pfizer and other drug makers failed to provide adequate warnings about the injections’ brain tumor risks, which can cause severe cognitive problems as well as other adverse health conditions, some of which can become life threatening.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Side Effect Allegations

Turk indicates her lawsuit that Depo-Provera injections were first administered for the purpose of birth control in 1995, and she continued to receive the Depo shots regularly until 2000.

In July 2025, a CT scan revealed Turk was suffering from a pituitary meningioma, which is a form of brain tumor that develops adjacent to the pituitary gland and optic nerves. She underwent extensive brain surgery in January 2026 to remove it.

Following the surgery and recovery period, Turk continued suffering from debilitating migraines, loss of her sense of smell and cognitive impairment. These problems could potentially persist for the rest of her life, she claims.

The complaint indicates that adequate warning could have led to the choice of another form of contraception, or at least allowed her doctors to diagnosis the meningioma earlier if they had been told about the importance of monitoring for brain tumors. Instead, the lawsuit claims manufacturers chose profits over patient safety and downplayed the risks.

“Furthermore, despite studies being published over the course of decades, providing evidence of the meningioma-related risks and dangers of progesterone and progestins specifically Depo-Provera, Defendants have failed to adequately investigate the threat Depo-Provera poses to patients’ well-being or warn the medical community and patients of the risk of intracranial meningioma and sequelae related thereto.”

– Maryann Turk v. Pfizer Inc. et al.

Turk 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 compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and incidental expenses, and loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits

Pfizer faces more than 6,000 lawsuits over meningioma from Depo-Provera in federal and state courts nationwide. Turk’s complaint will be consolidated with all other federally filed Depo-Provera lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida, before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is overseeing coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and preparations for early bellwether test trials.

Judge Rodgers previously ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases for these early trials, which are designed to give participants a chance to see how juries will interpret testimony and evidence in cases that represent the majority of circumstances throughout the litigation.

The first Depo-Provera bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on December 7, with additional trials slated for 2027. While the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other women pursuing claims, they will be closely watched since the juries’ determinations could play a significant role in any potential Depo-Provera settlement negotiations.

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

The plaintiff in the very first Bard PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trial is asking the U.S. District Judge presiding over the consolidated litigation to grant him a new trial, arguing that the jury was given improper instructions that led to the defense verdict.

C.R. Bard and Becton Dickinson’s PowerPort is a port catheter, consisting of a small injection port implanted below the skin, and a polyurethane catheter. The device is commonly used for patients who need regular drug or fluid infusions, such as chemotherapy patients, allowing treatment to be delivered without a new needle stick each time.

However, numerous reports in recent years have claimed that the devices are prone to complications involving infections, fractures, failures and migration, allegedly linked to defects in the design and materials used in the implants.

Those allegations have led to more than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits being brought nationwide. The filings contend that the manufacturers marketed the port catheters as safe and effective despite knowing they were prone to failure. 

These claims also indicate that the companies did not correct the design or adequately warn patients and physicians about risks such as pulmonary embolism, blood clots, infections and the need for surgical removal of failed implants.

Questions of common facts and law shared throughout the litigation led to all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits being consolidated nearly three years ago in the District of Arizona, where U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell has led the litigation through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and preparation of six representative cases to serve as early test trials.

A lawsuit brought by Robert Cook, of Minnesota, was chosen to be the first of these bellwether trials, which are designed to give the parties a chance to see how juries weigh the evidence and arguments that would likely be shared throughout the litigation. These types of trials are intended to help the parties work out potential settlement agreements that would resolve the litigation, instead of having thousands of expensive and time-consuming trials flood the federal court system.

Following the trial of Cook’s claim, an Arizona jury returned a verdict in early May in Bard’s favor, determining that the manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn about potential PowerPort risks. However, the jury was deadlocked on whether the port catheter was defectively designed.

On June 3, Cook filed a motion for a mistrial (PDF), seeking a new trial and a judgment as a matter of law. The motion argues that the defense verdict and deadlocked jury were due to faulty instructions.

“Plaintiff seeks a new trial on all four claims because the Court coerced a verdict by instructing the jury that unanimity was not required and failing to correct the jury’s misimpression that deliberations had a deadline. Moreover, the instruction permitting a partial verdict was premature and legally incorrect.”

– Robert Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al., Motion for mistrial

The motion points out that the jury was told that the trial would end by May 8, pressuring them to turn over a verdict. It also notes that Cook’s attorneys objected to the instructions on design defect, failure to warn or instruct, and superseding cause.

Cook notes the jury deliberated for only 11 hours, turning in a partial verdict. During deliberations, the jury had to repeatedly ask for clarification on those same issues, which the motion claims supports the claim the instructions were inadequate.

Port Catheter Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

Currently, the second Bard PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on August 18, involving claims by Kimberly Divelbliss. Additional trials are scheduled to begin on October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027.

Additionally, more than 300 similar Angiodynamics port catheter lawsuits claim that the company’s series of port catheters, including the SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela Port, suffer from the same design problems. These claims are consolidated in a separate MDL before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where she is also expected to begin a bellwether process.

In both litigations, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end without a settlement agreement or other resolution, the judges would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Wisconsin woman has filed a hip replacement lawsuit, alleging that a Smith & Nephew metal-on-metal implant system caused toxic debris to accumulate in her body, resulting in a diagnosis of “dusky metal disease” and failure of the hip replacement that required revision surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cheryl A. Miller in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 28, naming Smith & Nephew Inc. as the sole defendant. 

Miller claims Smith & Nephew marketed and promoted an unapproved metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (THA) system for years, despite mounting evidence that similar implants were linked to elevated failure rates, metal toxicity and severe tissue damage.

Hip Replacement Device Concerns

For decades, concerns have surrounded metal joint replacement devices, particularly metal-on-metal hip implants, which can release cobalt, chromium and other metal ions into the body as components wear against one another. The resulting buildup of metal debris, a condition known as metallosis, has been associated with serious complications, including soft tissue destruction, pseudotumors and other adverse health effects.

Federal regulators began scrutinizing these risks more than a decade ago. In May 2011, the FDA directed manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip implants to conduct additional studies on the release of metal particles and their potential health consequences. The following year, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advised recipients of metal-on-metal hip implants to undergo annual blood testing to monitor for elevated metal ion levels and signs of metallosis.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Miller received a Smith & Nephew cobalt-chrome femoral head, Synergy femoral stem and modular neck sleeve during a left hip replacement procedure performed in December 2011 at Aurora Medical Center in Grafton, Wisconsin.

More than a decade after receiving the implant, Miller allegedly began suffering complications that required revision surgery on November 19, 2024. According to the complaint, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jesse Bauwens documented “dusky metal disease,” trunnionosis, wear of the trunnion sleeve and elevated cobalt and chromium levels in Miller’s hip joint.

The lawsuit claims those findings were caused by the failure of the implant system, which allegedly generated microscopic metal debris as its components rubbed against one another inside her body. The complaint alleges the resulting cobalt and chromium particles entered Miller’s bloodstream and surrounding tissue, causing inflammation, tissue destruction and an adverse local tissue reaction that led to device failure.

Smith & Nephew’s modular femoral head system allegedly suffered from the same design problems that plagued other metal-on-metal hip implants, including devices manufactured by DePuy, Zimmer Biomet and Wright Medical, many of which were later recalled or removed from the market.

The complaint alleges metal wear debris generated by these implants is biologically reactive and toxic to human tissue, causing cell death, inflammation and premature implant failure. It further claims Smith & Nephew knew about concerns involving metal-on-metal hip systems for years but continued promoting the products without adequately warning physicians or patients about the risks.

“Had she known that the THA device carried a risk of metal toxicity, Plaintiff would have elected to have a total hip system with traditional materials such as ceramic or polyethylene implanted in [her] body.”

— Cheryl A. Miller v. Smith & Nephew Inc.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement Device Warning Claims

The lawsuit further alleges Smith & Nephew repeatedly failed to obtain FDA approval for use of the modular femoral head as part of a metal-on-metal total hip replacement system, yet continued marketing the device for that purpose. The company is accused of withholding information about failure rates, metal toxicity risks and concerns raised by regulators and joint replacement registries in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.

As early as 2012, foreign health authorities allegedly warned that certain Smith & Nephew metal-on-metal hip systems were associated with higher-than-expected revision rates and should no longer be recommended for total hip replacement surgery.

The filing also points to a series of FDA communications issued between 2011 and 2013 warning that metal-on-metal hip implants can release metal particles that damage bone and soft tissue, loosen implants and increase the likelihood of revision surgery.

Miller raises allegations of defective manufacturing, defective design, defective warning, defective due to nonconformity with representation and strict liability. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly caused by the failed implant, including pain, suffering, medical expenses and the need for revision surgery.

Hip Implant Lawsuits

As Miller’s complaint indicates, metal-on-metal hip replacement system recalls have resulted in widespread safety concerns over the past two decades, with patients reporting premature failures, metallosis and other serious complications.

In addition, researchers and regulators have examined whether metal debris released by these implants may contribute to the formation of pseudotumors and other long-term health risks.

Many of these concerns have led to large-scale product liability litigation. Nearly 12,000 DePuy ASR hip implant lawsuits were filed after those devices were withdrawn from the market in 2010. The manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, later agreed to pay more than $2 billion to resolve the claims.

Similar allegations have also been raised in litigation involving other metal-on-metal hip systems, including the DePuy Pinnacle, Biomet Magnum and other implants.

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

Merck & Co. has reached an agreement to pay $50 million to settle hundreds of Gardasil lawsuits, which raise allegations that the controversial HPV vaccine’s side effects left young adults with serious neurological and other adverse health problems.

The Gardasil settlement was reported by Bloomberg News on June 4, indicating that the deal was confirmed in an emailed statement from Merck officials. Following years of litigation, Merck claims that the payouts should resolve all lawsuits over the HPV vaccine, except for one remaining case.

First introduced in 2006, Gardasil is a widely used vaccine administered to young girls and boys for the prevention of human papillomavirus, or HPV, infections, which can cause cervical cancer and other forms of cancer. HPV is sexually transmitted, and the vaccine has been promoted as an important tool for preventing HPV-related cancers later in life.

Despite the company’s claims that the vaccine is safe, Gardasil side effect lawsuits have been filed over postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), premature menopause, seizures and other autoimmune disorders, which allegedly emerged shortly after patients received the injections. These allegations resulted in hundreds of claims being filed nationwide by former Gardasil recipients and their families.

All claims filed in federal court involving the vaccine’s alleged side effects have been consolidated in the Western District of North Carolina since August 2022, where U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell presided over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The litigation was originally expected to include a series of bellwether trials, which were designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ evidence before actual juries and help guide potential settlement negotiations.

However, as the bellwether trials were being prepared, Merck filed a motion for summary judgment in early March 2025, asking the court to dismiss many of the claims before trial. Judge Bell agreed that the Gardasil manufacturer should be immune from state law-based failure to warn claims involving POTS and POI injuries, which made up the majority of claims in the litigation, determining that those claims were preempted by federal law.

The ruling effectively removed many of the central claims from the Gardasil MDL, finding that plaintiffs could not pursue warning-based allegations under state law because the claims conflicted with the federal regulatory framework governing vaccine labeling. Last July, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but the appeals court rejected the motion in September.

According to Bloomberg’s report, the dismissed POTS and POI cases will be included in the $50 million Gardasil settlement, which will address more than 200 total claims. The manufacturer first reported a potential settlement in its annual earnings report in February, indicating at the time that the deal would only be finalized if enough Gardasil plaintiffs approved the agreement.

Merck indicates the agreement is not a confession of liability, stating that the settlement is significantly cheaper than continuing to defend every lawsuit in court. The company has maintained that Gardasil remains safe and effective, and that it stands behind the vaccine’s safety profile.

A Georgia couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective 2017 Land Rover Range Rover spontaneously caught fire while parked, destroying their home and causing injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Samuel Brett Mitchell and Joy Mitchell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on May 29. It names Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited as the defendants. 

The Mitchells claim the Range Rover contained a defective Infotainment Master Controller (IMC), which is a module that manages touchscreen and connectivity features in the vehicle.

Vehicle Fire Risks

In recent years, multiple recalls and lawsuits have linked vehicle fires to serious property damage and injuries.

At least two vehicle recalls have been issued over the past year, involving defects that could potentially cause fires. In January 2026, more than 120,000 Ford vehicles were recalled, following at least 50 reported fires. In addition, more than 320,000 Jeep Wrangler and Grand Cherokee SUVs were recalled in November 2025, after at least 19 fires were linked to battery defects.

Tesla has also been named in separate lawsuits. In one such case brought late last month, a woman alleged her Tesla vehicle suddenly caught fire while she was driving, causing a crash that left her and her passengers with serious and permanent injuries.

Range Rover Fire Allegations

In their lawsuit, the Mitchells allege that on December 24, 2024, their 2017 Land Rover Range Rover was parked in the carport connected to their house when it suddenly and without warning caught fire. The fire spread rapidly to the home while they and their children were inside.

The complaint indicates the Mitchells had parked the Range Rover in the attached carport after it was last driven on December 22, 2024. After noticing smoke coming from the driver’s side of the vehicle, Samuel indicates that he attempted to extinguish the fire with a garden hose. However, the flames quickly spread from the SUV to the home.

The lawsuit says firefighters battled the blaze for more than seven hours, yet the fire ultimately destroyed a home that was under contract to be sold for $5.75 million, along with more than $1.28 million in personal property.

According to the filing, one child suffered head trauma after running into a door while fleeing the home, another fell down a flight of stairs and sustained head and neck injuries, and another fell in a stairway and injured a knee. Samuel allegedly suffered superficial facial burns. The complaint claims all family members suffered psychological trauma from the incident.

A subsequent engineering investigation allegedly traced the origin of the fire to the Infotainment Master Controller (IMC) beneath the driver’s seat, where evidence indicated overheating was caused by a malfunction in the module or the vehicle’s quiescent current system.

“Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages were directly and proximately caused by the defective condition of the Vehicle and/or its component parts, systems, and assemblies when it was sold to Plaintiffs and not by any subsequent alteration, misuse, or unforeseeable abuse of the product by Plaintiffs.”

— Samuel Brett Mitchell et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover Limited et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and breach of warranty. It seeks damages, along with pre and post judgment interest, costs and expenses and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

A Louisiana woman has filed a lawsuit indicating that five years of Dupixent injections are responsible for the development of a rare form of cancer that has transformed her life.

Gabrielle Jackson brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 27. It names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC as the defendants.

According to Jackson, the side effects of Dupixent led to a form of T-cell lymphoma known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), which is a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dupixent Injection Cancer Risks

Originally approved in 2017, Dupixent (dupilumab) was designed to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. The label has since been greatly expanded, approving Dupixent for the treatment of asthma, chronic sinus inflammation, eosinophilic esophagitis and other conditions. It has become one of the world’s best-selling prescription drugs.

Despite being marketed as safe and effective, a growing number of reports have linked Dupixent side effects with rare T-cell lymphomas like CTCL and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), both of which can impact the immune system.

Jackson’s complaint is one of an increasing number of Dupixent injection lawsuits being pursued by individuals nationwide. Plaintiffs claim that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, that the side effects of Dupixent could cause, or exacerbate, T-cell lymphoma, yet failed to provide the medical community or patients with adequate warnings.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Jackson began using Dupixent after suffering from a rash that led to her receiving an eczema diagnosis. She received Dupixent injections for five years, before being diagnosed with CTCL in 2022.

To fight her cancer, Jackson has undergone total body skin radiation and chemotherapy treatments, which she says could have been avoided if the drug makers had provided sufficient warnings about the potential cancer risks.

Instead, the lawsuit argues that the defendants intentionally misrepresented both the safety and effectiveness of Dupixent injections, despite reports that should have raised serious concerns.

“Defendants knew or should have known that Dupixent, when taken as prescribed and intended, causes and/or exacerbates T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL. Numerous case reports and scientific studies have established that Dupixent causes T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL, and/or accelerates its progression.”

– Gabrielle Jackson v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Jackson presents claims of failure to warn, negligence and breach of express warranty. She seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of earnings, mental anguish and emotional distress.

Dupixent Injection Lawsuits

The complaint comes as a panel of federal judges considers a motion by other plaintiffs who are seeking to consolidate all federal Dupixent injection lawsuits before one U.S. District Judge for pretrial proceedings and coordinated discovery. The manufacturers have opposed the motion.

Last week, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) heard oral arguments over Dupixent lawsuit consolidation, and is still weighing a decision at the present time. If the panel agrees to centralize the litigation, a federal judge would likely be assigned to oversee the coordinated proceedings and organize a series of early bellwether trials involving representative cases.

The trials are expected to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that will likely be repeated throughout the litigation. While the outcomes would not be binding on other cases, they may provide a framework for negotiating potential Dupixent injection settlements.

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

A New Jersey cosmetologist is pursuing a hair dye lawsuit claiming that decades of exposure to toxic chemicals in L’Oreal, Redken, Clairol and other products led to the development of bladder cancer.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Leonardo Rocco in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 29. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the defendants, which include Wella Operations US LLC, L’Oreal USA Inc., L’Oreal USA Products Inc., Joico, Clairol, Henkel Corporation and Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.

According to the complaint, Rocco began working as a cosmetologist in 1998 and has worked at several hair salons throughout New Jersey for nearly 30 years. However, the link between hair dye exposure and the risk of bladder cancer has only come to public attention in the last couple years.

Approximately 83,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with bladder cancer every year, and about 16,000 die from the malignancy.

Hair Dye Cancer Risks

Concerns over the safety of hair dye products began to arise following recent studies that raised long-term exposure cancer risks. One large meta-analysis of dozens of occupational studies found that hair dressers and salon workers faced a 30% higher overall risk of bladder cancer, which increased to 70% higher for hairdressers who have worked in the field for a decade or more.

Rocco’s claims join those of other cosmetologists who have filed hair dye bladder cancer lawsuits, each alleging that manufacturers knew, or should have known, that the chemicals in their hair dye products could cause bladder cancer with long-term exposure, yet failed to warn cosmetologists and salon workers to take proper precautions.

Hair Dye Cancer Allegations

According to his complaint, Rocco worked with hair dye products including Wella Color Grey, Majirel, Matrix – So Color, Miss Clairol and Igora Royal for years, yet he was unaware he was being exposed to potentially cancer-causing chemicals. Rocco indicates that if he had known about the risks he would have either used different products or taken proper precautions.

In June 2023, Rocco was diagnosed with bladder cancer, which the lawsuit argues was caused by the unreasonable formulations of the hair dye products.

“Specifically, as a result of Plaintiff’s repeated, prolonged use of the products described above, Plaintiff was unknowingly exposed to carcinogenic compounds, including, but not limited to, 4-Aminobiphenyl and Ortho Toluidine. Plaintiff was repeatedly exposed to 4- Aminobiphenyl and Ortho Toluidine as a direct and proximate result of his use of the products described above.”

– Leonard Rocco v. Wella Operations US LLC et al.

Rocco alleges cosmetologists were never warned about the cancer risks, even though manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the dangers since at least 1975, when a study found that “nearly 90% of commercially available hair dyes were mutagenic indicating a potential to cause DNA damage which could lead to cancer development.”

At the time, manufacturers claimed they had taken the carcinogenic ingredients out of their products. However, studies conducted since then have found that many of the cancer-causing chemicals are still there.

Rocco’s lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of consumer protection statutes. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hair Dye Bladder Cancer Lawsuits

Individuals like Rocco who have been diagnosed with bladder cancer after years of working with permanent hair dye chemicals may be eligible to pursue financial compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and other damages.

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

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

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

A Mississippi family has filed a video game addiction lawsuit alleging a 12-year-old boy suffered neurological and psychological harm after becoming addicted to Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by A.H., a minor, through his parent and legal guardian, Bridgette Williams, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 27. It names Roblox Corporation, Epic Games, Microsoft Corporation and Mojang AB as defendants.

A.H. and his mother claim those companies’ games were intentionally designed to keep children playing through the use of manipulative behavioral conditioning systems.

Internet Gaming Disorder Concerns

Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) is characterized by compulsive and excessive video game use that begins to interfere with everyday life, personal interests and important responsibilities. The condition has been formally recognized as a mental health disorder in both the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Symptoms commonly associated with IGD include difficulty controlling the amount of time spent gaming, obsessive focus on video games, loss of interest in other activities, hiding gaming habits from family or friends and continuing to play despite negative consequences. The disorder can affect nearly every aspect of a person’s life, contributing to academic struggles, social isolation, damaged relationships and problems maintaining employment or progressing toward independence in adulthood.

As concerns grow that popular games are intentionally designed to maximize engagement among young users, a rising number of families are filing video game addiction lawsuits. The claims allege companies behind titles such as Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft prioritized profits and user retention over the mental health and safety of children and teenagers.

Video Game Addiction Allegations

According to the complaint, A.H. began playing Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite in 2021, when he was 8 years old, and quickly developed a compulsive relationship with the games.

The lawsuit indicates the child often played for extended periods, exceeding 10 hours per day, becoming unable to stop using the products despite suffering serious emotional and behavioral consequences.

Plaintiffs allege the games’ reward systems, randomized challenges, feedback loops and social interaction features were specifically designed to encourage continuous play and reinforce addictive behavior patterns.

As a result of the alleged addiction, the lawsuit claims A.H. developed “gamer’s rage,” behavioral issues at school, nightmares, anxiety, depression, diminished social interaction and suicidal ideation.

The complaint further alleges that in 2025 the child took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to harm himself after the games were taken away from him.

According to the lawsuit, A.H. currently continues to play the games for approximately six hours per day on school days and up to 10 hours per day on weekends, despite receiving therapy from a mental health provider.

The family maintains they were unaware the games allegedly used behavioral modification techniques designed to encourage compulsive use and did not know those features could cause long-term neurological and psychological harm.

“Each Defendant enlisted licensed psychologists and psychiatrists to incorporate the Cognitive Behavior Therapy technique of operant conditioning into its video game products, thereby exposing minor children to psychological techniques without adequate warning, contrary to the standards applicable to those licensed mental health professionals that require informed consent.”

— A.H. v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for alleged physical, neurological, psychological and emotional injuries linked to the child’s compulsive gaming behavior.

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

Federal regulators have issued an early alert for certain Abiomed catheter introducer kits used with Impella heart pumps, after reports of blood clot formation led to at least three serious injuries.

A catheter introducer kit is a medical device used to create and maintain access to a blood vessel so that a catheter or other device can be inserted into the body. The affected Abiomed introducer kits are specifically designed to introduce the Impella heart pump into a patient’s left ventricle.

Impella heart pumps are small catheter-based heart pumps that are used to maintain blood flow in patients suffering cardiogenic shock or undergoing certain high-risk cardiac procedures. However, the devices have been linked to a series of problems in recent years, which have been blamed for causing multiple patient injuries and deaths.

In the affected catheter introducer kits for Impella devices, clots may form within the introducer sheath during prolonged use, potentially disrupting blood flow. If a clot becomes dislodged, it can block blood vessels and cause ischemia.

Ischemia occurs when the blood supply is restricted to a part of the body, depriving tissues of oxygen and nutrients. It requires urgent medical intervention, and in rare cases may result in permanent injury if not promptly corrected.

Impella Catheter Introducer Kit Alert

Customers affected by the recall were notified by letter on May 22 and instructed to review their inventory for impacted kits, quarantine those products for return to Sedgwick, and notify anyone who manages, transports or stores the compromised devices.

The FDA is advising providers not to use the following products:

• 14 Fr x 13 cm Low Profile Introducer Kit for Impella CP, product code 1000434, UDI 00813502012996 
• 14 Fr x 25 cm Low Profile Introducer Kit for Impella CP, product code 1000435, UDI 00813502013009 
• Impella CP Set with SmartAssist (10th Generation), product code 1000413, UDI 00813502013566 

Consumers in the U.S. who have experienced adverse reactions, quality issues, or have questions about the recall may contact Abiomed at OneMD-Field-Actions@its.jnj.com.

Adverse reactions or quality problems can also be reported to the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program, MedWatch.

Impella Heart Pump Recalls

The new warning over catheter introducer kits for Impella heart pumps adds to a growing number of FDA recalls and safety communications involving the Abiomed systems. These alerts have repeatedly raised concerns about device failures that may interrupt treatment or cause a sudden loss of circulatory support.

Federal regulators issued a warning last week involving certain Impella CP Sets with SmartAssist, following at least three reports of device failures as a linked to low purge pressure events that resulted in at least one death.

The prior week, Abiomed also warned that a software defect affecting Automated Impella Controllers (AICs) could cause the devices to unexpectedly reboot during use, potentially disrupting blood flow support for critically ill patients. The FDA indicated that the problem had already been linked to two serious injuries and one death.

In 2023, a recall involving Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist devices warned that purge fluid leaks could increase the risk of pump malfunctions, heart valve damage and other serious complications, with regulators citing at least 179 adverse event reports.

That same year, the FDA issued a Class I recall for Impella Left Sided Blood Pumps after receiving reports linking the devices to perforations of the heart wall, a problem associated with at least 129 injuries and 49 deaths.

Federal regulators also announced a Class I recall for Impella RP Flex catheter systems in June 2023, warning that inadequate instructions regarding blood clot risks could expose patients to severe or potentially fatal complications. At the time, the FDA said the issue had been tied to at least 12 reported injuries.

Impella Heart Pump Lawsuits

Impella heart pump lawyers are investigating potential Impella heart pump lawsuits on behalf of patients and families affected by severe complications allegedly associated with the devices, including:

Individuals who experienced serious injuries or lost a loved one following treatment with an Impella heart pump may be eligible to pursue compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Case evaluations are free and confidential, and no legal fees are charged unless compensation is recovered.

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

A Nevada woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that defects with an AngioDynamics Xcela port catheter caused thrombosis in her jugular vein, requiring removal of the implanted vascular access device.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Victoria Whiteford in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 21, naming AngioDynamics Inc., Navilyst Medical Inc. and PFM Medical Inc. as defendants.

Whiteford claims she received an Xcela Power Injectable port catheter in March 2018 for long-term intravenous access during medical treatment. However, little more than a year later, she developed swelling and clotting in her neck, with imaging studies revealing thrombosis in her right internal jugular vein, which she alleges was caused by the device.

Port Catheter Thrombosis Risks

Implantable port catheter systems are medical devices designed to provide long-term vascular access for patients requiring repeated infusions of medications, fluids, nutrition or blood products. The systems typically consist of a port implanted beneath the skin and a catheter inserted into a major blood vessel.

The AngioDynamics Xcela catheter was manufactured with a polyurethane material combined with barium sulfate, which was intended to make the device visible on imaging scans. However, a series of port catheter lawsuits allege the barium sulfate particles can weaken the structural integrity of the devices over time, creating pits, fissures and cracks on the surface.

Those defects could increase the risk of thrombosis, infections, biofilm buildup and other serious complications by allowing fibrinous blood products to collect on the degraded catheter surface.

As a result, hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits are now being pursued by patients nationwide, each involving similar allegations that the manufacturers were aware for years that the devices were associated with serious failure risks, yet continued marketing the products as safe and effective without adequately warning physicians or patients about the potential dangers.

Xcela Port Catheter Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Whiteford underwent implantation of the Xcela catheter on March 9, 2018, at MountainView Hospital in Las Vegas for long-term IV access.

The lawsuit alleges that on May 1, 2019, Whiteford returned to the hospital with complaints of swelling and clotting in the right side of her neck. An ultrasound allegedly confirmed thrombosis in the right internal jugular vein, leading physicians to remove the Xcela port two days later.

Whiteford claims the manufacturers knew for years that Xcela devices were linked to increased reports of thrombosis, infections, catheter fractures and migration problems, yet continued to market the products as safe and effective while failing to warn doctors or patients about the potential for complications.

The filing further claims the manufacturers concealed reports of device failures submitted through the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting program, which allegedly prevented physicians and patients from learning about the true scope of complications associated with the port catheter systems.

“Defendants provided incomplete, insufficient, and misleading information to physicians in order to increase the number of physicians using the Xcela for the purpose of increasing their sales. By so doing, Defendants caused the dissemination of inadequate and misleading information to patients, including the Plaintiff.”

— Victoria Whiteford v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied and express warranties, fraudulent concealment and violations of Nevada deceptive trade practices laws. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other losses allegedly caused by the device.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Whiteford’s lawsuit will move forward as part of an AngioDynamics port catheter multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is centralized in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings involving similar claims filed throughout the federal court system.

As part of the MDL, the court is expected to establish a bellwether process involving a small group of representative lawsuits selected for early trial dates. Those cases are intended to help the parties assess how juries may respond to evidence and legal arguments expected to recur throughout the litigation.

Similar allegations have been raised in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits consolidated in the District of Arizona, where more than 3,000 plaintiffs claim C.R. Bard and parent company Becton, Dickinson and Company sold implantable port devices made with barium sulfate that were prone to fracture, thrombosis and other serious complications. 

Earlier this month, the first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended with a defense verdict after jurors found the manufacturers were not liable for failure-to-warn claims or alleged consumer fraud violations. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether the PowerPort devices were defectively designed or whether the companies violated unlawful trade practices laws.

The split verdict is expected to place increased focus on future bellwether trials, which may provide additional guidance on how juries evaluate the scientific evidence and competing claims presented in the litigation.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are currently scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. If the proceedings do not lead to settlements or other resolutions, the court may eventually begin remanding individual lawsuits back to federal district courts nationwide for separate trial dates.

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

An Ohio woman has filed a Bard Ventralight hernia mesh lawsuit, claiming that defects in the polypropylene implant caused her to suffer chronic pain, a recurrent hernia and ongoing physical disabilities.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jerica Weaver in New Jersey Superior Court on May 28, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that same day by the defendant, C.R. Bard Inc.

Weaver claims the manufacturer sold and marketed the Ventralight ST mesh as a safe and effective treatment for hernias, despite knowing the device was prone to failure and serious complications.

Hernia Mesh Failure Risks

The Ventralight ST Mesh is used primarily in laparoscopic surgeries to repair ventral, incisional and umbilical hernias. It is designed to reinforce the abdominal wall and allow for tissue ingrowth while protecting sensitive internal organs.

The mesh is a dual-sided hernia repair implant designed with two distinct surfaces intended to serve different functions after placement. One side is coated with a temporary bioresorbable hydrogel barrier intended to reduce the formation of adhesions between the mesh and nearby organs during the healing process. The opposite side consists of a permanent polypropylene mesh that is meant to integrate with surrounding tissue and provide long-term reinforcement of the abdominal wall.

However, more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer over the past decade, each raising similar allegations that the polypropylene material in the Ventralight and other similar products can trigger adverse biological reactions. Lawsuits allege these reactions may lead to complications such as chronic inflammation, adhesions, infection, mesh shrinkage, erosion and persistent pain, often requiring additional surgery.

Bard Ventralight Hernia Mesh Failure Allegations

According to the claims, Weaver underwent ventral hernia repair surgery in July 2022, when surgeons implanted a Bard Ventralight ST mesh. Less than two years later, she allegedly required extensive revision surgery to address a recurrent incisional hernia and other abdominal complications. The complaint indicates she continues to experience chronic pain and limitations that impair daily activities.

The lawsuit claims Bard’s Ventralight ST hernia mesh was defectively designed and manufactured because it contains polypropylene, a material plaintiffs allege is biologically incompatible with human tissue and can trigger chronic inflammation, degradation, contraction and other complications after implantation. 

The complaint further alleges Bard failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about these failure risks, which may lead to infection, adhesions, hernia recurrence and the need for additional surgeries. 

Weaver contends Bard knew or should have known that polypropylene mesh devices could degrade, shrink and trigger prolonged foreign-body reactions after implantation, yet continued to market the products as safe and effective. The lawsuit further alleges the company failed to conduct adequate testing and concealed information about the frequency and severity of complications linked to its hernia mesh devices.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s defective design, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale and warnings concerning the Ventralight ST Mesh, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages, including: past, present and future physical and mental pain and suffering; physical disabilities; and past, present, and future medical, hospital, rehabilitative, and pharmaceutical expenses; as well as other related damages.”

— Jerica Weaver v. C.R. Bard Inc.

Weaver raises allegations of strict liability—failure to warn. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as compensation for future medical treatment and other losses.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Since 2018, more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard over a variety of products, including the Ventralex, Ventralight, PerFix Plug and 3DMax lines. Plaintiffs throughout the litigation maintain that the manufacturer failed to adequately test its products or warn patients and physicians about known risks associated with polypropylene mesh implants. 

Although Bard reached a broad hernia mesh settlement in October 2025 to resolve a substantial portion of the pending litigation, the claims have not fully ended. 

Payouts are expected to occur over several years, and new lawsuits continue to emerge as individuals with Bard mesh implants experience recent failures or develop complications after years of use. 

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

A U.S. District Judge has set key dates that clear the way for a Nurse Assist saline solution infection lawsuit to move forward toward trial by the end of next year, unless the parties reach an agreement to settle or otherwise resolve the claim.

The sterile saline solution infection lawsuit was first filed in late February by Frances M. Wilbers in Georgia Superior Court, but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in April by the defendants, which include Nurse Assist LLC, multiple Cardinal Health Inc. subsidiaries, Orthodynamix Company Inc., and several unidentified entities.

According to Wilbers, she developed a life-threatening infection after using contaminated Nurse Assist saline solution as part of her wound care routine for the driveline leading to her mechanical heart.

Nurse Assist Sterile Solution Recall

The lawsuit came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Nurse Assist saline and sterile solution recall in late 2023, indicating that certain products’ packaging seals could break, compromising sterility and exposing the fluids to bacterial contamination.

The agency called for healthcare providers and consumers to stop using and distributing the potentially contaminated products, but for many recovering from surgery and conducting wound care, the recall came too late.

Multiple plaintiffs have come forward to file Nurse Assist infection lawsuits since the recall was announced, each alleging the manufacturer failed to make certain the packaging of supposedly sterile products were properly manufactured.

Wilber’s case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. On May 6, the parties delivered to Judge Thrash a joint preliminary report (PDF) and discovery plan, stating that they were ready to proceed with discovery and prepare the case for trial, while noting that settlement may be possible after discovery is complete. 

Plaintiffs and defendants reported no current hindrances to a possible settlement. However, both sides stopped short of indicating that a deal is on the table or that negotiations are nearing a resolution.

In response, Judge Thrash issued a scheduling order (PDF) on May 11, giving the parties a discovery deadline of March 16, 2027, and requiring that any motions to amend the pleadings be filed by June 8. Motions for summary judgment are due by April 16, 2027, but if no such motion is filed, the parties must submit a Proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order by the same date.

No trial date has yet been announced.

Nurse Assist Infection Lawsuits

Individuals nationwide are continuing to learn that their infections may have been caused by contaminated wound care solutions used during treatment. Those affected continue to file lawsuits against Nurse Assist and other defendants for failing to ensure the sterility of products applied directly to patients’ open wounds.

Product liability lawyers currently offer free consultations and claim evaluations for individuals exposed to the recalled products who experienced problems, including:

• Sepsis or septic shock
• Bloodstream infections
• Respiratory infections
• Organ failure
• Necrosis or serious wound-related infections
• Prolonged hospital stays or additional surgeries

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

An Illinois woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Electrolux knowingly sold defective Frigidaire gas ovens with a delayed ignition defect that allowed gas to build up, which could result in flames shooting out of the oven.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Megan Kelly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois on May 29, naming Electrolux Consumer Products Inc. as the sole defendant.

Kelly claims Electrolux knew of a design defect plaguing its Frigidaire gas ranges since at least 2025, yet failed to issue a prompt recall or warn consumers of the problem. The lawsuit further indicates the issue led to a number of injuries linked to Electrolux Frigidaire gas ranges in recent years.

Earlier this year, a separate wrongful death lawsuit alleged a 62-year-old woman died in a house fire caused by the same Frigidaire range defect. According to that complaint, gas was able to build up inside the appliance and ignite, sparking the fatal fire.

Electrolux issued a Frigidaire range recall in March, after reports of at least 30 burn injuries. The recall affected nearly 175,000 units.

Frigidaire Class Action Lawsuit

Kelly’s lawsuit indicates she purchased a Frigidaire range in December 2025 from Home Depot for $1,300. She states that neither Home Depot nor Electrolux provided a warning about the defect at the time.

By the end of December 2025, Kelly notes her house had a continuous smell of gas while the oven was in use. Additionally, the oven would fill with gas, and once the burner ignited, it would cause a loud sound. If the oven door was open, a large flame would shoot from the oven through the open door.

Kelly indicates she contacted the gas company to inspect the pipes in the home. However, the company determined the pipes were safe and operating normally, indicating that the range was likely the cause of the problem.

In January 2026, the plaintiff claims to have contacted a local plumber for a second opinion who told her the same thing. She then says that she contacted Home Depot and reported the issue. However, neither Home Depot nor Electrolux offered a solution to the issue.

Kelly’s complaint alleges Electrolux knew about the range defect for years before it issued the recall in March, having received at least 62 reports of the delayed ignition problem and 30 reports of burn injuries due to the defect.

In addition, the company received other complaints, repair orders, warranty claims and orders for replacement, all of which should have indicated there was a problem with the ranges’ design. The complaint indicates Electrolux also tracks online complaints, monitors forums, message boards and review pages, suggesting Electrolux was aware of the problem by at least mid-2025.

The lawsuit asserts that the Frigidaire range is unreasonably dangerous and cannot be used for its intended use, despite being advertised as safe and reliable. Furthermore, the company refused to provide a refund for the defective ranges and only offered a scheduled home installation of a new bake burner.

“Defendant concealed the fact that Frigidaire ranges contain a serious safety hazard and risk to property and marketed its products as reliable, safe, and of high quality. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant’s marketing and representations in purchasing Frigidaire ranges. As a result of Defendant’s deception, Plaintiff and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain.”

— Megan Kelly v. Electrolux Consumer Products Inc.

The class action lawsuit raises allegations of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Kelly seeks class certification for the complaint, holding Electrolux financially responsible for notifying all consumers of the defect and repairing the defect, as well as compensating class members for repairs or the full purchase price for the ranges, compensatory damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees.

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

An Arizona man has filed a product liability lawsuit stating that problems with his spinal cord stimulator leads caused heart problems, pain, fainting and additional surgeries to remove the failed back pain implant.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Ethan Schwartz in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on May 28, naming Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturer, as the sole defendant.

Schwartz’s claim now joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued against Abbott and other manufacturers, each raising similar allegations that the leads may be prone to fail and cause severe injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Malfunction Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants designed to manage chronic pain. They are made of a small, battery-powered pulse generator that is placed under the skin, thin electrodes implanted near the spinal cord and connected to the generator, and a remote control for adjusting stimulation levels to maximize pain relief. Designed to be a permanent implant, spinal cord stimulators work by interfering with pain signals before they reach the brain.

For years, multiple medical device manufacturers have claimed that spinal cord stimulators are safe and effective. However, those assertions have come under doubt with a growing number of reports of device failures, worsening pain, electric shocks, problems with leads migrating out of position and other complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Problem Allegations

This recently filed lawsuit indicates Schwartz was surgically implanted with a permanent spinal cord stimulator in May 2018. While he first went through a trial period with a temporary implant to see if it worked, Schwartz indicates he was encouraged to overstate the effectiveness of the pain relief by a company sales representative, who said it would help get his insurance to cover the costs.

However, the permanent implant led to worsening pain, electric shocks, numbness in his extremities, fainting, atrial fibrillation and other heart problems.

In June of 2024, doctors determined that there were problems with the spinal cord stimulator leads and indicated the implant had to be surgically removed. During the surgery, doctors had to cut bones to remove the defective leads, and Schwartz suffered a cardiac event.

It was only after the surgery that Schwartz began to learn about the large number of spinal cord stimulator lead problems being experienced by users, which the complaint indicates the manufacturer intentionally downplayed to increase profits at the expense of patients.

“Abbott’s conduct was knowing, deliberate, and reckless. It knowingly placed a materially altered medical device into the stream of commerce, misrepresented its safety and approval status, and failed to correct known defects through regulatory pathways available under federal law.”

— Ethan Schwartz v. Abbott Laboratories

The lawsuit states that until he became aware of other patients’ problems, Schwartz thought his injuries were an aberration unique to himself.

Schwartz presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violation of consumer protection laws. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Lawsuits

The complaint may eventually be consolidated with similar spinal cord stimulator lead lawsuits being filed nationwide. In April, a group of plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all spinal cord stimulator claims involving Abbott and its competitor, Boston Scientific, before one judge in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

However, the manufacturers have asked the panel to reject the request, arguing that the various lawsuits do not identify a specific, common defect across multiple products, while also arguing that the litigation is too far along for consolidation to provide any benefits.

As more lawsuits are being filed against Abbott, Boston Scientific and other SCS manufacturers, spinal cord stimulator injury attorneys continue evaluating claims for individuals who experienced serious complications, including:

• Lead wire fractures or migration
• Painful electrical shocks or overstimulation
• Unexpected loss of pain relief
• Increased back pain or worsening nerve symptoms
• Revision procedures or surgical device removal
• Permanent nerve injuries
• Long-term spinal cord damage

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

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

A panel of federal judges has determined that a Missouri class action lawsuit at the center of a proposed $7.2 billion Roundup settlement agreement should be transferred from state court to the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), where it will be consolidated with thousands of other claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Over the past decade, Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have faced more than 120,000 Roundup lawsuits filed in federal and state courts nationwide, each involving former users of the controversial weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL).

The claims raise similar allegations that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Roundup exposure increased the risk of cancer, yet Monsanto concealed those risks from consumers to protect profits at the expense of public health.

The litigation has gone through years of legal maneuvers, in addition to several trials held in state and federal courts. In many of the trials, plaintiffs were awarded multimillion, and sometimes multibillion dollar verdicts, though some judges have reduced the largest of those.

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

Roundup NHL Settlement Agreement

In February, Monsanto announced that it had reached a $7.25 billion settlement agreement to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by Randall King, who seeks to pursue damages for individuals nationwide who have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after regular exposure to glyphosate contained in Roundup.

One month later, a Minnesota state court judge granted preliminary approval to the settlement plan, which is designed to resolve both current and future Roundup cancer claims.

On May 28, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional transfer order (PDF), sending the lawsuit at the center of the class action settlement to the Northern District of California. The case will be consolidated with thousands of other federal Roundup claims pending before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria as part of the MDL where coordinated pretrial proceedings are underway.

The transfer may make the proposed settlement more relevant to the broader litigation, since the class action will now proceed before the same judge overseeing the federal Roundup cancer lawsuits.

The proposed class settlement will pay declining capped annual payments over the next 21 years, totaling $7.25 billion. Bayer said immediate financing for the settlement and other litigation-related obligations would be secured through an $8 billion bank loan facility.

Roundup Settlement Opposed

Transferring the class action to the federal MDL makes it more likely that the agreement can be applied to other claims, and could help anchor a global settlement that resolves years of litigation. However, some plaintiffs have opposed the deal.

In April, a motion was filed in the Northern District of California calling for injunctive relief for plaintiffs whose Roundup cancer lawsuits were filed or transferred into the MDL.

The motion indicated that the Missouri judge’s approval of the deal should not affect cases in the MDL, arguing that the judge overstepped his authority by approving a class-wide agreement. Some plaintiffs also argue that the process for opting out was made intentionally complicated to dissuade plaintiffs and make it harder for those unsatisfied with the deal from overturning it.

The decision by the JPML to transfer that particular claim to the MDL works directly against that motion. Meanwhile, plaintiffs supporting the settlement claim they represent more than 60% of all Roundup lawsuit plaintiffs and allege that the firms calling for the injunctive relief represent less than 1% of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs supporting the deal have noted that the vast majority of claims have all been sent to Missouri state court in recent years following the bellwether trials, leaving only 250 Roundup cancer lawsuits in the federal MDL at this stage.

Bayer Seeks Lawsuit Immunity From Supreme Court

The decision comes about a month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Monsanto and Bayer should be granted immunity from litigation. The manufacturers claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Roundup and its label warnings preempt any failure to warn lawsuits, while plaintiffs argue the approval in no way blocks state courts from requiring stronger warning labels.

Numerous parties, including the federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general have filed briefs in support of Bayer’s call for immunity, following an intense, multi-state lobbying campaign.

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

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

A Florida man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a battery from a Bigniu electric bike sold by Amazon burst into flames while charging, causing severe burn injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Saul Santiago Hernandez in Florida Circuit Court last month, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Bigniu Technology Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida on June 1.

Hernandez alleges the Bigniu e-bike’s lithium-ion battery was defectively designed and that Amazon and Bigniu were negligent in allowing the product to be sold on the U.S. market.

Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks

Lithium-ion batteries have been linked to overheating and thermal runaway reactions in e-bikes and numerous other products in recent years. These incidents have led to fires, property damage, injuries and even deaths.

Thermal runaway occurs when a battery cell overheats and triggers a self-sustaining chain reaction, causing the temperature to rapidly increase. This process can lead to the battery catching fire or even exploding, particularly when multiple cells are involved.

The risks of thermal runaway are particularly high with low-quality lithium-ion products, which may use substandard materials or lack rigorous safety testing. These defects increase the likelihood of fires, explosions and severe injuries, which have resulted in numerous recalls and lawsuits.

Last month, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Alabama, where the plaintiff claims that the battery from a Rad Power e-bike caught fire while charging, causing a blaze that injured a woman and killed her husband. Rad Power e-bikes had previously been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in November 2025, following at least 30 fires and $700,000 in property damage.

Amazon E-Bike Battery Fire Allegations

This recent Amazon e-bike lawsuit indicates Hernandez purchased a Bigniu BG10 electric bike on May 10, 2024, through the popular retail website. On July 25, 2024, while charging the e-bike at his home in Boca Raton, Florida, the battery allegedly exploded, setting both Hernandez and the room on fire.

Hernandez required immediate medical attention and suffered serious and permanent burns and other injuries to his body.

The complaint alleges the defective design rendered the bike unreasonably dangerous for normal use. It also claims Bigniu and Amazon failed to properly test the battery before placing it on the market for sale and did not warn consumers of the potential risks.

“Defendant, Amazon, owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, monitor, and assure the quality of the subject E-Bike before placing the subject E-Bike into the stream of commerce.”

— Saul Santiago Hernandez v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against both Amazon and Bigniu. Hernandez is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of capacity to lead and enjoy normal life, mental and physical anguish, physical impairment and loss of income.

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

Federal health officials are warning consumers to avoid a growing number of skin lightening products found to contain mercury, hydroquinone or both ingredients, indicating the cosmetics may pose serious health risks and are being sold through major online marketplaces despite longstanding safety concerns.

In an FDA consumer alert announced on June 1, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that investigators and state health officials have identified numerous skin lightening, whitening, bleaching and brightening products that contain potentially harmful ingredients.

The products were found to be available through online retailers, including Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Walmart and other websites. They include African Queen Strong Bleaching Treatment, Omni Gold, Face Fresh Beauty Cream and others. A full list of affected brands can be found in the FDA alert.

The FDA warns that repeated use of products containing mercury or hydroquinone can result in the chemicals accumulating in the body, potentially leading to serious health complications affecting the nervous system, kidneys and other organs.

Skin Lightening Product Warnings

This is not the first time researchers have warned consumers about the dangers of skin lightening products. In 2023, a study highlighted the serious health risks that women of color face from ingredients in skin lightening products.

In addition, a CNN report from 2022 highlighted research showing that some skin lightening products contain dangerous levels of mercury. The report indicated that the FDA had monitored cases of mercury poisoning dating back to 2012. At the time, the California Department of Public Health had also received more than 60 reports of methyl mercury poisonings related to skin care products over the prior decade.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also issued a warning about skin bleaching products in 2019 after reviewing a case study involving a 47 year-old woman from Sacramento, California, who became comatose after reportedly using an imported skin lightening cream.

Skin Lightening Product Risks

Skin lightening products are often marketed as treatments for uneven skin tone, acne scars, age spots, freckles and wrinkles. They are commonly sold as creams, lotions, soaps and powders, and may be labeled as whitening, fading, brightening or evening products.

According to the FDA, mercury and hydroquinone work by reducing the skin’s production of melanin, the pigment responsible for skin color. However, exposure to either ingredient can result in adverse health effects, particularly when products are used repeatedly over long periods of time.

The agency warns that mercury exposure has been linked to neurological damage, kidney injury, mood changes, memory problems, numbness and tremors. Hydroquinone has also been associated with serious side effects, including skin irritation and ochronosis, a potentially permanent darkening and thickening of the skin.

“The longer and more frequently these products are used, the greater the risk of harm. Certain groups, including children and pregnant individuals, face heightened risks and should avoid exposure to these products.”

— U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Federal regulators note that no over-the-counter skin lightening products containing hydroquinone are approved for sale in the United States. While some prescription products contain hydroquinone under medical supervision, over-the-counter products marketed with the ingredient are considered unapproved drugs. Mercury is generally prohibited in cosmetic products.

As a result, the FDA recommends consumers carefully review product labels and avoid any skin lightening products listing ingredients such as mercury, mercurous chloride, calomel, mercuric compounds or hydroquinone. Consumers are also advised to avoid products with missing ingredient lists, labels written in foreign languages without English translations or products making exaggerated whitening claims.

Health officials indicate that many of the products identified were imported from overseas and sold through third-party online sellers, making enforcement efforts difficult. The agency encourages consumers who experience adverse reactions to contact a health care professional or the Poison Center at 1-800-222-1222, available 24 hours a day. 

The warning is part of the FDA’s ongoing “Skin Facts!” public education campaign, which aims to increase awareness about the risks associated with illegal skin lightening products and help consumers identify potentially dangerous ingredients before purchasing cosmetic products online.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

In addition to lightening skin, some women of color also use hair straighteners to better adhere to Western beauty standards. However, these products have been known to contain formaldehyde and other chemicals that have been linked to an increased risk of certain forms of reproductive cancer. As a result, a series of hair relaxer lawsuits have been brought against Dark and Lovely, Just for Me and other popular hair relaxer manufacturers in recent years.

Since the number of hair relaxer lawsuits has grown, all federal cases were centralized in 2023 before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL), streamlining discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Judge Rowland has since been managing coordinated litigation efforts involving claims that chemical hair straightening products increased users’ risk of developing cancer and other reproductive health problems.

The court is currently preparing 32 representative cases for a series of bellwether trials, which are designed to test how juries may respond to common evidence and legal arguments expected to be repeated throughout the litigation. Although the outcomes will apply only to the individual plaintiffs involved, the trials are expected to provide valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses. These findings could help guide future hair relaxer cancer lawsuit settlement discussions.

If the parties are unable to reach a global resolution following the bellwether process and completion of pretrial proceedings, cases that remain unresolved may ultimately be returned to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trials.

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

Two men pursuing sports betting addiction lawsuits against FanDuel and DraftKings have updated their complaints to include additional state-law claims against the sportsbooks for intentionally marketing their products toward people with signs of problem gambling.

Originally filed in March, the FanDuel and DraftKings lawsuits were brought on behalf of Daniel Arroyo and Yanos Tewolde in Massachusetts Superior Court. The complaints named DraftKings Inc., Crown MA Gaming LLC, Flutter Entertainment PLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC and FanDuel Inc. as defendants.

Arroyo and Tewolde allege that, after placing small bets on DraftKings and FanDuel, they were targeted and encouraged to wager financially damaging amounts of money on the platforms, even after the sites’ algorithms detected they were potential problem gamblers.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction

FanDuel and DraftKings are only two of many online sports betting apps and websites that have risen to prominence after the U.S. Supreme Court made it legal for states to allow sports gambling. As states continue to legalize the practice one by one, sportsbook wagering has exploded, particularly among young people who are comfortable with digital payments through mobile apps on their smart devices. 

However, according to various plaintiffs nationwide, that growth has been fueled by platforms that take advantage of consumers through the use of aggressive promotions and data-driven algorithms that track behavior and tailor incentives to encourage more frequent and higher wagers.

As a result, a growing number of FanDuel and DraftKings gambling addiction lawsuits have been filed claiming that the platforms intentionally encourage compulsive and self-destructive gambling to raise their profit margins.

Online Gambling Marketing Allegations

Arroyo and Tewolde’s lawsuits indicate both started using the sites in 2023 and soon racked up significant debt and signs of gambling addiction. Once their gambling habits were noticed, instead of warning them, they say the websites exploited them.

The men began receiving special promotions, gambling credits, and were even assigned personal “VIP Managers” who offered them tailored promotions.

The original complaints presented claims for failure to warn, defective design, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. However, on May 15, both Arroyo (PDF) and Tewolde (PDF) submitted amended complaints that added a new claim for Unfair or Deceptive Practices under Massachusetts consumer protection law, alleging the companies recklessly marketed their services to problem gamblers.

The amended complaints indicate the plaintiffs sent the defendants written demand letters on April 8, 2026, as required under Massachusetts law before pursuing the unfair trade practices claims. The letters gave the companies 30 days to respond with a reasonable settlement offer, but the plaintiffs say no reasonable response was provided, clearing the way for the new claims.

As part of the expanded request for relief, Arroyo and Tewolde are now seeking double or treble damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. Double or treble damages are a severe statutory penalty available under Massachusetts law when consumer violations are proven to be willful or knowing.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Sports betting addiction lawyers anticipate that thousands of similar lawsuits will be filed in the coming months and years by consumers nationwide who have found themselves facing severe financial losses due to predatory algorithms and promotions used by FanDuel, DraftKings and similar online sportsbooks.

Sportsbook gambling addiction lawsuits are being investigated nationwide, focusing on whether the apps intentionally foster compulsive gambling in order to profit from gamblers’ addictions. Platforms named in various sportsbook lawsuits and investigations include:

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

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Roblox Corporation built one of the world’s most popular online gaming platforms for young users while misleading parents about the strength of its safety protections, leaving minors exposed to predators, sexual content and exploitation.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a minor identified as AW-0010, through her proposed court-appointed guardian, AW-GAL-0010. Roblox Corporation and Snap Inc. are named as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim Roblox repeatedly marketed itself as a safe, family-friendly online environment, despite knowing that inadequate moderation systems and weak account protections allowed adults to regularly communicate with minors on the platform.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox, which says it attracts about 150 million daily active users worldwide, has become one of the most popular online gaming and social hubs for children and teenagers. Users can create customizable avatars, communicate through text and voice chat features, and access millions of games created by other users.

For years, consumer watchdogs and child safety advocates have warned that Roblox may allow sexual predators to identify, contact and groom minors. Critics have raised particular concerns about whether its messaging and voice communication features permit adults to interact directly with young users without sufficient monitoring, identity checks or age verification safeguards.

Those concerns have now led to approximately 150 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits being filed in federal courts nationwide. The complaints generally accuse the company of failing to adopt sufficient protections to prevent adults from posing as minors, communicating with children through the service and engaging in predatory behavior or inappropriate interactions.

According to the lawsuits, those alleged failures have contributed to incidents involving online grooming, coercion, the exchange of explicit images involving minors and extortion. Some complaints also include allegations involving sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.

Roblox Sexual Predator Allegations

In this recently filed lawsuit, AW-0010 claims she started playing Roblox at the age of 12, when she was targeted by an adult predator who claimed to be a 17-year-old boy. The predator allegedly convinced the girl to run away from her aunt’s home to meet him in person, at which point, she was forced to engage in sexual acts with him.

The following year, a different adult predator, who was a 50-year-old man posing as a minor on the Roblox platform, convinced AW-0010 to send him explicit photos through Snapchat.

The filing contends that Roblox spent years assuring parents the platform was a safe “virtual playground” where children could “safely interact, create, have fun, and learn,” while executives publicly promoted the company’s safety systems and parental controls. However, AW-0010 and her guardian claim those statements were deceptive because Roblox allegedly failed to implement basic safeguards widely used by other platforms aimed at children.

The complaint alleges Roblox knowingly allowed children and adults to communicate without meaningful age verification, while also making it easy for users to create anonymous accounts in less than a minute. Plaintiffs claim the company avoided requiring names, email addresses or verifiable parental consent during sign-up in order to accelerate user growth and avoid friction that could reduce engagement.

The lawsuit further claims Roblox executives rejected simple safety measures that could have limited predator activity, including stronger account verification tools, pop-up safety warnings and systems designed to block repeat offenders from creating multiple accounts.

Plaintiffs also allege Roblox’s virtual currency system, known as Robux, created opportunities for predators to manipulate children by offering digital rewards in exchange for inappropriate conduct or communications. The complaint cites reports indicating some children told strangers they would do “anything for Robux.”

“Plaintiff has suffered profound harm as a direct result of the grooming, manipulation, and sexual exploitation she experienced through Defendants’ apps.”

— AW-0010 v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, design defect, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks past, present and future general, economic and special damages.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

Late last year, the increasing number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial management.

As the proceedings move forward, the court is expected to establish a bellwether program involving a small selection of representative lawsuits prepared for early trial dates. Those cases are intended to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to recurring evidence and allegations expected to arise throughout the broader litigation.

Although the results of bellwether trials will not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they often play a significant role in shaping future settlement discussions by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the competing claims and defenses.

In an effort to accelerate potential resolutions, plaintiffs earlier this year requested that the court appoint a special master to oversee preliminary Roblox settlement discussions. If successful, those negotiations could allow children and young adults to resolve claims without enduring years of ongoing litigation.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers continue to investigate cases involving children allegedly harmed through interactions on the platform. Attorneys reviewing potential claims are offering free and confidential case evaluations, with no attorney fees or upfront costs unless compensation is recovered.

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

A federal judge has cleared the way for a lawsuit over LINX device complications to go before a jury in two years, involving a woman’s claims that the recalled acid reflux implant was defectively designed and that the manufacturer knew about the risks.

The original LINX device lawsuit was filed by Janet Wingett in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in February 2026, pursuing claims against Torax Medical Inc. and Ethicon Inc., who are named as the defendants. The complaint accuses the manufacturers of selling a defectively designed LINX device without adequate warnings, and failing to fully remove the implants from the market after a recall was announced.

LINX Device Injury Risks

First released by Torax in 2017, the LINX Reflux Management System consisted of a small ring of magnetic beads connected by titanium wires. The devices were designed to be implanted around the lower esophageal sphincter to prevent stomach acid from flowing back into the esophagus, as a treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD.

While originally marketed as safe for patients, reports began to emerge of LINX device complications where the magnetic beads had become disconnected from the titanium wires. As the reports continued to mount, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that the LINX device problems were likely the result of a manufacturing defect that could lead to the damage of nearby organs, the need for revision surgery and other adverse health effects. 

Amid the growing number of adverse events, Torax ultimately announced a LINX device recall in May 2018. However, Wingett is one of several individuals pursuing LINX device complication lawsuits, each raising similar claims that the implant can break inside the body, leading to serious injury risks.

LINX Device Trial

In a pretrial scheduling order (PDF) released last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright instructed the parties to prepare the case for trial by May 12, 2028. She directed the parties to narrow disputed issues where possible, cooperate in good faith during discovery and keep the court informed of any developments that could affect the schedule as the litigation moves forward.

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

— U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright

The scheduling order sets a series of key deadlines the parties must meet in preparation for the trial, with fact discovery to be completed by July 14, 2027. Expert discovery is scheduled to be concluded by November 12, 2027, with all non-dispositive motions relating to expert discovery due by November 30 of that same year.

Judge Wright also indicated that the parties may be required to hold settlement negotiations before the trial to see if it can be resolved beforehand. If there is no resolution and the lawsuit goes before a jury as planned, the trial is expected to last only three days.

LINX Device Complications Lawsuits

Even though the LINX device was recalled in 2018, it was still for sale in some foreign markets until September 2025, raising questions as to how many additional patients will experience complications in the years to come.

Due to the seriousness of the reported problems, attorneys are reviewing LINX injury claims and pursuing compensation for those who experienced complications, including:

• The need for revision surgery or removal of the device
• Device breakage or mechanical failure
• Migration of the implant
• Organ punctures or tissue damage

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