A Wisconsin woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging that she developed a meningioma from Depo-Provera birth control injections received for only two years in the mid-1990s, but the brain tumor was not discovered until nearly three decades later.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jodine Ann Becker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 12, naming Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & UpJohn Co. LLC as the defendants.

Becker alleges that Depo-Provera birth control injections she received from 1995 to 1997 caused an intracranial meningioma that remained undetected until she developed vertigo, dizziness, hearing and vision loss in 2024.

Depo Shot Meningioma Risks

Depo-Provera, originally approved in 1992, is a hormonal birth control injection that contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. Developed by Pfizer Inc. and later released in generic form, it is advertised as being able to prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to block sperm, and thinning the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Administered by a healthcare provider every three months and requiring only four injections per year, the “Depo shot” has been used by tens of millions of women over the last several decades.

In March 2024, however, a French study published in The BMJ warned 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.

These findings have led to a growing amount of litigation in which women have filed Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits against Pfizer and generic manufacturers, indicating they 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 Allegations

Becker indicates she first began receiving Depo-Provera injections in 1995, and only continued receiving the shots until 1997. For years she experienced no obvious symptoms linking the drug to any health problems.

The lawsuit claims Becker was unaware that since her injections, a meningioma tumor had been growing in her brain, undetected until 29 years later, in 2024. That year, she began experiencing vertigo, dizziness, hearing and vision loss, and the onset of menstrual irregularities.

An MRI scan revealed that she had an intracranial meningioma, which the lawsuit blames on the Depo-Provera injections from the 90s. Until the publication of the French study, Becker states she had no idea the birth control shots increased her risk of developing a brain tumor.

Becker’s lawsuit notes that, as a result, she will have to undergo medical monitoring for the rest of her life and may require brain surgery to remove the tumor if it continues to grow and becomes a danger.

“Due to the sensitive location of an intracranial meningioma immediately proximate to critical neurovascular structures and the cortical area, surgery can have severe neurological consequences. Many studies have described the potential for postoperative anxiety and depression and an attendant high intake of sedatives and antidepressants in the postoperative period.”

– Jodine Becker v. Pfizer Inc. et al.

Becker 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 severe physical pain, mental suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, as well as past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar claims filed in federal courts nationwide in the Northern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is leading the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rodgers has ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases for early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will give the parties the opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, before such trials can begin, Judge Rodgers must determine whether plaintiffs’ expert witnesses are using reliable scientific evidence to link Depo-Provera to brain tumor development. Those hearings are slated to be held from June 24 to June 26.

If the judge allows the litigation to proceed, the first bellwether trials are scheduled to begin in December. If the bellwether trials conclude without a settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Rodgers will likely begin remanding cases back to their originating districts to be prepared for individual trials.

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

A coalition of child safety and consumer advocacy organizations are urging federal regulators to launch a Roblox investigation, alleging the popular online gaming platform uses addictive design features, exposes children to sexual exploitation risks and misleads parents about the effectiveness of its safety protections.

The groups, which include Fairplay, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and organizations tied to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation movement, submitted a formal complaint (PDF) on May 20, asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to launch an investigation into Roblox’s business practices.

Roblox Child Exploitation Risks

Roblox, which reports roughly 150 million daily users worldwide, is one of the most widely used gaming and social platforms among children and teenagers. The platform allows users to create avatars, interact through voice and text chat, as well as play millions of user-generated games.

However, consumer advocates and child safety organizations have raised concerns for years that Roblox provides sexual predators with a direct avenue to contact and groom young users. Critics have also raised concerns that voice chat and private messaging features may allow adults to communicate directly with minors with insufficient oversight or age verification.  

Those concerns have now resulted in roughly 150 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country. The complaints broadly allege that Roblox failed to implement sufficient safeguards to stop adults from impersonating minors and communicating with children through the platform, allegedly exposing young users to predatory and inappropriate conduct.

The failures have allegedly contributed to incidents involving online grooming, manipulation, the solicitation and sharing of explicit images involving minors, blackmail and, in some cases, claims of sexual assault, abduction and human trafficking.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

According to the advocacy groups, Roblox’s design prioritizes user engagement and spending over child safety, creating an environment where minors may be exposed to grooming, sexual content and predatory interactions.

The complaint also raises concerns about the platform’s use of Robux, Roblox’s in-game currency, alleging the company uses manipulative design features that pressure children into making purchases and spending more time on the platform.

The groups contend Roblox may be violating federal consumer protection laws and children’s online privacy protections by allegedly misleading parents about platform safety and failing to adequately safeguard minors from exploitation.

The push for a federal investigation comes as Roblox continues to face mounting scrutiny from lawmakers, researchers and families over reports of child exploitation and harmful interactions occurring on the platform.

Roblox has denied the allegations raised by the advocacy groups, stating that it invests heavily in safety tools, moderation systems and parental controls intended to protect younger users. However, many of the platform’s most significant child safety updates were only introduced recently, including expanded age-verification measures and tighter restrictions on communication features available to children.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

Late last year, the growing number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system were centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of the litigation, the court is expected to organize a bellwether process involving a small group of representative cases selected for early trial dates. Those proceedings are intended to help both sides gauge how juries may respond to evidence and allegations that are expected to recur throughout the litigation.

While the outcomes of those bellwether trials will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they are likely to influence future settlement negotiations by giving the parties insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses. 

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

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers are continuing to review potential cases on behalf of families who believe children were harmed through interactions on the platform. Case evaluations are free and confidential, with no costs unless compensation is recovered.

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

The daughter of a California woman who died from severe burn injuries has filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that defective rechargeable hand warmers sold on Amazon suddenly ignited while her mother was using them in bed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Felicia Tan in Santa Clara County Superior Court on May 18, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Ocoopa Innovations LLC as defendants. 

Tan claims the companies defectively designed and manufactured the battery-powered products and continued marketing them despite customer reviews, complaints and other reports warning that the hand warmers could overheat and catch fire.

Amazon Product Burn Injury Lawsuits

Rechargeable hand warmers are battery-powered devices designed to provide portable heat in cold weather. Many use lithium-ion batteries, which can overheat, ignite or enter thermal runaway if the product is defectively designed, manufactured or lacks adequate safety protections.

Tan’s lawsuit adds to a broader wave of claims involving rechargeable warming products, where plaintiffs allege battery-powered devices meant to provide comfort instead caused fires, severe burns, nerve injuries and other lasting harm. Recent heated insole lawsuits have raised similar allegations, claiming inadequate safeguards allowed the products to overheat while being worn.

Many of the claims focus on Amazon’s role in selling and distributing these products, with several complaints alleging the online retailer helped place allegedly dangerous battery-powered warming devices into consumers’ hands.

Hand Warmer Fire Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Tan’s mother, Sri Damajanti Sunarjo, was using Ocoopa Quick Charge rechargeable hand warmers in her bed at her Santa Clara County home on the morning of February 11, 2026, when the devices unexpectedly ignited and caught fire. She suffered severe thermal injuries and died on February 16, 2026.

The complaint indicates the Ocoopa Quick Charge hand warmers were purchased through Amazon on December 18, 2023, for Sunarjo’s use. Tan alleges the devices were defective because they ignited during foreseeable use and failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.

Tan also points to safety assurances made by both companies. Amazon states on its website that it uses technology and continuous store monitoring to detect and prevent unsafe products, while Ocoopa advertised that its products were “rigorously tested for daily use” and provided “certified safety that you can trust.”

However, the lawsuit alleges Amazon and Ocoopa knew or should have known the hand warmers posed a risk of fire, injury and property damage based on customer reviews, complaints and other reports involving the product and similarly designed devices. Despite those warnings, Tan claims the companies failed to recall the hand warmers, strengthen the safety warnings or take other steps to protect consumers.

“At all times herein mentioned, the above-described HANDWARMERS were defective by reason of defects in the manufacture, in that the performance of the HANDWARMERS differed from their design or specifications, and further differed from the intended performance of typical units of the same product line, in that they spontaneously caught fire when being used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.”

— Felicia Tan v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The complaint raises claims for strict products liability involving manufacturing and design defects, negligence, wrongful death and post-sale negligence. Tan seeks general and special damages for the loss of her mother’s care, comfort and companionship, as well as funeral and burial expenses and other economic and noneconomic losses.

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

A New York man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging he suffered corneal injuries and permanent vision issues after a metal bristle detached from a Weber grill brush while he was barbecuing.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Bruce Lynch in the U.S. District Court of New York on May 18, naming Weber-Stephen Products LLC, Weber Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC as defendants.

Lynch claims a metal bristle detached from the brush during normal use and flew off the grill, stabbing him in the eye. He required medical treatment for severe eye injuries, including permanent damage to his vision.

Weber Grill Brush Recall 

Weber Grill brushes are used to clean hot barbecue grills and other cooking equipment. They are made with plastic or wooden handles and metal bristle wires. However, in recent years dozens of injuries have been linked to the brushes’ allegedly faulty design.

Consumers and the manufacturer have reported that the bristles may detach from the brush head during normal use and stick to the grill. The loose bristles can then transfer to food, creating a risk of ingestion and internal injury.

Following consumer complaints, a massive Weber grill brush recall was issued in February 2026, removing more than 3.2 million grill brushes from the market. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) indicated it had received nearly 40 reports of injuries linked to the recalled grill brushes.

Weber Grill Brush Injury Allegations

The complaint indicates Lynch purchased a Weber grill brush from Amazon in April 2020 and began using it as directed to clean his barbecue grill. In April 2023, while using the brush as intended, a metal bristle allegedly detached from the brush head and entered the grill area. As Lynch removed food from the barbecue, the bristle struck his right eye and pierced his cornea.

Lynch sought treatment from a local ophthalmologist, who removed the metal bristle from his eye and treated him with antibiotic and steroid drops.

During follow up visits, the doctor also removed rust left by the metal and diagnosed him with corneal injury and permanent scarring. Lynch continues to suffer from eye pain, reduced and blurred vision, corneal scarring, difficulty driving, burning in the eye, sensitivity to light, difficulty reading, sleep disruption, headaches, tearing and anxiety.

Following his injury, Lynch received an automated email from Amazon on February 26, 2026, indicating a recall had been issued for Weber grill brushes.

The lawsuit alleges Weber should have known of the product defect yet placed the grill brushes into the stream of commerce, despite the foreseeable risk of injury. Moreover, Lynch claims Weber waited until there were 38 documented reports of injury before issuing a recall. The recall was issued after Lynch suffered injuries.

“Unbeknownst to the general public, and to the Plaintiff in particular, consumers have been complaining to Weber, to retailers, and to government safety agencies for years prior to the sale of the particular product at issue here, and the possibility of consequences like Plaintiff’s resulting injury, without any action or warning on the part of Weber Defendants or their retailers.”

— Bruce Lynch v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC

Lynch raises allegations of strict products liability, manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and violation of various New York state laws. He seeks relief for medical expenses, pain and suffering, economic losses and punitive damages.

Weber Grill Brush Lawsuits

Following the CPSC recall, a number of Weber Grill Brush lawsuits have been filed in courts nationwide over various injury claims.

The litigation includes at least one incident involving an infant who allegedly swallowed a metal bristle that detached from a brush and lodged in his food. The child required immediate medical intervention and ongoing medical treatment.

A separate product liability lawsuit was brought by a Florida man after a metal bristle from a Weber grill brush punctured his intestine, resulting in the need for emergency bowel resection surgery.

In many cases, plaintiffs allege that Weber knew about the danger of bristles detaching from brushes, yet the company failed to disclose the risk or issue a timely recall to prevent additional injuries from occurring.

In addition to personal injury claims, a Weber grill brush class action lawsuit was brought in March as a result of the wire grill brushes’ design defects.

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

Federal regulators have issued a warning involving Abiomed Impella heart pump controllers, indicating that a software malfunction may cause certain devices to unexpectedly restart during treatment, potentially interrupting life-sustaining cardiac support for critically ill patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the Impella heart pump early alert on May 21, stating that the issue affects certain Automated Impella Controllers (AICs) used with left ventricular Impella heart pumps.

As of April 27, Abiomed had reported at least two serious injuries and one death potentially associated with the malfunction.

Impella Heart Pump Recalls

Impella devices are temporary mechanical heart pumps used to support blood circulation in patients experiencing cardiogenic shock or undergoing certain high-risk cardiac procedures. The systems are designed to reduce the workload on the heart and maintain blood flow while the heart recovers.

However, the new warning follows a series of FDA safety alerts and recalls involving Impella heart pumps in recent years, with regulators raising concerns about reduced patient survival, heart injuries and dangerous blood clots.

In 2023, the FDA issued a Class I recall for Impella Left Sided Blood Pumps, the agency’s most serious recall designation, after reports linked the devices to perforations of the heart ventricle. Federal regulators indicated the issue had been associated with at least 129 injuries and 49 deaths.

Later that year, another Impella recall was announced for Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist systems due to purge fluid leaks that could cause device malfunctions, heart valve damage and other serious complications, following 179 reported incidents.

The FDA also announced a Class I recall for Impella RP Flex catheter systems in June of that year, warning that inadequate instructions regarding blood clot risks could expose patients to potentially life-threatening complications. Regulators said the issue had already been tied to at least 12 reported injuries.

In the wake of these and other recalls, attorneys nationwide have begun investigating potential Impella heart pump lawsuits on behalf of patients and families who allege Abiomed knew or should have known about the risks associated with the devices, yet failed to take adequate action to protect users.

Impella Controller Malfunction Risks

According to the FDA, Abiomed sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall correction notice to healthcare providers on May 14, warning that a software issue in some AIC devices may force the controller to reboot under certain conditions.

The correction notice indicates that during a controller restart for the affected devices, the screen may suddenly turn black and the Impella pump can stop functioning for approximately 35 seconds, leaving patients temporarily without circulatory support. During that time, blood regurgitation through the cannula could also occur.

This issue affects the following products:

• Impella Controller, Packaged, US, Product Code: 0042-0000-US, UDI-DI: 00813502010022
• Impella Optical Controller, Packaged, US, Product Code: 0042-0010-US, UDI-DI: 00813502010985
• Optical, AIC, Impella Controller, Pkgd, US, Product Code: 0042-0040-US, UDI-DI: 00813502011401

The problem may occur when a patient supported by a left ventricular Impella device experiences more than 80 minutes of minimal pulsatility, followed by a sudden change in ventricular pressure while the system is operating above support level P-3. Under those circumstances, an internal software error may trigger the AIC to restart.

Replacing the controller with another unit does not resolve the issue since the malfunction is tied to the software behavior itself. Abiomed is reportedly developing a software update intended to address the problem.

The FDA emphasized that the affected controllers are not currently being removed from hospitals or the marketplace, and facilities may continue using the devices while following the updated instructions provided by Abiomed.

U.S. customers who experience adverse events, product quality issues or have questions related to the warning are encouraged to contact Abiomed at OneMD-Field-Actions@its.jnj.com. Healthcare providers and consumers can also report adverse events or quality problems to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Impella Heart Pump Lawsuits

As the number of Impella recalls and FDA safety warnings continues to grow, Impella heart pump recall lawyers are reviewing potential claims for patients who experienced serious complications after receiving the heart pump devices, including:

Attorneys offer free consultations and case evaluations to help patients and families determine whether they may qualify for financial compensation through a product liability lawsuit or settlement claim.

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

A Georgia woman has filed a lawsuit claiming she has suffered permanent vision loss due to the side effects of Mounjaro, which she indicates caused her to develop a rare condition that starves the optic nerves of blood, known as NAION or non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.

Nancy Silverthorn Tomlinson brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 11. She names Eli Lilly Company and Lilly USA LLC as the defendants, arguing that the manufacturers failed in their duty to provide adequate warnings about the risks of Mounjaro injections.

Mounjaro (tirzepatide) is a Type 2 diabetes drug belonging to a class of medications known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which includes other treatments like Ozempic, Trulicity, Rybelsus, Saxenda and Victoza, as well as weight loss drugs such as Zepbound (a different formulation of tirzepatide) and Wegovy.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Concerns

The class of medications has become widely popular in recent years, due to the discovery that they can cause significant weight loss, combating harmful metabolic problems. However, as the drugs have seen a rapid rise in use, they have also been linked to additional GLP-1 side effects that were not originally listed on the drugs’ labels, including cases of stomach paralysis and bowel obstruction due to their gastric-emptying delaying process, as well as the potential for vision loss.

Concerns about vision loss first arose in June 2024, with the publication of a study linking GLP-1 use to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), which can damage the optic nerves by cutting off blood flow. This can result in problems ranging from blurred vision to blindness. Effects of NAION can appear suddenly, resulting in rapid onset vision loss that is often permanent and irreversible.

Following the publication of the study, which found a seven-fold increase of NAION linked primarily to use of the GLP-1 medications Ozempic and Wegovy, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have faced a growing number of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits. Many of these filings claim that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the vision loss risks, yet decided to place profits over patient safety and refused to warn users about the potential risks.

Mounjaro NAION Alegations

Tomlinson’s lawsuit indicates she was prescribed Mounjaro for the treatment of diabetes in July 2023, and continued to take the injections until October 2025. According to the lawsuit, her use of the drug led to the development of NAION, which caused her to suffer loss of vision.

The lawsuit accuses Eli Lilly of being aware of this risk long before the drug was prescribed to Tomlinson. She argues that had she or her doctor been warned of the potential side effects they could have chosen to give her another treatment, or at least could have been on the lookout early for potential vision problems that could have led to her quick removal from the drug and a lessening of NAION impacts.

“Defendants knew or should have known of the causal association between the use of Mounjaro and the risk of developing NAION and its sequelae, but they ignored it. Defendants’ actual and constructive knowledge derived from their clinical studies, adverse events reports made to them, and medical literature, including the epidemiological studies, and case reports referenced in this Complaint.”

– Nancy Tomlinson v. Eli Lilly et al.

The lawsuit notes that Eli Lilly was aware that the human eye contains GLP-1 receptors and could be affected by the drug since 2016. Despite having this information years before the 2024 study, Tomlinson notes that the company did not update its label warnings or pursue further information to ensure the medication was safe.

Even before that, the complaint notes that reports filed with the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) linked incidents of “optic ischemic neuropathy” to GLP-1 use as early as 2012. These reports indicated an association between GLP-1 drugs and NAION that far exceeded its association with other diabetes or weight loss drugs, Tomlinson states.

This is in addition to 14 different case report studies of patients who suffered NAION after beginning GLP-1 use. In some cases patients were taken off of GLP-1s, causing their vision loss progression to slow down, only to speed up once they began receiving the injections again.

As recently as last month, Veterans’ Affairs researchers published a study in the journal JAMA Open Network, revealing they detected a 35% increased risk of NAION among GLP-1 users when compared to those taking older diabetes medications like Invokana and Januvia.

Tomlinson presents claims of failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability misrepresentation, negligent design, design defect, negligence, negligent undertaking. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

The complaint joins dozens of similar GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, which are currently consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

To bring the court up to speed on the complex science behind the litigation, Judge Marston has scheduled a “Science Day” for June 2, 2026, which will involve non-adversarial presentations on the alleged links between GLP-1 medications and NAION.

Eventually, Judge Marston is expected to order the parties to prepare a small group of representative cases for a series of early “bellwether” trials, designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

Judge Marston is also overseeing a separate MDL involving all federal GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits on a separate, but parallel track. This litigation, which is significantly further along than the NAION claims, already involves more than 3,000 lawsuits over links between the medications and a condition known as gastroparesis, which is commonly known as stomach paralysis, and bowel obstruction.

The judge has indicated she plans to hold a series of bellwether trials involving these cases as well, though they are expected to go before juries long before the NAION claims are ready, and are likely to work as a guide for those lawsuits.

Once the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings have concluded, if the parties have failed to reach a settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Marston is expected to begin remanding the cases back to their originating districts so they can be scheduled 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 Wisconsin man has brought a product liability lawsuit alleging that defects in C.R. Bard’s Ventralex Patch caused recurrent hernias, chronic abdominal pain and the need for revision surgery after the umbilical hernia mesh failed to perform as intended.

Chad Fonseca originally filed the complaint (PDF) in New Jersey Superior Court on May 13, naming C.R. Bard Inc. as the sole defendant. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey the next day.

Fonseca claims that C.R. Bard designed, manufactured and marketed the Ventralex Hernia Patch as a safe and effective treatment for umbilical hernias, despite longstanding evidence that polypropylene mesh can degrade, contract and trigger chronic inflammatory reactions.

He goes on to allege that the company obtained clearance to market the device through the FDA’s 510(k) process, which allows manufacturers to sell products deemed substantially equivalent to earlier devices without requiring clinical trials demonstrating safety or effectiveness.

Hernia Mesh Risks

Hernia mesh products are implantable medical devices used to reinforce weakened abdominal tissue and reduce the risk of hernia recurrence.

The Ventralex Hernia Patch consists of layers of heavyweight polypropylene mesh attached to a sheet of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), with straps and a memory ring designed to help position the device during surgery. However, critics claim that polypropylene is not biologically inert and can provoke immune responses that lead to adhesions, infections, chronic inflammation, erosion, shrinkage and persistent pain, which may result in the need for surgical removal.

Fonseca’s Ventralex patch lawsuit joins thousands of hernia mesh complaints filed over the past decade, each alleging that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with polypropylene implants like the Ventralex system.

Umbilical Hernia Mesh Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Fonseca underwent umbilical hernia repair surgery on July 23, 2019, at the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center, where surgeons implanted a Bard Ventralex Hernia Patch.

Nearly six years later, on March 27, 2025, Fonseca required additional surgery at Westfields Hospital in New Richmond, Wisconsin, after his umbilical hernia recurred. During the procedure, surgeons found that the edge of the mesh had herniated and become adherent to the underside of his umbilical stalk, which is a part of the body anchored to the abdominal wall. The lawsuit indicates the device was completely removed and replaced with a new mesh implant.

Medical records cited in the complaint indicate that Fonseca continued to experience abdominal pain, tearing sensations and swelling following the revision procedure. He alleges that the umbilical hernia mesh caused permanent injuries, chronic pain, recurrent hernias and other complications that have impaired his daily activities and may require additional treatment in the future.

The Ventralex patch lawsuit contends Bard knew or should have known that its polypropylene hernia mesh products were prone to shrinkage, degradation, chronic inflammation, adhesions and hernia recurrence, yet failed to adequately test the devices or warn physicians and patients about the true risks.

“Defendant failed to provide warnings that would have dissuaded health care professionals from using their Hernia Mesh devices, including the Ventralex Hernia Patch, thus preventing health care professionals and consumers, including Plaintiff, from weighing the true risks against the benefits of using the products.”

— Chad Fonseca v. C.R. Bard Inc.

Fonseca raises allegations of strict liability—failure to warn. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost income and other economic and noneconomic losses.

Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Since 2018, C.R. Bard has been named in more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits involving a range of products, including the Ventralex, Ventralight, PerFix Plug and 3DMax systems. Plaintiffs allege that design defects have caused chronic pain, infections, adhesions, recurrent hernias and the need for additional surgeries.

On October 2, 2025, Bard announced a sweeping settlement agreement intended to resolve tens of thousands of these claims, with compensation expected to be distributed over the next five to six years. However, because many patients still have Bard hernia mesh implants in place that have recently failed or may fail in the future, new lawsuits continue to be filed.

More than two dozen new Bard hernia mesh complaints have been submitted since the settlement was announced, indicating that while the agreement has significantly slowed the pace of new filings, the litigation continues to grow as additional individuals report complications associated with polypropylene mesh products sold over the last several decades.

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

A California dentist has filed a product liability lawsuit, claiming he was implanted with a Boston Scientific urinary sphincter that suffered a “catastrophic failure” due to a defective design, causing severe pain and urinary incontinence.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Malek Mansour in California state court on January 6, naming Boston Scientific Corporation as the defendant, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 8.

The lawsuit involves the Boston Scientific AMS 800 Artificial Urinary Sphincter, a fluid-filled implant first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2015, to help men control urine flow after prostate surgery or other conditions that weaken the urinary sphincter. The device is designed to keep pressure around the urethra to prevent leakage, then temporarily open when the user activates a small pump to urinate.

According to the complaint, the AMS 800 system includes a pressure-regulating balloon, a cuff placed around the bladder neck or urethra, and a soft pump implanted in the scrotum. When the pump is squeezed, fluid moves out of the cuff, allowing urine to pass. Afterward, the cuff refills and closes again to restore continence.

Boston Scientific Urinary Sphincter Lawsuit

Mansour’s lawsuit states that he was first implanted with the AMS 800 in May 2019, and was told that the device was expected to function for at least 10 years.

“Less than three years after Plaintiff underwent the surgical implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter at Keck Hospital of USC in Los Angeles, California, the implanted device failed catastrophically, causing severe urinary incontinence, pain and distress.”

– Malek Mansour v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

Due to the device failure, Mansour had to undergo revision surgery in January 2023 to remove and replace the implant. However, the lawsuit states that he was not told the device was known to have a high failure rate, which Mansour claims Boston Scientific knew about, but decided not to warn the medical community or patients undergoing the procedure.

Clinical research from the Keck School of Medicine allegedly shows that the problems are with the urethral cuff, which is smaller than similar devices. A 2019 study indicated the cuff was more than seven times more likely to fail when compared to similar devices.

As a result of his injuries, Mansour indicates he suffered significant physical pain, emotional distress, major changes to daily activities and had to cancel a prepaid vacation due to the device failure. The filing states he will continue to accrue medical expenses and experience physical and mental pain and suffering into the future.

The lawsuit presents claims of design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and unlawful business practices. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, and is also calling for injunctive relief by forcing the device to carry the appropriate warnings or design changes.

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

A Texas couple has filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging that a defective 2024 Chevrolet Blazer unexpectedly rolled backward and ran over the woman as she was getting out of their SUV.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cynthia Escew and Guy Eskew in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 13, naming General Motors LLC as the defendant.

The Escews allege that Cynthia suffered a traumatic brain injury, spinal fractures, multiple broken bones and severe internal injuries after the Chevrolet Blazer began rolling backward without warning, struck her and continued traveling for hundreds of feet. They claim the incident left her with respiratory failure and other serious complications.

A vehicle rollaway incident occurs when a parked vehicle begins moving after the driver believes it has been properly secured. This may happen because the transmission was not fully shifted into park, the parking system failed to engage, or the vehicle’s electronic systems inaccurately indicated that it was safely parked.

These incidents often occur as drivers exit the vehicle, or while passengers are entering, unloading or standing nearby. Rollaway events can cause vehicles to strike pedestrians, other vehicles or structures, and have been linked to defects involving confusing gear selectors, faulty shift mechanisms and park detection systems that fail to function as intended.

Chevy Blazer Rollaway Allegations

The Eskews allege that on June 3, 2024, Cynthia opened the driver side door and partially exited their 2024 Chevrolet Blazer when, suddenly and without warning, the vehicle began to roll backward, struck her and continued rolling for hundreds of feet.

According to the complaint, the woman suffered a catastrophic brain injury, spinal fractures and other severe internal injuries, requiring extensive medical treatment and resulting in long term complications.

The lawsuit claims the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous due to defects in the parking and braking systems, including allegations that the shifter could enter a “false park” condition where drivers believe the SUV is secured even though it remains capable of rolling. 

GM allegedly failed to incorporate widely available anti-rollaway technology into the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer, including automatic electronic parking brake systems designed to engage when a driver exits a vehicle that remains in gear.

The Escews claim GM used automatic parking brake features in other vehicles, but failed to program the Blazer to prevent rollaways when the driver’s seat belt was unbuckled and the door was opened.

“Specifically, there were alternative designs that, in reasonable probability, would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury to Mrs. Eskew.”

— Cynthia Eskew et al. v. General Motors LLC

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

Vehicle Rollaway Recalls

Vehicle rollaway hazards have been linked to multiple recalls in recent years due to the serious risks they pose to occupants and bystanders, including the potential for auto accidents and property damage.

Last year, more than 1 million Ram pickup trucks were involved in an investigation over rollaway issues that resulted in at least six reported injuries. 

Earlier that same year, nearly 300,000 Dodge Dart vehicles were recalled for similar rollaway risks. A few months later, approximately 300,000 Ford F-150, Mustang Mach-E and Maverick vehicles were also recalled for the same issue.

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

A former Suboxone oral film user has filed a lawsuit alleging Indivior knew the opioid treatment could cause severe dental damage and tooth decay, yet withheld warnings to protect profits from patients seeking help for a potentially deadly addiction.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kenneth Cress in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 13. It names Indivior Inc, its subsidiary Indivior Solutions Inc., and Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., formerly known as MonoSol Rx LLC, as defendants.

Cress alleges that he suffered permanent tooth decay and extensive dental damage after using Suboxone oral film strips to treat opioid addiction.

Suboxone Film Strip Risks

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) was originally approved in 2002 in tablet form by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of opioid addiction. Designed to reduce cravings and lessen withdrawal symptoms, the manufacturer redesigned Suboxone as an oral film strip when the patent was about to run out, which some critics say was more to maintain exclusivity than provide recovering addicts with a better product.

Following hundreds of complaints linking the film strips to severe tooth decay and other dental damage, the FDA issued a Suboxone tooth decay warning in June 2022. The agency indicated the drug’s erosion of dental enamel had caused some users to suffer tooth loss, disfigurement and the need for extensive dental work.

Indivior now faces thousands of Suboxone oral film lawsuits, each alleging the manufacturer failed to warn patients or their doctors about the potential tooth decay risks until the FDA forced it to do so.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Cress was prescribed Suboxone oral film strips as a treatment for opioid use disorder, but was never informed about the potential dental decay risks. As a result of his use, Cress now suffers permanent tooth damage, leading to the need for “substantial dental work” to repair the damage, the lawsuit states.

Cress alleges Indivior knew for years that buprenorphine exposure could erode dental enamel, even before the company reformulated Suboxone into dissolvable film strips. He argues those dental problems were already appearing among tablet users, and that the film version increased the risk by keeping the medication in prolonged contact with patients’ teeth and gums.

The lawsuit notes that the manufacturer knew the tablets and film strips were acidic but ignored numerous adverse event reports from patients and doctors who tried to warn the manufacturer that they were seeing instances of severe dental damage linked to the drug’s use.

“Before the FDA released its Safety Communication on January 12, 2022, Defendants were aware of at least 136 reports of adverse dental events in patients taking Suboxone tablets or film, but took no steps to alert patients or prescribers of the danger to oral health that Suboxone posed until after the FDA required them to do so.”

– Kenneth Cress v. Indivior Inc. et al.

The FDA data noted that the agency received hundreds of such complaints from not just the manufacturer, but patients and doctors as well, with 40% of those reports involving serious instances of tooth decay and tooth loss. More than a third of the complaints involved two or more teeth, with many appearing in patients with no history of dental problems.

Cress presents claims of failure to warn, negligent failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions, defective design and negligent design defect. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Suboxone Oral Film Lawsuits

The complaint is expected to be consolidated with thousands of similar claims pending in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese. The cases are centralized as part of the federal Suboxone oral film lawsuit MDL for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge is currently leading the parties through the process of preparing a group of representative cases to serve as early “bellwether” trials, designed to give the plaintiffs and defendants a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony they expect to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Originally starting with a Records Collection Pool of 500 claims last May, 100 cases have been chosen from that group for further case-specific discovery. Judge Calabrese has called for parties and the court to select 20 random cases from the list for core discovery by June 10. The parties will then select 15 claims to serve as bellwether trials by July 13, 2026, and then will choose four final bellwether trial selections by June 2027.

The first trial is not expected until at least March 2028, and while the outcome of that and the following bellwether trials will not be binding on the other cases, they will be closely watched, as the outcomes will likely play a role in any Suboxone settlement negotiations. 

If the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings conclude with no settlement or other resolution to the litigation, Judge Calabrese would likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts for individual trial dates.

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

An Oklahoma woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that Filshie Clips she received as a long-term birth control device migrated out of position, causing severe pain and requiring surgery to remove the implants, despite no warning that the devices could fail in this manner.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christina Williamson in Connecticut Superior Court late last month. It names CooperSurgical Inc., The Cooper Companies Inc., Femcare LTD and its parent company, Utah Medical Products Inc., as the defendants, claiming they sold women a defective birth control product.

Williamson argues that the Filshie Clips which were implanted in her for a tubal ligation procedure later migrated out of position and were discovered in her posterior cul-de-sac during a subsequent surgery.

Filshie Clip Risks

First approved in 1996 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Filshie clips are small implants made of titanium and silicone, which are implanted during a tubal ligation procedure. They are designed to block the fallopian tubes, preventing eggs from descending to a point where they could be fertilized.

However, several women like Williamson have filed Filshie Clip lawsuits in recent months after the devices failed to remain in place, leading to severe, long-term health complications, including chronic pelvic pain, internal scarring, endometriosis and inflammation. Plaintiffs allege the clips are defectively designed and often require additional surgery to remove, sometimes including a full hysterectomy that permanently eliminates their ability to give birth.

Filshie Clip Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, neither Williamson nor her doctor were told about the risk of Filshie Clip migration when she was first implanted with the devices in August 2019.

During an October 2024 procedure, doctors discovered that Williamson’s clips had migrated from their original placement to other areas of her body, including two that moved into her posterior cul-de-sac. 

She alleges the migration caused severe chronic complications, including stabbing sensations in her abdomen and pelvis, difficult and painful bowel movements, uterine discomfort, radiating symptoms in her legs and abdomen, and pain during intercourse. Doctors removed the failed Filshie Clips during the same procedure.

“Had Defendants properly disclosed the risks associated with the Filshie Clip product, Plaintiff would not have agreed to treatment with the device. On information and belief, had Plaintiff’s implanting physician been adequately and properly warned, he would have advised Plaintiff of the risks as part of her informed consent discussion and/or would have recommended a different treatment or no treatment at all.”

– Christina Williamson v. CooperSurgical Inc. et al.

When the Filshie Clips were first approved by the FDA, the manufacturers indicated they had only a 0.13% failure rate, but Williamson and other plaintiffs say that post-marketing data suggests the failure rate is much higher.

Williamson presents claims of violations of the Connecticut Products Liability Act, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Filshie Clip Malfunction Lawsuits

Similar Filshie Clip lawsuits have been filed in Connecticut state court in recent months, which are being closely watched to see how the litigation progresses.

As public awareness increases regarding Filshie Clips and the risks of migrations and potential injuries and complications, attorneys are actively investigating Filshie Clip lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have suffered serious injuries after undergoing tubal ligation procedures involving the device. Common complications reported in these cases include:

• Chronic pelvic or abdominal pain
• Organ damage or internal scarring
• Endometriosis
• Inflammation and swelling
• Painful or irregular menstrual cycles
• Device migration requiring revision surgery
• Hysterectomy or other major surgical intervention

If you or a loved one have suffered injuries from a Filshie Clip, submit information for review by a lawyer who can help determine if you may be eligible for financial compensation through a potential Filshie Clip lawsuit settlement.

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

A Kentucky man has filed a class action lawsuit against Kalshi, alleging that the online prediction market is operating as an illegal gambling platform that allows users to wager real money on sports, elections and virtually any other major event.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Donovan Roberts in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on May 11. It names Kalshi Inc., Kalshiex LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, Susquehanna International Group LLP and Susquehanna Government Products LLLP as defendants.

Roberts is seeking to recover both his own Kalshi betting losses, as well as to pursue damages for other Kentucky residents who made similar trades on the platform during the past five years. The proposed Kalshi class action lawsuit invokes a Kentucky gambling loss recovery statute, which allows individuals to sue to recoup money lost through alleged illegal wagering operations.

Kalshi operates what it calls a “prediction market,” where users buy and sell “event contracts” tied to the outcome of future events. In this capacity, the platform allows “bets” on sports contests, elections, weather events, interest rates and other topics, framing the transactions as financial contracts rather than traditional wagers.

Roberts’s lawsuit argues that Kalshi’s “prediction market” label is merely a distinction without a difference. He claims the platform is gambling by another name, offering untaxed and unregulated betting to Kentucky residents without a state sports wagering license or compliance with Kentucky gambling laws.

Online Gambling Addiction Concerns

Roberts’s case shows how online gambling has expanded well beyond traditional sportsbooks since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision paved the way for states to legalize mobile sports betting.

Sports betting platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel have already introduced millions of younger adults to the ability to place bets from their smartphones at any time of day. In recent months, that rapid expansion has helped fuel a wave of sports betting addiction lawsuits alleging the companies promoted addictive gambling behavior and failed to protect vulnerable users. 

Kalshi and other prediction market platforms are now expanding that model, allowing users to wager not only on athletic contests but on elections, economic indicators and countless other real-world events.

Through Kalshi, users can place real-money bets on who will win the Super Bowl, how many touchdowns a player will score, whether a candidate will win an election and a broad range of other outcomes. Screenshots included in Roberts’s complaint show betting options that mirror traditional sportsbooks, including point spreads, total points and player proposition bets.

Although Roberts does not specifically allege that young people are being targeted, public health experts and researchers have raised concerns that app-based gambling platforms are particularly attractive to younger users who are accustomed to mobile gaming, social media and digital trading platforms. The complaint itself cites studies suggesting that gambling-style apps have a particular appeal to teenagers and may serve as an early introduction to regular gambling behavior.

Kalshi Gambling Allegations

Roberts’s lawsuit argues that Kalshi is part of a broader trend in which companies use smartphones to make gambling available “24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year” from homes, workplaces and virtually anywhere users have an internet connection.

According to the complaint, researchers and public health experts have linked gambling addiction to financial stress, relationship breakdown, family violence, mental illness and suicide. Roberts alleges Kalshi profits from these harms by presenting itself as a legitimate financial exchange while functioning as a bookmaker.

Roberts’s filing points out that Kentucky permits sports betting only through a tightly regulated system overseen by the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation. Operators must obtain licenses, pay fees and comply with extensive regulations designed to protect consumers and generate tax revenue for the state.

The lawsuit alleges Kalshi has ignored those requirements while continuing to solicit Kentucky residents, accept deposits from Kentucky bank accounts and process wagers from users throughout the state.

Under Kentucky law, anyone who loses more than $5 in illegal gambling during a 24-hour period may sue to recover those losses within five years. Roberts seeks to represent all Kentucky residents who lost more than $5 on Kalshi’s website or app during any 24-hour period over the last five years.

“Kalshi believes that it is above Kentucky law, operating what it calls a ‘prediction market’ that allows Kentucky residents to buy and sell ‘event contracts’ related to everything from elections to sporting outcomes. It does this without any attempt to follow Kentucky’s regulations or obtain a license to operate within the law. Kalshi takes millions out of Kentucky’s economy with this activity each year, all without registering to do business in Kentucky or paying any taxes to the state.”

— Donovan Roberts v. Kalshi Inc. et al.

Roberts alleges there are thousands of Kentucky residents who may qualify for the proposed class, and that Kalshi’s own records can identify users and calculate the amount of their losses.

The complaint is seeking certification of a statewide class action and a court order requiring Kalshi to refund all net gambling losses suffered by Kentucky users over the last five years, along with interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

In addition to concerns about predication markets contributing to burgeoning gambling addictions among America’s youth, a series of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits have been filed in recent months.

Many of these claims indicate that individuals were targeted by these platforms once the companies’ algorithms identified them as likely to become addicted. These users were then flooded with personalized promotions, loyalty rewards and in some cases, appointed a personal handler, all of which normalized betting practices and downplayed the financial peril.

In light of these concerns, gambling addiction lawyers continue to review potential claims from individuals who suffered significant losses through sports betting and other online wagering platforms.

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a sports betting addiction lawsuit can submit information for a free legal review. All claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorneys are paid only if a settlement or verdict is obtained.

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

Amazon faces a class action lawsuit filed by two women who say the online retailer promoted and sold sunscreen for children that contained dangerously high levels of lead.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lauren Wolf and Elizabeth Correia in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 30, naming Amazon.com Inc. as the only defendant.

The plaintiffs allege Amazon, as a retailer and third-party seller of children’s sunscreens, including products from Coppertone, ThinkBaby, Sun Bum Baby and other brands, was responsible for ensuring the products were reasonably safe for consumers.

Lead exposure can cause a variety of health problems and is particularly dangerous for young children because it may interfere with brain development, contributing to behavioral problems and long-term cognitive impairment. Even low levels of lead exposure have been linked to neurological damage for children.

The allegations come after several years of safety concerns involving sunscreen products, including recalls over benzene contamination that have prompted a series of sunscreen cancer lawsuits filed nationwide.

Children’s Sunscreen Lead Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Lead Safe Mama LLC released a report late last year that identified elevated levels of lead and cadmium in several sunscreen products. Some products contained especially high lead levels, including ThinkBaby Clear Zinc Sunscreen, which allegedly tested at more than 1,200 parts per billion.

The plaintiffs say they later conducted additional testing, which also found high lead levels in other products, including 365 Sport Mineral Sunscreen by Whole Foods Market and Sun Bum Baby Mineral Sunscreen Lotion. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires regulatory action when lead in public drinking water reaches 15 parts per billion, the lawsuit notes that no comparable federal limit has been established for sunscreen products.

Wolf, who lives in Texas, says she purchased Sun Bum Baby and ThinkBaby sunscreen products through Amazon from June 2025 through March 2026. The lawsuit alleges the online product listings and advertising materials gave consumers no indication that the sunscreens, which were marketed for use on young children, contained elevated levels of lead.

Correia, who lives in California, alleges she had a similar experience after purchasing Sun Bum Baby sunscreen products and Blue Lizard Baby Mineral Sunscreen Stick through Amazon.

“If Amazon had disclosed that the Sunscreen Products contained (or had a material risk of containing) heavy metals including cadmium and lead, or that Amazon had inadequately tested, or never tested, or never required third-party sellers to test, for heavy metals, in its ingredients and/or finished Sunscreen Products, Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Sunscreen Products or otherwise would have paid less for them.”

– Lauren Wolf et al v. Amazon.com Inc.

The women claim that Amazon actively concealed the lead exposure risks of these products, in order to maximize profits. They are seeking class action status for the case, hoping to represent all purchasers of a list of sunscreen products named in the lawsuit as having been tested for high levels of lead. 

Wolf and Correia say all class members should be compensated for unknowingly buying products that were a health risk to their children.

The filing presents claims of violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and fraudulent concealment. It seeks punitive and compensatory damages.

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

Medical device manufacturers continue to face a growing number of lawsuits alleging that defective spinal cord stimulators fail to relieve chronic pain and, in some cases, worsen patients’ conditions by causing electric shock injuries, paralysis and other serious complications.

One recent complaint (PDF) was filed by Ray Lavigne in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 8. The lawsuit indicates that Lavigne was implanted with Abbott’s Proclaim Plus 5 system, which subsequently failed, causing serious injuries.

In addition to citing Abbott as a defendant, the lawsuit also names the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which Lavigne says should never have approved the implant for the U.S. market.

Lavigne claims that an Abbott Proclaim Plus 5 spinal cord stimulator repeatedly delivered electric shocks that led to his progressive loss of mobility and eventually left him completely paralyzed from the waist down. 

Spinal Cord Stimulator Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants consisting of a small, battery-powered pulse generator placed beneath the skin, which is attached to thin electrodes positioned near the spinal cord, and a remote control that allows adjustment of stimulation levels. It is designed to be a permanent implant that addresses chronic pain by disrupting nerve signals on the way to the brain.

Abbott is just one manufacturer of the devices, which also includes Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro and other companies. For years, these manufacturers have boasted that the spinal implants are both safe and effective. However, a growing number of reports and spinal cord stimulator lawsuits push back against this safety image, with patients reporting device failures, worsening pain, electric shocks, electrodes protruding from the skin and other complications.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Paralysis Allegations

According to the complaint, Lavigne, of Arizona, was first implanted with the Abbott Proclaim Plus 5 spinal cord stimulator in May 2024 for the treatment of chronic pain. Before a procedure to permanently implant the stimulator, Lavigne went through a trial period with a temporary device to ensure that the process would bring relief.

Lavigne indicates that he told the Abbott sales representatives that the device was not very effective, only cutting his pain by about 30%. The threshold for determining if a permanent implant would be effective is 50% pain reduction, at a minimum. However, Lavigne was told this would be improved when he received the permanent implant, the lawsuit states.

Between the procedure and late October 2024, Abbott representatives would reprogram the spinal cord stimulator seven times. The lawsuit notes that problems with the device started nearly immediately and continued to worsen over time.

“Prior to the spinal stimulator being implanted, Plaintiff had a mass in his back. On or about May 19, 2024, one day after the implant, Plaintiff was shocked by Abbott’s Proclaim Plus 5 system. While he was being shocked, he felt a pop in his back. From this date until November, Plaintiff slowly began to lose the use of his legs.”

– Ray Lavigne v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

Lavigne’s ability to walk allegedly declined over time, first requiring a cane, then a walker and eventually a wheelchair. By December 2024, the complaint states, he “was completely paralyzed from the waist down.”

In January 2025, doctors determined that the device had failed and surgically removed the Proclaim Plus 5 from Lavigne’s back. Since then, he has slowly regained the ability to move and feel below his waist again. Lavigne is still in the process of learning how to walk again, the lawsuit indicates.

The complaint states that Lavigne continues to suffer from pain and complications from the short time he had the Proclaim Plus 5 implanted. Additionally, the lawsuit notes that Abbott issued multiple recalls for its spinal cord stimulators, including the Proclaim system, between 2020 and 2023, with Abbott recalling the Proclaim XR, Plus, DRG and Infinity IPG during that period.

Lavigne presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, unauthorized practice of medicine, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

In April, a group of plaintiffs with lawsuits very similar to Lavigne’s, filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), calling for all Abbott and Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits to be consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The two companies have asked the panel to reject the request, claiming plaintiffs have failed to 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 Pennsylvania woman alleges in a recently filed lawsuit that she has been left with permanent mobility limitations due to problems with a Cartiva toe implant, which was intended to preserve motion in the joint, indicating that the device failed and eroded the surrounding bone so severely that doctors could no longer replace it with another implant.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Andrea Keller in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 12. It names Cartiva Inc., the implant’s manufacturer, as the sole defendant.

Keller claims Cartiva knew its big toe implant had a substantially higher failure rate than originally advertised and was associated with loosening, persistent pain and bone erosion. However, she goes on to allege that the company concealed those risks from patients, doctors and regulators while continuing to market the device as a safe alternative to toe fusion.

Cartiva Implant Malfunctions

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant, or SCI, is surgically placed in the big toe to treat degenerative arthritis conditions such as hallux limitus and hallux rigidus. Made from a polyvinyl alcohol-based gel, the device was promoted as an alternative to permanently fusing the toe joint, which can significantly limit flexibility and mobility.

Cartiva promoted the implant as having an 87% success rate. However, the FDA later announced that real-world data showed the success rate was only between 21% and 46%, meaning most Cartiva SCI implants failed. The findings led to a Cartiva SCI recall in October 2024.

Following the recall, Keller and other former recipients have begun filing Cartiva toe implant lawsuits, alleging they suffered serious complications after the device failed. The complaints describe problems such as chronic pain, implant loosening, fractures, bone damage and complete device failure, often leaving patients with no option other than big toe fusion.

Cartiva Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Keller was first implanted with a Cartiva SCI in January 2019. However, she indicates that she has seen no pain relief or restoration of motion since the procedure.

“As a result of the implantation of the Defective Device, Plaintiff has suffered additional surgeries and medical expenses, including an additional surgery in December of 2024, and, the removal of the implant and subsequent surgery to ‘fuse’ her big toe bones together, all of which was needed to correct the toe deformity and bone loss caused by the Defective Device, and causing additional loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.”

– Andrea Keller v. Cartiva Inc.

Keller claims her injuries could have been avoided had Cartiva provided the medical community and patients with proper warnings. However, the lawsuit alleges that not only did Cartiva know that its failure rates were much higher than advertised, the company actively hid the excessive failures from the public and medical device regulators.

The lawsuit notes that Cartiva was aware of at least 144 such reports of implant failure before December 2025, the month before Keller underwent her procedure. Additionally, Keller indicates that the company knew the gel could erode, causing loosening and erosion of the surrounding bone, yet it failed to add additional warnings or change the design of the device in order to preserve profits.

Keller presents claims of strict products liability design, manufacture and failure to warn, negligence, misbranded and adulterated device, state law and common law claims of product liability and negligence for class II devices/class III devices, breach of warranty, failure to warn. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Cartiva Toe Lawsuits

The claim will be consolidated with more than a dozen similar Cartiva failure lawsuits as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL), in the Eastern District of Arkansas, where U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker is ushering the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

It is anticipated that Judge Baker will propose a series of early test cases, known as bellwether trials, which will put strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases before a live jury. The outcome of these bellwether trials, while not binding on the other lawsuits, could be crucial in helping the parties reach a settlement agreement.

However, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings conclude with no Cartiva toe lawsuit settlement or other resolutions for the remaining claims, the judge may remand the cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

A New York man has filed a lawsuit alleging he suffered severe injuries when a LEVELEVE ladder sold by Amazon collapsed while he was on it at a height of more than 18 feet.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Donald N. Barclay in New York Supreme Court on March 9, 2025, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New York on May 12. It names Amazon.com Inc. and Hangzhou Yiju Keji Youxian Gongsi, doing business as LANOVALITE and LEVELEVE, as defendants.

Barclay claims that Amazon and the ladder manufacturer sold a defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous product. He also alleges that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks.

LEVELEVE ladders are marketed as heavy-duty and multi-position devices, which function as A-frames, extension ladders or stair-safe ladders. However, according to Barclay’s complaint, the ladders may collapse under normal use, resulting in serious falls that can cause severe and permanent injuries.

Amazon Ladder Collapse Allegations

In the complaint, Barclay indicates he purchased a LEVELEVE ladder, model T1Z1-HJ24-6BU-1, from Amazon on November 9, 2025. The ladder was sold on Amazon by a third-party seller, Hangzhou Yijiu Keji Youxian Gongsi.

Barclay states he was using the ladder on November 21, 2025, when it collapsed unexpectedly. He was approximately 18 feet up in the air at the time and violently fell to the ground, sustaining severe and permanent injuries as a result.

The lawsuit alleges the ladder was defectively designed and that both the manufacturer and Amazon knew, or should have known, the product posed a safety risk to consumers. Barclay also claims the companies had a duty to warn users about the hazard, arguing the ladders could not be safely used as intended.

“The plaintiff was caused to suffer and sustain severe and permanent serious personal injuries, severe and serious pain and suffering and mental anguish; plaintiff has been caused to expend and to become obligated to expend sums of money for medical services and related expenses.”

— Barclay v. Amazon.com et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, breach of warranty, strict products liability and express warranty. Barclay is seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and severe and permanent injuries.

Ladder Collapse Lawsuits

A number of similar ladder collapse lawsuits have been brought against major brands in recent years, each raising similar allegations of defective product designs.

A Little Giant ladder lawsuit was filed in October 2025, which claimed that the company’s defective ladder design caused several fall injuries, including one that resulted in a man suffering a left temporal fracture with auditory loss and intracranial hemorrhaging, among other injuries. The complaint indicated that the ladders had been plagued by issues with locking pins which led to a prior recall of more than 37,000 ladders.

In addition, a Home Depot and Louisville Ladder lawsuit brought in April of this year claims a ladder collapsed during use, causing serious spinal injuries and nerve damage. 

A separate Werner Ladder product liability lawsuit was also filed last month after the l-beam side rails on that device buckled and bent during use. The user suffered fractures, required surgery, and now struggles with ongoing pain and disability.

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

The makers of popular Lime e-scooters face a product liability lawsuit brought by an Indiana woman who says a defective design and poor maintenance led to her falling and suffering a traumatic brain injury, as well as other life-altering adverse health effects.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Leah Dickens in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana late last month. It names Neutron Holdings Inc., which does business as Lime, as the sole defendant.

Dickens claims she suffered a traumatic brain injury and other serious, lasting harm after a Lime e-scooter malfunctioned and threw her from the device while she was riding it in Indianapolis in October 2024.

Electric Scooter Risks

Lime is a line of motorized electric scooters, or e-scooters, powered by rechargeable batteries. They are designed for short-distance travel on roads, bike lanes and sidewalks. Promoted as an eco-friendly alternative to cars, they, and similar brands of e-scooters, have become popular in urban and suburban areas as public rental transport.

However, the rise in popularity of Lime, Bird, Spin, Segway and other products has resulted in increasing concerns about rider safety and potential health risks. The devices are often provided without helmets, with no proper training or safety equipment of any kind. Additionally, they are often driven down sidewalks that may have uneven pavement, potholes, grates and other obstructions that could cause the rider to be thrown from the scooter.

There is often also the danger of collision with other pedestrians or vehicles while crossing a street. Though these risks are considered low, the speeds at which the devices travel can and have led to serious injuries and deaths for both riders and pedestrians.

Lime Scooter Lawsuit

According to Dickens’ complaint, she was riding the scooter in Indianapolis in October 2024, when she states the device malfunctioned, causing a Lime scooter accident that threw her to the ground. The complaint indicates that she suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident, as well as other injuries.

Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) occur when a sudden impact or movement of the head causes the brain to bounce or twist inside the skull. This can result in damaged brain cells, broken blood vessels and other long-term, or fatal, brain injuries.

These injuries can lead to temporary or permanent brain damage, resulting in cognition problems, memory loss, behavioral changes, slurred speech, blurred vision and other neurological side effects.

Dickens’ lawsuit alleges the Lime scooter malfunctioned due to a number of design defects that made it dangerous to ride. It further claims the device could have been altered to make it safer, preventing Dickens’ injuries. For example, she states that the accelerator sticks, it has an unstable center of gravity, is deceptively powerful, has small, unstable wheels, and is prone to failures of its brakes, electrical components and batteries.

These problems make it easy to lose control of the scooters, which should have been redesigned once the problems became apparent, Dickens argues.

“The defects in the scooter that led to Leah Dickens’s injuries were the result of faulty maintenance of the scooter by Defendant. The scooter was not in conformity with the generally recognized state of the art applicable to the safety of the product at the time the product was designed, manufactured, packaged, and labeled.”

– Leah Dickens v. Neutron Holdings Inc.

Dickens presents claims of strict liability for manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence for design defect and common law negligence.

Electric Scooter Lawsuits

Lime is not the only manufacturer of e-scooter devices that has faced criticism in recent years for design defects and other issues leading to riders suffering serious injuries.

A Florida woman filed a product liability lawsuit earlier this year, claiming an electric scooter purchased on Amazon was defectively designed and suddenly gave way during normal use, causing her to be thrown forcefully onto the pavement.

In a separate case filed in February, a Kansas man alleged that a self-balancing Segway-Ninebot scooter abruptly lost power while he was riding, causing him to be ejected from the device and suffer severe, lasting arm injuries.

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

The number of Depo-Provera lawsuits brought in federal and state courts nationwide now exceeds 6,000 claims, each involving similar allegations that women developed intracranial meningioma after receiving the popular birth control injections.

Depo-Provera (Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA) is a hormonal birth control injection that contains a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. First approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992, the “Depo shot,” as it is commonly known, is advertised to prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to block sperm, and thinning the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Litigation over Depo-Provera side effects began to emerge in 2024, following the publication of a French study that linked long-term use of the birth control shot to a substantially increased risk of brain tumors. Researchers found that women who used the injection faced more than five times the risk of developing an intracranial meningioma. 

Meningiomas can develop slowly and remain undetected for years, sometimes decades after a woman received Depo-Provera injections. As the tumors grow, they may begin pressing on surrounding brain tissue and nerves, leading to brain damage, memory problems, cognitive difficulties, balance issues, vision changes and hearing loss. In severe or untreated cases, the tumors may become life-threatening.

Over the last two years, thousands of women have come forward to file lawsuits against Depo-Provera manufacturers, claiming that they may have avoided a devastating meningioma diagnosis if earlier warnings had been provided to users and the medical community. However, as more women learn about the link between Depo-Provera and meningioma, the number of filings has spiked nationwide in recent months.

Since February 2025, all federal Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida, where U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

In a joint status report (PDF) issued on May 15, the parties indicated that there are currently:

• 5,549 claims filed in the federal MDL
• Another 340 claims in Delaware state court
• 119 filings in New York state courts
• 91 claims in California state court
• 72 lawsuits in Minnesota
• 13 claims in Connecticut
• 12 lawsuits in Illinois
• Two brought in New Mexico
• One each in New Hampshire and Wisconsin
• One filed in Missouri as recently as May 7

The new numbers represent about a 50% increase in cases just since March, when there were only about 4,000 cases pending nationwide. The spike in recent lawsuit filings has largely been driven by the approaching two year anniversary of the publication of the French study that first identified the potential Depo-Provera meningioma risks, which the drug maker may argue triggered the start of a statute of limitations period for women in many states.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit Trials

To help manage the rapidly growing litigation, Judge Rodgers previously ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases for early test 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 status report indicates that the parties have concluded general causation expert depositions for the litigation, which is intended to determine whether plaintiffs can prove scientifically that the injections can actually contribute to intracranial meningioma development. Both sides have already filed Daubert motions designed to challenge the admissibility of their expert witnesses and the methodologies they used to reach their scientific conclusions.

The first bellwether trial is currently expected to begin on December 7, 2026, with additional trials following in 2027. While the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other women pursuing claims, they will be closely watched, as 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.

New data warns that social media influencers often portray inhaling nitrous oxide as fun and harmless, while rarely acknowledging the severe and potentially life-threatening health risks, a trend researchers say may be fueling the growing recreational misuse of the gas.

In a study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs earlier this year, researchers analyzed content on many major platforms. Across the sites, researchers found widespread depictions of nitrous oxide use framed as humorous, trendy or risk-free, often reaching younger audiences.

Nitrous Oxide Risks 

Nitrous oxide has long been used in medical and dental procedures, as well as in food preparation, but lawsuits now allege manufacturers and distributors have helped fuel a surge in recreational abuse by selling oversized canisters that are far larger than what would typically be needed for legitimate culinary use.

The products are often sold online and in vape shops in bright packaging and sweet or fruity flavors, and are marketed alongside devices that make inhalation easier. Plaintiffs claim that packaging and sales practices helped normalize recreational use of nitrous oxide, despite growing reports linking the short-lived euphoric high to addiction and severe spinal cord and neurological injuries.

Amid mounting injury reports and warnings from federal health officials, nitrous oxide lawsuits are now being filed claiming that the companies promoted and sold the products in a way that encouraged recreational misuse, while failing to adequately warn consumers about the risk of severe side effects.

Nitrous Oxide Influencer Content

According to the study, researchers from the University of Mississippi found that influencer-driven content often minimizes the risks associated with inhaling nitrous oxide gas, while emphasizing its entertainment value. Some posts appear to indirectly promote specific products, while others encourage repeated use through challenges or group participation.

Led by R. Andrew Yockey, the team warned that this type of messaging may have a particularly strong influence on adolescents, who are more likely to emulate behaviors seen online and may not fully understand the potential dangers.

Researchers reviewed nitrous oxide-related content across several major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, finding that short-form videos, particularly on TikTok, made up a substantial portion of the posts and may be increasing exposure among younger users.

Many influencer videos showed people inhaling nitrous oxide from balloons or large canisters, often set to music, laughter or viral-style challenges, while providing little to no discussion of the potential side effects or long-term health risks.

Yockey determined that nitrous oxide-related videos were widely viewed and highly engaging, averaging:

• About 23 million views
• More than 64,000 likes
• Roughly 9,500 shares

The study found that only a small portion of posts included any mention of health risks or safety warnings, highlighting a lack of awareness despite the well-documented dangers associated with inhalant misuse.

“Nitrous oxide misuse is widely visible on major social media platforms and often portrayed without risk information, potentially encouraging youth uptake.”

— R. Andrew Yockey, Social Media Portrayals of Nitrous Oxide Normalize Use and Encourage Youth Exposure

The analysis also showed that platform algorithms can amplify this type of content, increasing its visibility and reach, even as public health warnings about nitrous oxide abuse continue to grow.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

The rise in recreational nitrous oxide misuse like that portrayed by social media influencers has resulted in a growing number of lawsuits. Many plaintiffs claim they suffered serious, and in some cases permanent, injuries after using the products. The filings often target manufacturers such as Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad, Cosmic Gas and Miami Magic, as well as Amazon for its role in facilitating third-party sales.

According to the complaints, nitrous oxide manufacturers and distributors have failed to provide adequate warnings and prioritized profits over consumer safety by marketing and supplying the products despite known risks.

As a result, nitrous oxide attorneys are now reviewing potential claims and offering free consultations to individuals and families who may qualify to pursue compensation through nitrous oxide injury lawsuits.

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

The city of Rochester, New York, is calling for a new MDL (multidistrict litigation) to be established for all federal lawsuits over health risks associated with exposure to toxic and cancer-causing chemicals in firefighters’ protective turnout gear.

The U.S. Judical Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has been asked to consolidate and centralize about a half-dozen firefighter turnout gear lawsuits before one federal judge in the District of Minnesota, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in claims.

Each of the claims raise similar allegations that various different chemical manufacturers and fire safety companies failed to adequately warn about the potential risks associated with firefighters’ exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Often referred to as “forever chemicals,” PFAS have been widely used for decades in firefighting safety equipment, or turnout gear, because of their resistance to heat, water and oil.  However, the synthetic chemicals do not naturally break down and can accumulate in the environment and human body over time, raising concerns about long-term exposure among firefighters who wear the gear during training, emergency responses and other routine job duties.

Turnout Gear Risks

The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association issued a warning in 2022, calling for firefighters to limit their use of turnout gear as much as possible to reduce their PFAS exposure.

The groups warned that firefighters cannot fully eliminate PFAS cancer risks as long as the chemicals remain in protective gear and other firefighting equipment. They urged manufacturers and regulators to accelerate the development and widespread adoption of PFAS-free alternatives.

In the wake of those warnings, several firefighter turnout gear lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system, indicating that manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the risk of using PFAS in turnout gear contributing to firefighter cancer rates, which are some of the highest of any profession.

Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawsuits Consolidation

A request for consolidation of all PFAS turnout gear lawsuits was filed by the city of Rochester with the JPML on May 11.

The city indicates there are at least five firefighter turnout gear lawsuits filed across three federal district courts. Three of those cases, including the city’s own lawsuit, have been brought in the District of Minnesota, as well as one in the Northern District of California and another in the District of Montana. The motion to transfer (PDF) calls for the litigation to be consolidated in the District of Minnesota.

“Centralization of the Related Actions will prevent conflicting pretrial rulings and conserve judicial resources on identical pre-trial issues including those on the pleadings, merits discovery, expert discovery, and trial preparation issues. In particular, the pleading and discovery conducted in each of the Related Actions will likely be very similar and will likely involve many of the same or similar documents and witnesses.”

– City of Rochester, New York

If the JPML agrees, the lawsuits would be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and, potentially, the selection of a group of representative cases to undergo case-specific discovery in preparation for bellwether test cases designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

AFFF Lawsuits

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel asked the JPML to wrap all firefighter turnout gear lawsuits into an existing PFAS MDL that he has been overseeing in the federal District of South Carolina since 2018. However, the panel has not yet done so.

Chemical companies already face more than 15,000 lawsuits claiming that they have used PFAS in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which is used to put out petroleum fires. This has allegedly resulted in widespread water contamination and individual exposures that could cause various forms of cancer and other adverse health problems including:

• Testicular Cancer
• Kidney Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Thyroid Cancer
• Thyroid Disease (Hypothyroidism or Hyperthyroidism)
• Ulcerative Colitis

These claims include allegations brought by firefighters directly exposed to AFFF during training or response exercises, as well as PFAS water contamination lawsuits filed by individuals exposed to tainted tap water caused by the chemicals, particularly around military bases, airports and other firefighter training locations.

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

A Massachusetts woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging the blade in a defectively designed SharkNinja blender detached from the pitcher, causing severe lacerations to her hand.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jessica Duquesnay in the Superior Court of Massachusetts on May 8, naming SharkNinja Operating LLC as the defendant.

Duquesnay alleges SharkNinja defectively designed the kitchen blender in a way that allows the removable blade assembly to unexpectedly detach during normal use. The lawsuit also claims the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk and declined to adopt safer alternative designs that could have prevented injuries.

Kitchen Appliance Laceration and Burn Lawsuits

SharkNinja blenders have become popular small kitchen appliances in recent years, marketed for their powerful motors and “Total Crushing” blade technology. Unlike standard blenders, the devices use a removable blade assembly that detaches from the pitcher.

However, a number of SharkNinja blender lawsuits have been filed by individuals who claim that a product defect allows the devices to separate or explode, sending metal blades, plastic shards or even scalding liquids onto users. Similar lawsuits have been filed over NutriBullet blender systems, claiming those devices often do not account for heat and pressure buildup during normal use, causing dangerous explosions.

The allegations add to growing safety concerns involving small kitchen appliances that rely on high-speed motors, sealed containers or pressurized components. In May 2025, SharkNinja recalled nearly 2 million Ninja Foodi pressure cookers after more than 100 burn injuries were reported, many involving claims that the lid could open while the contents remained under pressure.

Those injuries have fueled a broader wave of pressure cooker explosion lawsuits against several manufacturers, including Ninja Foodi, Instant Pot and Crock Pot. The complaints allege defective pressure cooker designs allow lids to open during cooking, causing scalding-hot food and liquid to erupt from the devices and leave users with severe burns.

SharkNinja Blender Injury Lawsuit

Duquesnay’s lawsuit indicates she was using the SharkNinja BL770 Series Ninja Mega Kitchen System on May 10, 2024, to make a smoothie when the double stacked blade assembly detached from the pitcher and sliced her left hand. She required immediate medical attention.

The complaint states the blade lacerated Duquesnay between her left wrist and thumb and caused serious puncture wounds. The severe laceration caused permanent damage to her hand, along with physical and mental pain and suffering.

Her lawsuit alleges the blender was defectively designed because the blade assembly may detach from the pitcher without warning, even after blending has stopped and consumers are simply pouring out the contents.

Duquesnay argues that SharkNinja had safer alternative design options available, including a locking mechanism option to permanently affix the blade to the pitcher, yet chose not to use that design. This allegedly created an unreasonably dangerous design and unnecessary risk for users, the lawsuit states.

“As a direct and proximate result of SharkNinja’s intentional concealment of its defects, its failure to warn consumers of such defects, its negligent misrepresentation, its failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, and its negligent design of such products, Jessica Duquesnay used an unreasonably dangerous blender, which resulted in significant permanent bodily injuries.”

— Jessica Duquesnay v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

The lawsuit presents claims of defective product/design defect, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks compensation for damages, including mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of time, past and future medical expenses, and compensation for disfigurement and permanent injuries.

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

A Missouri woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that design defects associated with an AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter left her with severe injuries, requiring a surgical retrieval procedure to remove a broken piece from her left brachiocephalic vein and superior vena cava.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Sujata Lochmann in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 11, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Lochmann claims the defendants concealed evidence that the AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter had a substantially higher failure rate than comparable devices, placing desire for profits before the health and safety of patients. 

AngioDynamics SmartPort Catheter Concerns

AngioDynamics markets the SmartPort as a totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) designed to provide repeated access to the bloodstream for chemotherapy, medications, intravenous fluids, blood products and nutritional solutions. The system consists of an implanted port and a catheter made of silicone or polyurethane that is intended to remain in the body for long-term treatment.

However, many of these catheters contain barium sulfate to make them visible on imaging studies. Some individuals claim this material can degrade over time, causing pits, cracks and microfractures that weaken the catheter and increase the risk of fracture, thrombosis, infection, occlusion and migration.

In light of these findings, a growing number of AngioDynamics lawsuits are now being pursued in courts nationwide, each raising similar allegations that the manufacturers knew for years that their port catheter devices were prone to fracture and other serious complications, yet continued to market the catheters as safe and effective without providing adequate warnings to doctors and patients.

SmartPort Fracture Allegations

According to this recent complaint, Lochmann underwent implantation of an AngioDynamics SmartPort, model CT80STSD, at University Hospital in Columbia, Missouri, on April 10, 2019.

The lawsuit indicates that during a routine follow-up visit at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center on October 19, 2021, a CT scan revealed that her previously intact left subclavian port catheter had fractured, with a broken segment lodged in her left brachiocephalic vein and superior vena cava. She underwent a foreign body retrieval procedure the next day to remove the detached catheter fragment.

Lochmann alleges that the SmartPort was defectively designed and manufactured, inadequately tested and sold without sufficient warnings about the risks of catheter fracture, migration, thrombosis, infection and other potentially life-threatening complications. The complaint also claims AngioDynamics concealed adverse event reports and other information indicating the SmartPort had a substantially higher failure rate than similar port catheter systems.

“Defendants advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed the SmartPort as a safe medical device when Defendants knew or should have known the SmartPort was not safe for its intended purpose and that the product could cause serious medical problems, including infections.”

— Sujata Lochmann v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, design defect, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent concealment and punitive damages. It seeks compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, permanent injuries and other financial and non-economic losses.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Lochmann’s complaint will proceed as part of an AngioDynamics SmartPort multidistrict litigation (MDL), which was established in the Southern District of California before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta, who is coordinating discovery and pretrial proceedings in all related lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system.

As the litigation moves forward, the court is expected to establish a bellwether process, in which a small group of representative cases will be prepared for early trial dates. The outcomes of those trials are intended to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and legal issues that will be repeated throughout the litigation.

A similar group of Bard PowerPort lawsuits have already been consolidated in the District of Arizona, where more than 3,000 claims allege that C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton, Dickinson and Company, sold port catheters with many of the same design problems alleged in the AngioDynamics litigation.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict last week, with the jury finding both that the manufacturer was not liable for failing to warn or instruct about potential PowerPort risks, and rejecting the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud claims. However, jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed or whether the manufacturers engaged in unlawful trade practices.

The mixed verdict may increase the significance of future bellwether trials, which are expected to provide additional insight into how juries evaluate the evidence and legal arguments presented in these cases.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. If the bellwether trials conclude without a settlement or other resolution, Judge Campbell is expected to begin remanding the cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

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

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a therapeutic heating pad sold on Amazon overheated during normal use, causing severe burns to her abdomen and breast.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Erica Everett in Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 9, 2025, naming Amazon.com Services LLC, ATDORIAT LLC and Kenvue Brands LLC as defendants. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 8.

Everett claims the heating pad was defectively designed and manufactured because it lacked automatic shut-off protection, fail-safe mechanisms to prevent overheating and adequate temperature controls. These factors allegedly allowed it to generate dangerous levels of heat. 

Heating Pad Risks

Heating pads are widely used to help relieve muscle soreness, joint discomfort and stiffness by applying steady warmth to increase blood flow and help loosen tight tissue. When they function properly, these devices can offer meaningful relief for everyday pain and chronic conditions.

However, if a heating pad overheats, lacks adequate temperature controls or contains an electrical defect, it can generate unsafe levels of heat. In those situations, consumers may suffer severe burns, nerve injuries and damage to underlying tissue.

Following a number of reports involving overheating devices, consumers have filed heating pad lawsuits against Amazon, Walmart and other retailers and manufacturers over the past few years, each raising similar allegations that defective products caused devastating burn injuries requiring extensive medical care.

Heating Pad Injury Allegations

According to this latest lawsuit, Everett purchased an ATDORIAT heating pad from Amazon in November 2023. The device was marketed as a therapeutic heating belt intended to provide pain relief and relaxation.

On December 11, 2023, Everett says she used the heating pad after receiving medical treatment earlier in the day and being advised to rest. She alleges that she followed the product instructions and selected moderate settings, including a heat level of 55 on a scale of 40 to 65, massage level 5 out of 10, and a 60-minute timer.

Everett says she fell asleep while wearing the device and awoke to discover severe thermal burns on her abdomen and breast. The lawsuit alleges the heating pad was defectively designed and manufactured, lacking automatic shut-off protection, fail-safe mechanisms to prevent overheating, and adequate temperature regulation systems.

The complaint claims the product was capable of causing serious burns even when used at moderate settings and in a manner intended by the manufacturer. Everett alleges Amazon and ATDORIAT failed to adequately test the heating pad, ignored industry-standard safety features, and did not provide sufficient warnings about the risk of burn injuries.

“The ATDORIAT heating pad was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.”

— Erica Everett v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al

Neosporin Contact Dermatitis and Permanent Scarring

In addition to the claims involving the heating pad, Everett’s lawsuit also brings separate allegations against Kenvue Brands LLC, the company identified in the complaint as the manufacturer and distributor of Neosporin products.

According to the complaint, Everett applied Neosporin to the abdominal burns caused by the heating pad multiple times a day for several months. While burns on her breast that were not treated with Neosporin allegedly healed within about a week, the lawsuit claims the abdominal burns treated with Neosporin progressively worsened, leading to cellulitis, severe contact dermatitis, permanent scarring and hyperpigmentation.

The lawsuit alleges Kenvue knew or should have known that Neosporin products containing neomycin could cause allergic contact dermatitis, particularly when used on burn injuries or compromised skin. Everett claims the company failed to provide adequate warnings about those risks, failed to instruct consumers to stop using the product if irritation developed, and continued to market Neosporin as safe and effective for wound and burn care despite safer alternatives being available.

The Neosporin claims are separate from the heating pad allegations, but Everett maintains both products contributed to the severity of her injuries. The complaint alleges the heating pad caused the initial thermal burns, while Neosporin worsened those injuries and contributed to permanent scarring and disfigurement.

Everett raises allegations of strict liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and violations of various state and federal consumer statutes. She is seeking damages for physical injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses.

Heating Pad Lawsuit Settlement

The lawsuit adds to a growing number of claims filed against Amazon and other heating pad distributors and manufacturers, alleging that certain devices can overheat during ordinary use and are sold without adequate warnings about the risk of serious burn injuries.

In one similar case that was resolved late last year, Amazon agreed to a heating pad settlement in a lawsuit brought by Khadija Karim, who alleged she suffered second-degree burns when a heating pad became excessively hot, adhered to her skin and could not be removed while in use.

The terms of that agreement were not made public. Court filings indicate each side agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and to complete the paperwork necessary to dismiss the case.

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

Despite a decision to remove Tazverik from the market in March 2026, federal regulators have issued new warnings that urge doctors not to give patients the lymphoma drug, due to a higher-than-expected rate blood cancers associated with the treatment.

Tazverik (tazemetostat) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 for certain patients with metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma and follicular lymphoma. The approval was based on a single-arm clinical trial, meaning the drug’s effectiveness was evaluated without being compared against another treatment.

The medication was designed to slow cancer progression by inhibiting enzymes involved in tumor growth when they become mutated or overactive. However, concerns have since emerged about serious long-term risks, including secondary blood cancers.

On March 8, the drug’s manufacturer, Ipsen, announced that it was removing Tazverik from the market due to the high rate of these secondary cancers. Although the recall is already underway, the FDA has also warned health care providers and patients that the risks of Tazverik now outweigh any potential benefits, urging that any remaining supply not be given to patients.

Tazverik Blood Cancer Risks

According to the FDA press release issued on May 11, the clinical trial indicated that Tazverik carried a blood cancer incidence rate of just 1.7%, but the agency is now warning that the rate appears to be more than 5%, with a mean duration of 15.8 months.

The new rates were discovered during the ongoing SYMPHONY-1 clinical trial, which was evaluating Tazverik in combination with the immunotherapy drugs lenalidomide (Revlimid) and rituximab (Rituxan) for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma. The study was designed to serve as the confirmatory trial required under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway.

The agency’s warning noted that, as of March 6, at least 18 out of 318 patients, or 5.7%, or those treated with Tazverik developed second primary malignancies (SPMs), all of which were forms of blood cancer. No patients developed these cancers in the control arm of the SYMPHONY-1 clinical trial, the agency notes.

“Most participants who developed the new blood cancers were receiving Tazverik for 1-3 years. The SPMs started as early as 7.5 months after beginning treatment and occurred in some patients after stopping treatment.”

– U.S. Food and Drug Administration press release

According to Ipsen, the problems were first identified by the clinical trial’s Independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). The DMC evaluates patient safety during clinical trials and concluded that Tazverik safety risks were not worth its limited health benefits.

The FDA supported the DMC’s recommendations that enrollment in SYMPHONY-1 end immediately, and that all patients taking Tazverik should discontinue use immediately. The agency indicates that the study will remain active to monitor long-term safety risks for patients who have already used Tazverik, while all expanded access programs for the medication will be discontinued.

Federal regulators are urging health care providers and patients to report any Tazverik side effects to the FDA’s MedWatch adverse event reporting program.

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

A Pennsylvania couple is pursuing a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that a recalled slide-in electric range inadvertently turned on when a front-mounted control knob was accidentally bumped.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Kristina Martin, Alexander Martin and Travelers Personal Insurance Company in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 6. It names Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. as defendants.

The plaintiffs claim that the defective Samsung range caused a house fire that resulted in more than $500,000 in property damage.

Electric Range Dangers

An electric range is a kitchen appliance that combines a stovetop and an oven, using electricity to generate heat for cooking and baking. Instead of gas flames, it relies on electric heating elements and a glass-ceramic surface to heat cookware and food.

In 2024, a Samsung electric range recall was announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), affecting more than 1.1 million units. The announcement came after at least 300 reports of front-mounted knobs being activated accidentally by people or pets, resulting in fires, property damage and injuries.

The range responsible for damaging the Martins’ property was allegedly included in that same Samsung stove recall, despite the owners claiming they were not notified of the potential issue until more than two months after the fire destroyed their home.

Samsung Range Fire Allegations

The Martins allege that their Samsung electric range turned on unintentionally on May 14, 2024, sparking a fire that severely damaged their Lancaster, Pennsylvania home while they were away. The couple claims they had not used the burner at all that day.

According to the complaint, the fire caused $568,029.66 in losses, including property damage, debris removal, cleanup and board-up services, emergency expenses and other costs associated with restoring the home.

The lawsuit claims the range was defectively designed and manufactured, inadequately tested, and sold without sufficient warnings or safety features, such as proper guarding or lockout mechanisms to prevent accidental activation.

Plaintiffs allege Samsung knew its front-mounted control knobs could be turned on accidentally, but failed to adopt an effective redesign, instead advising consumers to purchase aftermarket knob locks.

“Samsung was negligent in myriad ways that led to the Fire and hundreds of other such fires across the United States”

— Kristina Martin v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as well as allegations that Samsung violated federal warranty laws requiring manufacturers to honor promises made about their products. 

It seeks compensatory and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, litigation costs and any additional relief the court determines is just and appropriate. 

Range Fire Lawsuits

Similar incidents involving kitchen ranges have led to other lawsuits and recalls. Last month, a wrongful death lawsuit was brought after a 62-year-old woman allegedly died in a house fire caused by a Frigidaire stovetop range that was unintentionally turned on, resulting in a fatal blaze.

In another case filed in April, a Minnesota-based insurance company brought a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that an electric range with defective burner knobs accidentally ignited and caused a fire in an Iowa home, leading to significant property damage.

Additionally, Electrolux issued a separate recall involving certain Frigidaire and Kenmore electric ranges in May 2024, after receiving at least 212 reports that the units turned on unexpectedly, failed to shut off or heated to temperatures different from those selected by users.

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

The first federal bellwether trial involving allegations that a premature baby developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) from cow’s milk-based infant formula has been cleared to move forward, focusing on claims that the side effects of Enfamil formula resulted in the death of a newborn only days after birth.

Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson currently face nearly 800 Similac NEC lawsuits and Enfamil NEC lawsuits filed nationwide, each involving nearly identical allegations that the manufacturers failed to warn families or the medical community about the risk that preterm newborns may be left with devastating, and sometimes fatal injuries after consuming the popular infant formula products.

NEC occurs when harmful bacteria infiltrate the walls of a newborn’s intestines, causing portions of the tissue to become inflamed or die. Preterm infants carry a much higher risk for the condition because their gastrointestinal tract may not be fully developed. However, studies have found that the use of cow’s milk-based infant formula products, such as Similac or Enfamil, substantially increase the risk.

Treatment for NEC often requires antibiotics or surgery in a hospital neonatal intensive care unit. However, many infants, especially those born prematurely, do not survive NEC, and those who do may be left with lifelong health complications.

Infant Formula Bellwether Trials

For the past several years, all federally filed NEC infant formula lawsuits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois, as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

To help manage the large litigation, Judge Pallmeyer has instructed the parties to prepare a series of representative cases for early test trials, known as “bellwether” trials, which will give the parties an opportunity to see how juries weigh arguments and evidence that would be repeated throughout the other claims.

The first federal bellwether trials were originally scheduled to start in April 2025, but following a number of pretrial rulings regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence and testimony, the start of the first trial has been delayed.

Following a status conference late last month, Judge Pallmeyer issued an order (PDF) announcing that the first bellwether trial will now involve an Enfamil lawsuit filed by Alexis Inman, over the death of her son Daniel, which will get underway on July 6, 2026. That trial will then be followed by a Similac lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, which will begin on August 10, 2026.

The Inman case was officially cleared to proceed to trial when Judge Pallmeyer issued a memorandum opinion and order (PDF) on May 8, rejecting Mead Johnson & Company’s motion for summary judgment in Inman’s lawsuit. However, the court did agree to dismiss its subsidiary, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, finding that there was insufficient evidence that the unit was involved in the manufacture or sale of the products used.

The next NEC lawsuit to go to trial will involve claims brought by Mary Kelton of California, whose preterm daughter suffered permanent injuries following NEC allegedly caused by Similac. That trial is scheduled to begin on August 10, 2026. Both trials are expected to last about two weeks.

Infant Formula Lawsuit Verdicts

There are numerous additional infant formula NEC lawsuits filed in state courts, some of which have already gone to trial, with many resulting in multi-million dollar verdicts against the manufacturers.

Last month, Abbott was ordered to pay $70 million in compensatory and punitive damages to four mothers who claimed Similac caused their newborns’ NEC. It took the jury only 10 hours to reach a verdict.

It was the third Similac state court lawsuit to go to trial. The first, held in the summer of 2024, ended in a nearly $500 million verdict in Missouri state court. A similar trial, held in the same court in November of that year, ended in a defense verdict. However, that verdict was vacated last year and a new trial ordered, following a judge’s ruling that Abbott repeatedly introduced inadmissible evidence to the jury.

Mead Johnson has not escaped unscathed, being ordered to pay $60 million after a trial in Chicago in 2024.

While none of the outcomes of these cases nor the upcoming bellwether trials will be binding on the other remaining claims, the verdicts and payouts could have significant bearing on any infant formula lawsuit settlement negotiations.

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

A new Roblox sexual abuse lawsuit claims the gaming platform’s defective design and inadequate safety protections allowed an adult predator to threaten an 8-year-old girl into sending him sexually explicit videos of herself.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on behalf of a minor, identified only as RBHL-0001, through her guardian, RBHL-GAL-0001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7. It names Roblox Corporation as the defendant.

The plaintiff contends that Roblox knowingly failed to implement effective age verification, monitoring and other safeguards that could have protected young children from sexual predators on the platform.

Roblox Child Exploitation Dangers

Roblox is one of the world’s most popular online gaming platforms. It allows users, many of whom are children, to create avatars, play games and communicate with others in virtual environments. However, consumer advocates and child safety organizations have raised concerns for years that Roblox provides sexual predators with a direct avenue to contact and groom young users.

Those concerns have now led to approximately 150 Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits brought in federal courts nationwide. The complaints generally allege that Roblox failed to take adequate steps to prevent adults from posing as minors and contacting children, exposing young users to dangerous and inappropriate interactions. 

According to the lawsuits, these alleged shortcomings have contributed to incidents involving grooming, coercion, the solicitation and exchange of sexually explicit images of minors, extortion and, in some cases, allegations of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.

Roblox Grooming Allegations

According to the lawsuit, RBHL-0001 was about 8 years old in 2022 when her mother discovered that an adult man had used Roblox’s messaging system to identify, groom and extort the child into recording and sending explicit videos of herself. The predator allegedly threatened to kill the girl and her family if she refused to comply.

The complaint indicates that additional predators later sent the child sexually explicit images through Roblox and attempted to pressure her into sending more photographs of herself. According to the filing, her mother reported the incident to police and to Roblox.

As a result of the abuse, the lawsuit says the girl developed severe psychological injuries, including anxiety, depression, disruptive mood disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, which continue to affect her daily life.

“These consequences were the foreseeable result of DEFENDANTS deliberate business decisions to prioritize profits over child safety.”

— RBHL-0001 v. Roblox Corporation

The lawsuit alleges Roblox has long known that sexual predators use the platform to pose as children, gain the trust of young users and move conversations to other services, such as Discord, where they solicit nude photos and videos.

According to the complaint, Roblox’s virtual currency, Robux, is sometimes used by predators to entice children to send explicit images or to extort them by threatening to release previously shared content.

The filing further claims Roblox publicly assured parents that it used chat filters, human moderation and advanced technology to maintain a safe environment for children. However, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to detect or stop well-known grooming patterns and suspicious usernames associated with child exploitation. 

RBHL-0001 raises allegations of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking and strict liability—design defect. She is seeking past, present and future general, economic and special damages.

Roblox Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

The complaint joins a steady stream of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits being filed in federal courts nationwide, which have been consolidated in the Northern District of California since December 2025. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As the litigation moves forward, the court is expected to establish a bellwether process, which involves selecting a small number of representative lawsuits for early trial dates. These test cases are intended to show how juries may respond to evidence and legal arguments that are likely to be repeated throughout the broader litigation.

Although the outcomes of bellwether trials do not directly determine the result of other cases, they often influence settlement negotiations by providing both sides with insight into the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses. However, the first trials may still be several years away.

In an effort to accelerate potential resolutions, plaintiffs asked the court in late February to appoint a special master to oversee early Roblox settlement discussions. If successful, those negotiations could help children and young adults resolve their claims without enduring years of litigation.

Families who believe their child may have been harmed by sexual exploitation connected to Roblox could be eligible to pursue compensation. Roblox sexual abuse lawyers are offering free and confidential case evaluations, and there are no upfront costs or attorney fees unless a recovery is obtained.

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

A new study provides more evidence that side effects of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy may cause a rare eye condition, which results in sudden and possibly permanent vision loss.

Researchers from Veterans’ Affairs published data in JAMA Network Open late last month, which appears to confirm previous findings linking GLP-1 medications with an increased risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The condition damages the optic nerve, potentially resulting in problems ranging from blurred vision to blindness.

GLP-1 NAION Risks

GLP-1 receptor agonists have become widely popular in recent years. Originally introduced as treatments for Type 2 diabetes, including Ozempic and Mounjaro, the drugs saw a rapid rise in use after they were linked to weight loss and a lower risk of certain metabolic conditions. That demand led to weight-loss formulations such as Wegovy and Zepbound. Other medications in the same class include Trulicity, Rybelsus, Saxenda and Victoza.

However, concerns about the vision loss risks emerged in June 2024, when Harvard researchers published a study linking GLP-1 use to NAION. Those findings warned that the research team had detected a seven-fold increased risk of the debilitating vision condition, particularly among users of Ozempic and Wegovy, both of which are based on the active ingredient semaglutide.

Since the revelation, more studies have backed those findings and manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly now face dozens of GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits, alleging that the companies knew, or should have known, about the potential NAION risks. The lawsuits say the manufacturers placed their desire for profits over patient safety by failing to warn patients or the medical community.

GLP-1 NAION Study

In the new study, researchers with the VA St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri looked at nationwide electronic VA health records. Led by Taeyoung Choi, MS, the team compared the three-year risk of NAION between GLP-1 users and those who took sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. SGLT2 drugs are an older class of diabetes medications that includes Jardiance, Invokana and Farxiga.

Out of 588,168 participants, 139,546 started GLP-1 treatment, while 448,622 took a form of SGLT2 inhibitors. According to the findings, three years of follow-up revealed that NAION affected 39 per 10,000 persons taking drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro, compared to just 29 per 10,000 persons taking Jardiance or Invokana and similar drugs, resulting in what researchers determined was a 35% increased risk among GLP-1 users.

The researchers noted that they found that ratio persisted regardless of the type of NAION diagnosis used, and that GLP-1 medications were not linked to an increased risk of any other vision disorders that they could detect.

They concluded that GLP-1 use was linked to a “modestly increased risk of NAION,” though they noted that the absolute risk remained low. The researchers called for heightened vigilance among health care providers for early signs of NAION among GLP-1 users.

GLP-1 NAION Lawsuits

Over the past year, several dozen GLP-1 NAION lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide and consolidated before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

To help manage the litigation, the judge is expected to schedule a series of bellwether trials that will help the parties determine how juries could respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. However, before such trials can be held, Judge Marston will be asked to rule on a number of pretrial motions, which will involve complex pharmaceutical and medical issues.

Judge Marston has scheduled a “Science Day” for June 2, 2026, to help bring the court up to speed on research, like this latest study, linking NAION to Ozempic and Wegovy in a non-adversarial setting.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

The same judge is overseeing a similar, but separate MDL involving more than 3,000 GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits, which began to be filed after the drugs were linked to increased risks of gastroparesis and bowel obstruction.

Judge Marston indicates she also plans to hold a series of bellwether trials for this litigation. 

After the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are concluded, if the parties have not reached a GLP-1 settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Marston is likely to begin remanding cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Washington woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a Gourmia pressure cooker lid opened while the unit was still pressurized, causing scalding hot contents to spray onto her body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kristina May Decker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 6. It names The Steelstone Group LLC, doing business as Gourmia, as the defendant.

Decker claims that Gourmia knew or should have known the pressure cooker lid interlock system was defective. However, she indicates the manufacturer ignored reports of similar incidents and continued to sell the product without adequate warnings or design changes, even after federal regulators issued a safety warning instructing consumers to stop using and discard the pressure cookers.

Pressure Cooker Defects

Electric pressure cookers, including major brands like Gourmia and Instant Pot, use high pressure to cook food quickly. The devices are typically designed with interlocking safety features intended to keep the lid secured and prevent users from opening the cooker while it remains pressurized.

Although these kinds of modern pressure cookers have grown in popularity in recent years, they have also been the subject of numerous pressure cooker lawsuits citing alleged failures with the safety mechanisms. These failures have led to multiple claims of device explosions or incidents that allowed the lid to open during cooking, spewing hot contents onto users and causing severe third- and fourth-degree burns.

Gourmia Pressure Cooker Explosion Allegations

According to Decker’s lawsuit, she was using the Gourmia Multi-Mode Smartpot Pressure Cooker in May 2023, when she was able to rotate the lid and open the pot while it was still pressurized and cooking. This caused boiling liquid, scalding steam and hot food to spew onto her.

Due to the failure of the pressure cooker’s safety features, Decker claims she suffered serious, life-altering burn and disfigurement injuries. The complaint indicates that Gourmia knew about the design defect.

In February 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a product warning for the Gourmia pressure cooker, urging consumers to stop using it and throw it away. The warning specifically indicated consumers may not see the float valve is still raised, an indicator of pressurization, and reasonably think it is safe to open the lid.

The lawsuit claims Gourmia should have known about the defect, but ignored reports of consumer injuries. Even after the CPSC warning, the company failed to redesign the pressure cooker, despite safer alternative designs existing, Decker notes.

“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.”

— Kristina May Decker v. The Steelstone Group

The lawsuit presents claims of strict liability, negligence, negligent design defect, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and punitive damages. Decker seeks punitive and compensatory damages for her injuries, economic loss, and pain and suffering.

Pressure Cooker Injury Lawsuits

Decker’s complaint is one of numerous pressure cooker explosion lawsuits filed in recent years, involving several major brands and retailers, including Instant Pot, Shark Ninja, Crock-Pot and others. The lawsuits raise similar allegations that the electric devices, meant to simplify cooking, suffer safety design defects that allow the lids to be opened during cooking.

The claims typically indicate the pressure cookers are marketed as having advanced lid locking systems that prevent them from opening during pressurization. However, plaintiffs say those safety features do not work as designed and injure users.

Several recalls and warnings have been issued by federal safety regulators in recent years. A 2023 Best Buy Insignia pressure cooker recall involved more than 800,000 units. Additionally, a recall for nearly 1 million Sensio pressure cookers was issued that same year due to lid safety defects, causing scalding contents to be forcefully ejected onto users.

As a result of these kinds of defects and others, pressure cooker injury attorneys are investigating potential claims on behalf of users who suffered injuries from pressure cooker explosions or safety defects. The claims focus on whether manufacturers or sellers failed to properly design the products or warn consumers after becoming aware of the design flaws.

Individuals who have suffered burn injuries or other side effects following a pressure cooker safety malfunction may be eligible to pursue compensation for damages, including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

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

A Hawaiian woman has filed a lawsuit against Abbott, alleging that sales representatives misled her about the safety and effectiveness of the Eterna spinal cord stimulator, indicating that they improperly programmed the device without a medical license.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Laverne Livingston in the Northern District of Illinois on May 7. It names both Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the device for the market, as defendants.

Livingston claims Abbott defectively designed the device, and then fraudulently marketed it. In addition, she says the FDA failed in its duty to approve safe medical devices by allowing the Eterna to be fast-tracked to approval without adequate testing.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators have grown in popularity in recent years as a means of treating chronic back, leg or nerve pain after other treatments have proven ineffective. They are medical implants made of a small, battery-powered pulse generator placed beneath the skin, thin electricity-conducting leads placed near the spinal cord and a handheld remote control that allows stimulation levels to be adjusted.

Made by several manufacturers, such as Abbott, Boston Scientific and others, they are designed to be permanently implanted in the back after a trial period that involves a temporary stimulator system to ensure the device works.

However, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought in courts nationwide say the permanent implants have very different effects than the trial devices. These cases involve claims that patients suffered worsening pain, injuries, and the need for removal surgery due to problems with random electric shocks, device failures, electrodes protruding from the skin and other complications.

In many instances, patients say sales representatives from the manufacturers overhyped the effectiveness and, when the devices failed to provide relief, delayed removal by claiming they could reprogram the components to work better. This has allegedly led to patients dealing with the pain longer than they should have.

Eterna Spinal Cord Stimulator Malfunction Allegations

According to Livingston’s lawsuit, she was implanted with the Abbott Eterna spinal cord stimulator in December 2023 for the treatment of chronic pain. Before the permanent implant was placed, she underwent a trial period using a temporary, external device that appeared to provide some relief.

Abbott sales representatives then encouraged her to receive the permanent implant, saying it would be just as effective, if not more so. However, Livingston says it was not.

While she experienced some initial pain relief, that relief soon stopped and was replaced with severe complications, including shocks, numbness in her extremities, increased pain, balance problems, difficulty walking and incontinence.

After the initial surgery, and multiple times when Livingston complained, Abbott sales representatives without medical licenses made programming adjustments to the Eterna, claiming they were the only ones allowed to do so. These multiple adjustments failed to improve the situation and have prolonged the device’s removal, the lawsuit indicates.

“Plaintiff has been stuck in this cycle ever since, in which she complains to her physicians about the SCS and her complications, they refer her to the Abbott representatives or ask Abbott representatives to contact her regarding the complications, and Plaintiff’s complaints are dismissed by the physicians and Abbott representatives. Plaintiff continues to suffer from pain and symptoms caused and exacerbated by the malfunctioning system. To date, she has been unable to find a physician who will remove the device.”

– Laverne Livingston v. Abbott Laboratories et al

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violation of Hawaii’s Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute, unauthorized practice of medicine, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by the FDA. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Livingston’s complaint comes amid an increasing number of similar claims being filed nationwide against Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro. 

In April, a group of plaintiffs involved in spinal cord stimulator claims against Boston Scientific and Abbott filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting all federal lawsuits over devices from those manufacturers be consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery in the form of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before one judge.

The manufacturers have asked the panel to reject the request, claiming they lack a common, identified defect that would justify consolidation, as well as claiming the individual cases are too far along to benefit. The manufacturers also claim the cases will be dismissed due to federal preemption laws.

However, 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 California woman filed a lawsuit last week against several nitrous oxide suppliers and distributors, alleging they sold Galaxy Gas and similar canisters without warning about the serious risks associated with recreational use of the gas.

Asia Leet brought the complaint (PDF) on May 7 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. It names Galaxy Gas, Pluto Brands LLC, 11Sixtysix LLC, SBK International LLC, United Brands Corporation, and several other businesses and individuals as defendants.

Leet claims that manufacturers and sellers of nitrous oxide canisters knowingly marketed and distributed the products for illegal recreational inhalation, which allegedly resulted in addiction that caused her to suffer severe neurological injuries.

Nitrous Oxide Abuse Concerns

These allegations come amid growing concerns over the widespread promotion and abuse of nitrous oxide in recent years, which has traditionally been used as an anesthetic and in food preparation. However, the gas is also often inhaled for a brief, euphoric high, leading a number of companies to promote that use, despite a severe risk that it may result in physical, neurological and cognitive injuries, including paralysis, brain damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, addiction and death.

Canisters of the gas are being sold heavily online and in vape and smoke shops, often in bright colors and fruity flavors, with devices that allegedly make inhalation easier despite the practice being illegal. 

A 2019 survey by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration indicated that about 12.64 million Americans 12 years old or older had misused nitrous oxide at least once. This has reportedly contributed to a public health crisis, with deaths linked to nitrous oxide inhalation increasing more than 100% from 2019 to 2023.

Leet’s complaint joins a growing number of similar nitrous oxide lawsuits being filed nationwide by users who say they were roped into addiction due to illegal marketing and a lack of warnings about the potential health risks.

Nitrous Oxide Injury Allegations

The lawsuit indicates Leet began inhaling nitrous oxide in late 2023, starting with small 8 gram chargers, but working up over time to larger canisters, such as those sold by Galaxy Gas, WhipIt!, Euro Gas, Miami Magic, Infusion Max and Infuzd.

According to Leet, while these products were obviously marketed for inhalation and recreational use, sellers, particularly brick-and-mortar smoke shops, advertised that they were for culinary use as cover.

“The facade that smoke shops are selling nitrous oxide to chefs bears little resemblance to reality. Although nitrous oxide canisters may state (usually in relatively small type) that the product is for ‘food purposes’ only, every aspect of Defendants’ marketing and retail presentation is designed to override that warning and attract illicit recreational users. Unlike the plain metal cartridges sold at restaurant supply stores, nitrous oxide canisters at smoke shops have edgy names and bright colors that nod toward drug culture—not the food industry.”

– Asia Leet v. Galaxy Gas et al

Starting slowly, Leet’s nitrous oxide addiction began to set in, leading to usage gradually increasing over time. She indicates that the employees at the smoke shops should have clearly known the amounts she was buying, as well as the frequency, were signs of illegal use, yet they never tried to warn her of the potential legal or health consequences.

In 2024, Leet began suffering tingling, numbness, paresthesia, trouble walking and a spastic bladder. These symptoms got worse over time, leading to hospitalization and the need for physical rehabilitation.

Leet has been diagnosed with severe B12 deficiency, nerve damage, neuropathy, spastic bladder, subacute combined degermation of the spinal cord and potentially has demyelinating disorder of the spinal cord. Her lawsuit presents claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligence and violations of California Unfair Competition Laws.

Nitrous Oxide Injury Lawsuits

Manufacturers and distributors of nitrous oxide canisters have faced an increasing number of similar claims over the last year, with many lawsuits also targeting Amazon.com for allegedly serving as a third-party seller of products marketed for recreational use.

These manufacturers are being accused of openly and repeatedly violating the law by allowing and facilitating the sale of nitrous oxide for illegal recreational use.

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

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

A product liability lawsuit filed last week alleges that a tabletop fire pit purchased through Amazon unexpectedly exploded while being refilled, leaving a minor with severe burn injuries.

Jordan Covington, Aaron Covignton, Jr. and Joy Covington brought the complaint (PDF) in California Superior Court on May 4, naming Vatra Inc., Amazon.com Sales Inc., doing business as Amazon.com, Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7.

The family claims that a Vatra brand concrete tabletop fire pit was defectively designed and prone to explode during normal use, posing a serious and undisclosed burn risk to consumers.

Tabletop Fire Pit Risks

Tabletop fire pits have surged in popularity as decorative indoor and outdoor accessories in recent years. These devices typically rely on liquid or gel fuels, often alcohol-based, to create an open flame.

However, when they are poorly designed or lack appropriate safety protections, vapors can build up and ignite without warning, resulting in sudden flare-ups, flashback flames or even explosions, which have resulted in serious and even fatal tabletop fire pit burn injuries.

As concerns about these devices continue to mount, an increasing number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits have been filed raising allegations that certain products are defectively designed, fail to meet safety standards and do not provide adequate warnings about the risks.

Fire Pit Explosion Allegations

According to the lawsuit, the Covington family purchased the portable ethanol fire pit through Amazon.com in December 2023 from third-party seller Vatra Inc., after it was marketed as a safe, indoor-outdoor tabletop device fueled by isopropyl alcohol.

The lawsuit claims that the product’s instructions specifically directed users to fill and refill the fire pit with 70% or 90% isopropyl alcohol, a process that plaintiffs say created a foreseeable and dangerous risk of explosion.

The alleged incident occurred on May 4, 2024, when Jordan, a minor, was using the fire pit in a reasonably foreseeable manner and attempting to refill it with rubbing alcohol. During that process, the device allegedly malfunctioned and suddenly exploded, causing second- and third-degree burns.

Jordan’s parents were present at the time and witnessed the explosion and resulting injuries, the lawsuit states.

According to the complaint, Amazon processed the transaction, controlled communications between buyer and seller, and collected a portion of the sale, while allowing the product to be listed and sold to consumers nationwide.

The Covingtons argue that both the manufacturer and Amazon should be held liable for placing a dangerous and defective product into the stream of commerce without proper warnings or safeguards.

“As a result of Plaintiffs’ use of Defendants’ Subject Fire Pit, Plaintiff Jordan Covington suffered from severe second and third degree burns when the defective Subject Fire Pit suddenly and unexpectedly exploded while Plaintiff Jordan Covington was attempting to refill it.”

— Jordan Covington et al v. Vatra Inc. et al

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to recall, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It seeks damages for Jordan’s injuries and other related losses.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

As reports of incidents like the Covington case continue to surface nationwide, lawyers are investigating tabletop fire pit lawsuits on behalf of individuals injured in accidents involving sudden flare-ups, flashback flames and so-called “flame jetting” events.

Injuries tied to these products have included:

• Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical care
• Permanent scarring, nerve damage or limited mobility
• Inhalation injuries caused by sudden bursts of flame
• Burns suffered by children or nearby bystanders
• Fires or flare-ups occurring during refueling
• Fatal injuries linked to fire pit explosions
• Lost income from missed work
• Ongoing treatment needs, including hospitalization and rehabilitation
• Long-term disfigurement or emotional trauma

Individuals harmed by one of these devices may request a free case evaluation with a tabletop fire pit injury lawyer, who can help identify the product involved, determine whether it was defective or recalled, and outline potential legal options.

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

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

A newly filed class action lawsuit claims that certain Mazda vehicles contain defective seat warmer systems that may overheat, smoke or cause burns during normal use.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Micah Prochaska, Patrick Sandoval, Tina Rogers, Sharmee T. Anderson and Russell J. Quinn in the Superior Court of the State of California on September 18, 2025. It names Mazda Motor of America Inc. as the defendant. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 1.

Seat warmers, also known as heated seats, are a popular vehicle comfort feature that use electric heating elements beneath the upholstery to warm the surface of the seat.

However, each of the plaintiffs claim the seat heating systems in certain Mazda vehicles may overheat, causing burned materials, smoke and other signs of excessive temperatures. 

They allege the defect exposes drivers and passengers to an undisclosed burn risk, while also causing property damage, expensive repairs, the need to disconnect the seat heaters in some vehicles and diminished resale values.

Mazda Heated Seats Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Prochaska purchased a used 2017 Mazda CX-9 after reviewing marketing materials that emphasized the vehicle’s safety and reliability, with no disclosure of any seat heater risks.

He allegedly discovered the defect in February 2025, after his daughter’s jacket burned on the passenger seat, leaving a hole and producing heavy smoke that made him fear an internal fire had started while he was driving.

Rogers claims the defective seat heating system caused both personal harm and damage to her vehicle, allegedly exposing her and her family to a risk of serious burns and rendering the vehicle unsafe. She indicates that she would not have purchased the Mazda vehicle or would have paid less for it had the defect been disclosed. 

In addition, the complaint states that Quinn, Anderson and Sandoval each experienced problems tied to allegedly defective seat heating systems after purchasing their vehicles without any warning of the risk. Damages purportedly included overheating components, damage to the seats, and the need for repairs or disconnection of the heating elements.

The filing claims that Mazda has been aware of the dangers associated with its seat warmer systems for several years yet has failed to take adequate steps to address or mitigate the risks. The complaint further alleges that in many cases, the manufacturer did not provide a remedy or offer to repair the damage at no cost to consumers.

“Plaintiff Prochaska would not have purchased his Vehicle, or would have paid significantly less for his Vehicle, had he known his Vehicle would expose him and his family to the risk of serious burns and otherwise be unfit to perform its intended purpose”

— Micah Prochaska et al v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent product liability, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek certification of their case as a class action, along with damages, restitutionary disgorgement and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

A Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, indicating that she kept receiving Depo-Provera injections nearly a decade after being diagnosed with an intracranial meningioma from the birth control shots, due to the manufacturers failure to warn her and other patients about the potential brain tumor risks.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jillian Wann on April 4, naming Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & UpJohn Co. LLC. as defendants.

It will be consolidated with similar federal Depo-Provera intracranial meningioma lawsuits from across the country in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, where it was originally filed, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Risks

Originally approved for use in the U.S. in 1992, Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA) is a long-acting birth control injection given to women four times a year. Since its introduction, tens of millions of women have received the “Depo shot,” as it is commonly known.

However, in 2024, scientific research began to link Depo-Provera side effects to intracranial meningioma risks, warning that women receiving the injections may face a five-fold increased risk of developing brain tumors when compared to women who did not take the shots. The brain tumors can grow to cause serious, potentially life-threatening complications, often requiring brain surgery and life-long medical monitoring.

As a result, Wann joins thousands of other women now pursuing Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits in courts nationwide. Each complaint alleges that Pfizer knew or should have known about Depo-Provera intracranial meningioma risks, yet put women’s health at risk in order to maximize profits.

Depo-Provera Meningioma Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Wann began receiving Depo-Provera injections for contraception in 2001. She indicates neither she nor her doctor were made aware of the brain tumor risks.

In 2003, following two years of injections, Wann began experiencing vertigo, dizziness, vision loss, hearing loss and menstrual cycle irregularities. MRI and CT scans revealed that she had a developing brain tumor. However, Wann continued to receive the injections because she had no information at the time that the brain tumor had any association with her birth control shots.

Wann will require medical monitoring for the rest of her life to track the brain tumor’s growth and weigh whether it is dangerous enough to require removal, which would involve brain surgery and extensive recovery.

“Due to the sensitive location of an intracranial meningioma immediately proximate to critical neurovascular structures and the cortical area, surgery can have severe neurological consequences. Many studies have described the potential for postoperative anxiety and depression and an attendant high intake of sedatives and antidepressants in the postoperative period.”

– Jillian Wann v. Pfizer Inc. et al

The lawsuit also warns that meningioma brain surgery can result in seizures and tend to manifest near the base of the skull, making removal more difficult and complications more likely.

Wann presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty.

Depo-Provera Intracranial Meningioma Lawsuits

As part of the Depo-Provera intracranial meningioma lawsuits, Wann’s complaint will go through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings under U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who has ordered the parties to prepare five “pilot” cases to serve as bellwether trials.

These early test cases are designed to give the parties an opportunity to see how their arguments, evidence and testimony are evaluated by live juries. Although not binding on other cases, the outcomes of these trials could help the parties form a bedrock for Depo-Provera settlement negotiations.

Before those trials take place, Judge Rodgers has ordered attorneys from both sides to focus on general causation issues to determine whether plaintiffs can use reliable scientific evidence to link Depo-Provera use to brain tumor development. Those hearings are currently scheduled to be held from June 24 to June 26, 2026.

Assuming the general causation requirements are met, the first bellwether trials are currently scheduled to begin in December 2026. If there is no settlement agreement or other resolution to the litigation following the bellwether trials, Judge Rodgers will likely begin remanding cases back to their originating districts to be prepared for individual trials.

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

An Idaho woman has filed a product liability lawsuit after the alleged failure of her Cartiva toe implant led to the need for revision surgery to fuse her big toe in place.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lisa Paull on May 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. It names Cartiva Inc., Wright Medical Group N.V. and Stryker B.V. as defendants.

Paull claims that her Cartiva toe implant was defectively designed, resulting in a failure that caused bone loss and cyst formation, and left her unable to receive a replacement implant.

Cartiva Toe Implant Risks

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) was designed for patients suffering from hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, both forms of degenerative arthritis in the big toe. Made from polyvinyl alcohol-based gel, the implant was supposed to provide an alternative to having the big toe permanently fused in place.

After increasing reports of complications and a much higher failure rate than the manufacturers originally claimed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Cartiva implant recall in October 2024. While the agency approved the Cartiva in 2016 based on clinical trials showing an 87% success rate, real-world data revealed that the actual success rate was only somewhere between 21% and 46%.

The recall and revised failure rates have led to an influx of Cartiva failure lawsuits filed by recipients of devices who say they suffered serious complications, including severe toe pain, loosening, fractures and other issues. Often, these complications necessitate surgery to fuse the big toe, resulting in a loss of mobility.

Cartiva Toe Implant Failure Allegations

According to Paull’s lawsuit, she was implanted with a Cartiva SCI toe in November 2020 after the NCAA official and personal trainer began experiencing increasing pain in her big toe. She and her doctor chose the Cartiva implant due to the claims that it would prevent the mobility problems caused by big toe fusion.

However, Paull indicates that while she had a little flexibility, it was not enough for her to continue activities that required her to be flexible and on her toes. Additionally, she began having chronic instability problems in her right big toe, which received the implant, causing her to suffer multiple falls, resulting in injuries to her ribs and tailbone.

The lawsuit also notes that Paull began suffering from right knee pain due to the change in her gait caused by the Cartiva SCI. A doctor attempted to correct the problem with a soft brace.

“This attempt to fix the problem failed. Her toe felt increasingly unstable and by December 2025, a doctor informed Lisa that her body had rejected the implant, that cysts had developed around it, and that she had lost a significant amount of bone.”

– Lisa Paull v. Cartiva Inc. et al

Paull was presented with the option of either having a new implant installed or undergoing big toe fusion, yet X-rays revealed she had lost too much bone around the Cartiva for another implant to work. She underwent reconstructive surgery in January of this year, losing big toe flexibility and suffering significant loss of work and her active lifestyle, which has significantly altered her life.

The filing presents claims of strict liability, per se negligence, failure to warn, common law product liability and negligence, and breach of warranty. It seeks compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, past and future emotional distress and other pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

Cartiva Failure Lawsuits

Paull’s claim will be consolidated with more than a dozen similar complaints as part of a Cartiva failure lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Arkansas under U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Baker is expected to propose a series of early test cases, known as bellwether trials, that will put the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ evidence, theories and arguments before actual juries to see how they respond to information likely to be shared across all of the litigation.

While not binding on any other cases, the outcome of these trials would be closely watched to see how juries rule and what types of payouts they award to plaintiffs. This information could be crucial for the parties to hammer out a Cartiva failure lawsuit settlement agreement.

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

A West Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a contaminated corticosteroid injection administered for the treatment of arthritis caused her to suffer a severe infection.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Garnet Ann Davis in West Virginia Circuit Court on March 27, naming Sagent Pharmaceuticals Inc. and McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. as defendants. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on April 6.

Davis accuses the companies of selling a defective and contaminated injectable drug that was later subject to a recall, which eventually resulted in the amputation of part of her right foot.

Sterile Solution Risks

This is not the first time that a recalled sterile solution has been linked to severe infections. A November 2023 Nurse Assist recall of sterile water and saline solutions announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) affected certain McKesson products as well.

At the time, the agency found that the items’ packaging seals could break, compromising sterility and exposing the fluids to bacterial contamination. As a result, the solutions may have been contaminated before use. The FDA urged healthcare providers and consumers to stop using and distributing the affected supplies.

In the wake of that announcement, multiple individuals filed Nurse Assist infection lawsuits, alleging that the manufacturer failed to ensure that medical products distributed by McKesson, Cardinal Health and others were properly manufactured and packaged.

McKesson Foot Amputation Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Davis received an injection of methylprednisolone acetate on March 28, 2024, as part of routine treatment for arthritis in her right foot. The medication, which is designed to reduce inflammation, allegedly contained black particulate matter and was not sterile at the time it was administered.

Within days of the injection, Davis reportedly developed severe pain, redness and swelling in her foot, which led to an emergency hospitalization where doctors identified a serious infection. The complaint indicates she was diagnosed with MSSA bacteremia and cellulitis, requiring surgical debridement and intravenous antibiotics.

Despite aggressive treatment, the infection worsened, progressing to osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, ultimately forcing doctors to amputate her right great toe and first ray in June 2024. The lawsuit claims the infection was directly caused by the contaminated injection.

Davis indicates she did not learn the drug had been recalled until after the amputation, when her healthcare provider sent a notice warning that she may have received an affected lot. The complaint alleges the manufacturers and distributors had the ability to identify affected products and patients, yet failed to provide timely warnings that could have prevented her injuries.

Following the amputation, Davis claims she developed long-term complications, including complex regional pain syndrome, phantom limb pain and chronic disability, which have severely impacted her mobility and daily life. The lawsuit states her medical expenses already exceed $156,000, with ongoing care expected.

“At no time did Plaintiff know, or have reason to believe, that the Methylprednisolone Acetate Injectable Suspension, USP administered to her was contaminated, subject to recall, or in any condition unsuitable for its intended use.”

— Garnet Ann Davis v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

The case raises allegations of strict liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligence per se, and breach of express and implied warranties. It is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries, as well as compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering and permanent disability.

The defendants have denied liability, and the litigation is expected to proceed in federal court.

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

An Arizona man is pursuing a lawsuit that claims he suffered breathing problems due to mold exposure from a defectively designed Midea window A/C unit sold by Amazon.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by David Cameron in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on May 5. It names Midea America Corp., GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co. LTD. and Amazon.com Services LLC as defendants.

Cameron alleges that Midea and Amazon failed to properly design, test or warn consumers about the risks posed by the window A/C units, despite 152 consumer reports of mold growth and a recall affecting more than 1.7 million devices.

Midea Air Conditioner Recall

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

However, a Midea A/C system recall was announced in June 2025 after reports indicated that water could pool inside the units, creating conditions that allowed mold to grow. The recall affected more than 1.7 million air conditioners and followed 17 reports of users suffering respiratory side effects.

In the days following the recall, a class action lawsuit was filed against Midea for defective A/C units after a number of users allegedly suffered severe respiratory health problems, including neurological complications, asthma, allergic reactions, coughing, sneezing and other symptoms.

Midea Air Conditioner Lawsuit

Cameron’s lawsuit indicates he purchased a Midea A/C unit from Amazon in April 2024. He claims that a design defect allowed water to pool in the bottom of the air conditioner, which prevented proper drainage and allowed mold to proliferate.

The complaint alleges the manufacturer, Midea, and Amazon, as the seller, failed to properly design and test the product to ensure it was free of defects that caused harm to consumers.

Additionally, despite hundreds of reports submitted by consumers who discovered mold in the air conditioners, including dozens of injuries, the lawsuit indicates that the companies waited until a full recall was issued to warn consumers of the danger.

The complaint indicates Cameron began to suffer severe respiratory issues due to mold exposure from the A/C unit as a result of the product defects. He endured disability, required medical nursing care, suffered permanent injuries, and will require ongoing care.

“When placed in the stream of commerce, Midea A/C Unit was defective in design and formulation, making the use of Midea A/C Unit more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, and more dangerous than other risks associated with other air conditioning units on the market.”

— David Cameron v. Midea America Corp. et al

Cameron’s complaint presents claims of violation of the New Jersey products liability act, defective design, failure to warn and breach of express warranty. It is seeking compensation for damages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and attorney’s fees.

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

A new product liability lawsuit alleges that pharmaceutical companies withheld critical safety information from doctors and patients about a potential link between the eczema treatment Dupixent and cancer, including evidence that the drug may increase the risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Charity Njambi Kamoche in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 5. It names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Genzyme Corporation as defendants.

Kamoche claims Regeneron and Sanofi failed to warn that Dupixent may increase the risk of developing CTCL, or accelerate the progression of undiagnosed cases of the rare skin lymphoma.

Dupixent Cancer Links

Dupixent (dupilumab) received FDA approval in 2017 as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, a chronic form of eczema. In the years that followed, its approved uses expanded to include asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system.

Promoted as a safe and effective therapy, the drug quickly became a widely used, high-revenue treatment in the United States. However, recent reports have linked Dupixent side effects to T-cell lymphomas, rare cancers that affect white blood cells critical to immune function. These findings have raised concerns that use of the medication may increase the risk of both cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

As a result, Kamoche’s lawsuit is one of a growing number of similar Dupixent cancer lawsuits now being filed nationwide. Most of these claims allege that the manufacturers knew or should have known about potential cancer risks, yet failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients about the possibility of severe, life-altering or fatal complications.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

In the complaint, Kamoche indicates she was prescribed Dupixent for atopic dermatitis and used the injections from approximately April 2023 through October 2025, before being diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. The lawsuit suggests the timing of her diagnosis after starting the medication raises concerns that the drug may have played a role in the development or progression of her cancer. 

The lawsuit alleges that the drug manufacturers had access to a growing body of scientific evidence, including post-marketing adverse event reports and published studies, indicating a strong association between Dupixent and CTCL. However, they failed to update the prescribing information or provide adequate warnings to the medical community.

In addition, the filing claims the manufacturers did not instruct healthcare providers to conduct adequate diagnostic testing, such as biopsies, to rule out underlying lymphoma before starting patients on Dupixent, or to monitor for signs of cancer during treatment.

Kamoche indicates that if proper warnings had been provided, doctors would have either avoided prescribing the medication or taken additional steps to screen and monitor patients, potentially preventing serious injury.

She points to multiple scientific studies and analyses that have identified elevated rates of CTCL among Dupixent users. According to one analysis cited in the lawsuit, adverse event reporting data indicated patients were more likely to report CTCL when using Dupixent compared to other medications.

Other research cited in the filing suggests Dupixent users may face a seriously increased risk of developing certain lymphomas, including mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome, which are subtypes of CTCL.

“Plaintiff was prescribed Dupixent to treat atopic dermatitis. Plaintiff was injected with Dupixent from approximately April 2023 until October 2025. Following Plaintiff’s initiation of Dupixent, she was diagnosed with CTCL.”

— Charity Njambi Kamoche v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals et al

The case raises allegations of strict liability—failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. It seeks compensation for past and future economic and non-economic losses, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

Kamoche’s complaint is one of a growing number of lawsuits over the link between Dupixent and cancer now being pursued throughout the federal court system. As a result, several plaintiffs filed a motion in February seeking to centralize Dupixent CTCL lawsuits in the Northern District of Georgia. They asked that all related federal cases be assigned to a single judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

On April 16, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) announced it will consider the request during oral arguments scheduled for May 28. If the panel approves consolidation, one federal judge would be appointed to oversee the litigation and likely direct the parties to prepare a group of representative cases for early trial.

These bellwether cases are intended to test how juries respond to common evidence and legal arguments presented throughout the litigation. Although the results are not binding on other claims, they often influence the direction of the proceedings and play a key role in shaping potential settlement discussions.

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

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a pair of rechargeable heated gloves purchased through Amazon caused severe burn injuries that ultimately led to the amputation of multiple fingers on her dominant hand.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Simone Vilaire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 6. Named defendants include Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Sales Inc., Amazon Logistics Inc., and a Chinese manufacturer, He Yuan Shi Wei De Dianzi Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si, which does business as Weide Heat.

Vilaire alleges that Amazon and the manufacturer knew or should have known about prior overheating incidents involving the rechargeable gloves, but failed to take action. She claims the companies should be held liable for marketing and distributing an unreasonably dangerous product.

Battery-Heated Apparel Risks

Heated gloves are designed to warm the hands using battery-powered internal heating elements, typically embedded along the fingers and back of the hand. Users are often able to adjust temperature settings through built-in controls that cycle between low, medium and high heat levels. They are usually marketed for everyday use in cold conditions or for individuals with circulation issues, such as arthritis.

However, Vilaire’s complaint now joins a growing number of lawsuits over self-heating garments, including a series of heated insole lawsuits that have been filed across the country in recent months.

Many of these complaints allege that design flaws and insufficient safety protections in various brands of foot warmers have led to serious injuries, including burns, nerve damage and surgeries. Some of these cases also target Amazon as a distributor, claiming the company should be held responsible for offering the allegedly unsafe products for sale.

Heated Glove Burn Injuries

According to the lawsuit, Vilaire’s father purchased her a pair of LPCRILLY rechargeable heated gloves through Amazon in May 2025, after she complained of chronic cold and joint pain in her hands.

The complaint indicates that Vilaire used the gloves on the lowest heat setting while resting at home on August 11, 2025. According to the filing, she fell asleep for about two hours and awoke to find one glove had become extremely hot, causing severe burns to her left hand.

The injuries allegedly required extensive medical treatment, including admission to a burn unit, and ultimately resulted in the amputation of her thumb, index finger and middle finger after the tissue became necrotic. The lawsuit indicates the injuries have left Vilaire permanently disfigured and unable to return to her work as a chiropractor.

According to the complaint, the heated gloves were unreasonably dangerous because they lacked basic safety features, such as temperature sensors, feedback controls and automatic shutoff mechanisms, despite being designed to generate heat in direct contact with the skin.

“No warnings of the failure of the heated gloves to regulate the temperature properly and safely and/or shut off when the heated glove reached extreme heat levels were written on the box that the heated gloves were packaged in or provided in pamphlets or other papers inside the box.”

— Simone Vilaire v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al

In addition, the lawsuit claims there were prior consumer complaints posted on Amazon’s website over several years describing overheating and burn incidents, yet the defendants failed to remove the product or warn consumers about the risks.

Amazon Product Liability Allegations

Vilaire’s lawsuit goes on to argue that Amazon should be held liable as a seller and distributor of the heated gloves, citing its involvement in warehousing, inventory control, packaging, shipping and marketing of the products through its “Fulfilled by Amazon” system.

The complaint further alleges that Amazon exercises significant control over third-party products sold on its platform, including product listings, pricing and distribution, while promoting an image that items sold through its marketplace are safe for consumers.

However, the lawsuit claims Amazon actually prioritizes sales and selection over safety, allowing potentially dangerous products from foreign manufacturers to reach U.S. consumers without adequate oversight.

The claim raises allegations of strict product liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn and negligence. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Vilaire’s injuries, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost wages and permanent disability.

Heated Insole Lawsuits

Vilaire’s case joins a growing number of product liability lawsuits targeting rechargeable heated apparel and other battery-powered consumer products, which plaintiffs claim may pose burn and fire risks when safety controls fail.

Many of these cases center on allegations that heated insoles, electric socks and similar foot-warming products have been linked to burn injuries when they malfunction during normal use.

As a result, heated insole injury attorneys are now evaluating potential claims nationwide, focusing on incidents involving overheating, fires or other failures that allegedly caused serious harm, including:

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

These foot warmer lawsuits seek to hold manufacturers and sellers, including online retailers like Amazon, responsible for allegedly marketing and distributing products without adequate testing, safety features or warnings.

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

An Arizona jury has found that C.R. Bard and Becton Dickinson are not liable for failing to warn about potential Bard PowerPort injury risks, but deadlocked on whether the implantable port catheter was defectively designed.

The Bard PowerPort injury lawsuit was the first in a series of scheduled bellwether trials set to go before federal juries in the coming months, involving a claim brought by Robert Cook, who argued that the port catheter was responsible for causing him to suffer a serious infection.

Cook’s case is one of more than 3,000 similar Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending in the federal court system, and was being closely watched to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Bard PowerPort Defect Allegations

The PowerPort is a port catheter implant designed to help doctors inject medications and other fluids into a patient’s body without the need for a new needlestick every time. It consists of a small injection port implanted beneath the skin and a polyurethane catheter that delivers the fluids into the patient’s veins. It is often used for chemotherapy and other treatments where numerous repeat injections are anticipated.

However, many individuals have reported in recent years that Bard PowerPort devices are defectively designed after suffering infections, catheter fractures and failures where the implant migrated out of position. 

Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers fraudulently marketed the implants as safe and effective, despite knowing about design problems. They also claim the companies failed to correct the design or warn the medical community about the risk of serious complications, including pulmonary embolism, blood clots, infections and the need for revision surgery to remove failed implants.

Due to facts and law common throughout the litigation, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits have been consolidated for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who has been working with the parties for months to prepare a series of six bellwether trials to go before juries.

While the outcomes in these early test trials are not binding on other plaintiffs, they are designed to help facilitate potential Bard PowerPort settlement negotiations between the parties and avoid the need for each individual case to go before separate juries nationwide in the coming years.

Bard PowerPort Verdict

The trial over Cook’s claims began on April 21 and concluded Friday. The jury found Bard was not liable for failing to warn or instruct about potential PowerPort risks, and rejected the consumer fraud claim. However, jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed or whether the manufacturers engaged in unlawful trade practices.

The split outcome means that future bellwether trials, which may help clarify juries’ interpretations of the evidence and arguments, could have become even more important.

Jurors reportedly indicated that had they been specifically asked if the Bard PowerPort could have been designed to be safer, they would have said yes. Additionally, company employees testified that they had recommended the port’s design be updated, and that Bard has known for years that its port catheters have a 14% infection rate.

Additional trials are scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1, and February 2, 2027. The second trial will involve injuries suffered by Wanda Miller, who died in early February of cancer. To date, Miller’s family has not yet decided whether to move forward with the lawsuit as her heirs. This has raised questions as to whether the case should move forward as scheduled, be rescheduled, swapped with another claim or removed as a bellwether trial entirely.

If the bellwether trials conclude without a settlement or other resolution, Judge Campbell is expected to begin remanding the cases back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

Additionally, more than 300 similar AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits claim that company’s series of port catheters, including the Vortex Port, SmartPort and Xcela Port, suffer from a similar problem as the Bard PowerPort. These lawsuits are consolidated in a separate MDL in the Southern District of California before U.S. Judge Jinsook Ohta, who is expected to begin a similar bellwether process in hopes of resolving those claims as well.

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

An Alabama woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that defects in Rad Power e-bikes and inadequate safety standards caused a battery to ignite during routine charging, sparking a house fire that injured her and killed her husband.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Shannon Stephens, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Keith Stephens, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on April 28. It names New Summit Collective Inc. (formerly known as Rad Power Bikes Inc.), Summit Collective Inc. and The Cycle Joint Inc. as defendants.

Stephens alleges the defendants knew or should have known that design defects in Rad Power e-bikes created a risk of fire and explosion, based on prior thermal incidents involving similar vehicles. However, the lawsuit claims they failed to implement adequate safeguards.

Rad Power E-Bike Risks

An e-bike, or electric bicycle, is equipped with an integrated motor and battery that helps propel the rider, either while pedaling or through a throttle. Although they resemble traditional bicycles, e-bikes like those sold by Rad Power rely on lithium-ion batteries to help riders travel longer distances, climb hills more easily and reach higher speeds with less physical effort.

However, Stephens alleges that design defects in Rad Power e-bike batteries may cause them to overheat and enter thermal runaway, a dangerous chain reaction in which rising internal temperatures generate additional heat, quickly escalating into fires or explosions.

While the complaint does not reference any specific prior warnings about the risk, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a Rad Power Bikes e-bike battery warning on November 24, 2025, following more than 30 fires and $700,000 in property damage.

Rad Power Bikes Lawsuit

Stephens’ lawsuit indicates that the electric bike was purchased in December 2024 and professionally assembled by The Cycle Joint Inc., an authorized Rad Power Bikes dealer. She reports that her husband, Dr. Keith Stephens, used the bike as intended and instructed, including storing and charging it indoors in a dry garage using an outlet with no history of malfunction.

However, only days after the e-bike was assembled, its battery ignited overnight on January 3, 2025, sparking a fire that injured Shannon Stephens and killed Dr. Stephens.

A formal investigation confirmed that the fire originated from the e-bike battery and determined that a defective design caused the incident. The investigation cited multiple engineering and safety failures, including the use of a lower-cost, higher energy-density battery chemistry and the absence of adequate thermal protection and containment.

The lawsuit alleges that Rad Power Bikes marketed its electric bikes as UL certified despite knowing that the lithium-ion battery had never been UL listed. UL certification is a third-party verification system that confirms batteries have undergone testing required to meet safety standards designed to help prevent fires, explosions and ruptures.

Instead, after numerous fires involving e-bikes, Stephens claims the company quietly began incorporating a new battery feature branded “Safe Shield” as a routine improvement, claiming enhanced thermal protection and internal safeguards. However, it never acknowledged that the original battery design posed a risk of thermal runaway and fire.

“Had Rad Power Bikes incorporated appropriate and available design features, the fire—which originated from the e-bike battery pack—would more likely than not have been contained within the battery pack and prevented from spreading. This event was foreseeable. More importantly, it was preventable.”

— Shannon Stephens v. New Summit Collective Inc. et al

Stephens raises allegations of strict product liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, fraud, breach of implied warranty, failure to provide sufficient warnings and loss of consortium.

She seeks punitive damages for the wrongful death of her husband, as well as compensatory damages and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

The owners of the sports betting sites FanDuel and DraftKings face a class action lawsuit by former players who say the platforms are designed to cause gambling addiction, leading to serious financial and emotional harm.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by John Farley and Michael Fox in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 27, seeking class action status for sportsbook gamblers nationwide. It names Betfair Interactive US LLC, which does business as FanDuel Sportsbook, FanDuel Inc., FanDuel Group Parent LLC, Flutter Entertainment PLC, and DraftKings Inc. as defendants.

Farley and Fox claim the defendants engaged in deceptive practices, failed to intervene despite clear signs of compulsive behavior and violated consumer protection laws.

Online Sportsbook Risks

Online sports betting sites, known as sportsbooks, became legal in the U.S. following a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that placed the decision to allow sports gambling in the lap of each individual state. Since then websites like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM have become increasingly popular and profitable.

However, critics say the rise of these sports betting apps is linked to the use of aggressive and deceptive promotions, algorithms that detect problem gambling habits in consumers and exploit them, and illegal operations in states where the practice has not been approved.

Farley and Fox’s class action seeks to hold the sportsbooks accountable for the economic and social damage caused to consumers. Many of these individuals were allegedly defenseless against an onslaught of psychologically sophisticated advertising and promotions pushing them to wager more often and in higher amounts than they can afford.

The complaint joins a growing number of similar DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits filed in courts nationwide by consumers, states and local governments, which claim the sites are intentionally fostering compulsive gambling, particularly among young, college-aged users. These players are allegedly more comfortable with quick, online transactions, yet have little life experience running their own finances.

Sportsbooks Class Action Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Farley and Fox, both New York residents, were roped into losing large sums of money on the sportsbook sites, with Farley primarily using FanDuel and Fox mainly using DraftKings.

Both indicate they were flooded with repeated promotions such as profit boosts, bet-refund promotions and other marketing designed to encourage their continued gambling. This happened despite the players exhibiting evidence of habit-forming behavior and other red flags, which should have made obvious to the sports betting sites that the two men were developing gambling addictions.

At issue is whether those actions make the companies liable for the men’s losses. Plaintiffs note that online sportsbooks are a new form of gambling never seen before. They indicate the apps are able to be quickly redesigned to continually display new betting opportunities as they arise and can change gambling odds in real time. These features encourage users to stay active on DraftKings and FanDuel for long periods, particularly during live sporting events.

“These product features did not merely make sports betting more convenient. They materially increased the speed, volume, and frequency of wagers that users could place and increased the likelihood that users would continue betting for longer periods of time and in larger amounts than they originally intended.”

– John Farley et al. v. Betfair Interactive US LLC et al

The lawsuit indicates Farley has gambled at least $11,000 on sportsbooks over the last four years. Fox has lost about $5,000 in the course of only one year.

The lawsuit claims these interactions are typical of sportsbook users. Therefore, it seeks class action status for national and New York state consumers who maintained accounts on FanDuel, DraftKings or both. It presents claims of violation of New York General Business Law, negligence and unjust enrichment.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

To date, most sportsbook addiction lawsuits have been individual financial and emotional damage lawsuits, filed by individuals who say they were targeted by the platforms once the algorithms identified them as likely to become addicted. They were then flooded with personalized promotions, loyalty rewards and in some cases, appointed a personal handler, all of which normalized betting practices and downplayed the financial peril.

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

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

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

A product liability lawsuit alleges that a premature infant developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and required bowel surgery after being fed cow’s milk-based infant formula in a neonatal intensive care unit.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Linnette Perez, individually and as the guardian of her child G.V., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 1. It names Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories Inc., Mead Johnson Nutrition Company and Mead Johnson & Company LLC as defendants.

Perez claims the companies’ cow’s milk-based formulas, Similac and Enfamil, caused G.V. to suffer severe and life-threatening gastrointestinal injuries as a newborn.

Cow’s Milk-Based Formula NEC Risks

Abbott and Mead Johnson face hundreds of Similac lawsuits and Enfamil lawsuits brought by families nationwide. Most of the filings claim the baby formula manufacturers failed to warn parents and the medical community about risks of preterm infants developing NEC after being fed the cow’s milk-based products.

NEC is a serious and life-threatening condition caused by harmful bacteria infiltrating the walls of a newborn’s intestines, resulting in portions of the tissue becoming inflamed or dying. It presents a much higher risk for preterm infants whose gastrointestinal tracts may not be fully developed.

Infants who develop NEC often require emergency surgery in a hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Many of the infants do not survive the disease, or the operations meant to address it, and those who do live often have health complications that they have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

Infant Formula NEC Allegations

According to the lawsuit, G.V. was born prematurely on August 18, 2009, and was placed in a NICU shortly after birth. The complaint indicates he was fed Enfamil and Similac cow’s milk-based formulas soon thereafter.

On or around September 5, 2009, the infant began exhibiting symptoms consistent with NEC, including bloody stools and vomiting. Doctors halted feedings and initiated treatment with antibiotics, yet his condition worsened.

By September 15, 2009, G.V. required bowel surgery to treat the condition, highlighting the severity of the illness.

The lawsuit alleges that G.V.’s mother was unaware that cow’s milk-based formulas could increase the risk of NEC and relied on the defendants’ marketing, which promoted the products as safe and necessary for premature infants.

According to the complaint, the manufacturers have long known that their products significantly increase the risk of NEC, as well as the likelihood that premature infants may require surgery or die, yet failed to provide warnings to parents, doctors or hospitals.

The lawsuit further claims the companies engaged in misleading marketing practices, promoting their formulas as safe or superior alternatives to human breast milk, despite medical evidence indicating that human milk is protective against NEC and should be the preferred feeding option for premature infants.

“No parent would reasonably expect that an infant formula or fortifier could be extremely dangerous to their baby unless properly warned and informed of the extreme dangers and risk of NEC, serious injury, surgery, or death.”

– Linnette Perez v. Abbott Laboratories et al

The lawsuit presents allegations of strict products liability, defective design, negligent products liability, failure to warn and negligent failure to warn. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

The majority of Enfamil and Similac NEC lawsuits have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois, where U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Judge Pallmeyer has ordered the parties to prepare a group of claims to serve as bellwether trials. These are designed to observe how juries respond to the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ arguments and evidence. While not binding on other cases, the trials will be closely observed, as the outcomes could significantly influence any infant formula NEC lawsuit settlements.

Originally scheduled to begin in April 2025, the first batch of bellwether trial prospects were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. However, a second wave of potential bellwether trials are now undergoing case-specific discovery, with the first trial expected to be held this August.

Three Similac-related cases have already been tried in state courts, producing mixed outcomes. A Missouri jury returned a verdict of nearly $500 million during a summer 2024 trial. However, a second case in the same court later that year ended in a defense verdict. This was subsequently set aside after the judge determined Abbott introduced improper evidence, resulting in a new trial being ordered. In a more recent proceeding in Cook County, Illinois, four mothers were awarded a combined $70 million in damages.

In addition, a lawsuit involving Mead Johnson’s Enfamil formula resulted in a $60 million award in Cook County court 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 Massachusetts woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava (IVC) filter fractured and perforated her abdomen, requiring emergency surgery to remove the device and repair internal injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Joyce Mutisya in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 5, naming Cook Incorporated, Cook Medical Incorporated, Cook Group Incorporated, Cook Medical LLC, and William Cook Europe ApS as defendants.

Mutisya indicates that Cook promoted its Gunther Tulip filter as both a permanent and retrievable device, suggesting it could safely remain in the body indefinitely, yet she alleges the manufacturers were aware that the risk of fracture, perforation and other failures increases the longer the device remains implanted.

IVC Filter Risks

IVC filters are small, cage-like devices implanted in the inferior vena cava, a large vein that carries blood from the lower body back to the heart. They are designed to trap blood clots before they reach the lungs. However, they have also been the subject of growing safety concerns, particularly when left in place for extended periods.

In recent years, a number of IVC filter models have been associated with serious complications, including cases where the device’s struts pierced the vena cava or shifted from their intended position. Reports have also indicated that some filters can break apart, with fragments traveling to the heart or lungs, potentially triggering the same type of pulmonary embolism the devices are meant to prevent.

Amid these concerns, tens of thousands of Cook IVC filter lawsuits and Bard IVC filter lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide. Plaintiffs generally allege the filters were defectively designed, insufficiently tested, and sold without adequate warnings to doctors or patients about the risk of serious complications.

Gunther Tulip IVC Filter Defects

According to the lawsuit, Mutisya was implanted with a Gunther Tulip IVC filter in January 2009 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where the device was intended to prevent potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolisms by catching blood clots traveling to the lungs.

However, more than a decade later, imaging scans performed in July 2023 allegedly revealed that the filter had fractured and multiple struts had perforated the vena cava, with at least one penetrating her duodenum. The plaintiff subsequently underwent a laparotomy procedure to remove the device and repair the damage to her abdomen.

The lawsuit claims the Gunther Tulip filter was defectively designed and prone to fracture, migration and perforation, due to an inability to withstand normal forces inside the body over time. The complaint further alleges that Cook failed to adequately test the device or provide warnings about the risk of serious complications, while continuing to market the filter as safe for long-term or permanent implantation.

As a result of the alleged defects, the plaintiff claims she has suffered severe and permanent injuries, including internal organ damage, pain and suffering, and the need for invasive surgery.

“At all times relevant hereto, the Cook Defendants knew their retrievable IVC filters were defective and knew that the defect was attributable to the design’s failure to withstand the normal anatomical and physiological loading cycles exerted in vivo.”

— Joyce Mutisya v. Cook Incorporated et al

The case raises allegations of negligence, strict products liability—failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied and express warranties, and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks punitive and compensatory damages for physical pain and suffering, physical impairment and incapacity, mental anguish, and medical expenses.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Mutisya’s case is expected to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where it would join thousands of similar IVC filter lawsuits centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of the litigation, the court has been selecting representative cases for early bellwether trials to help gauge how juries may evaluate common evidence, while also encouraging settlement discussions between Cook Medical and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Those negotiations have reportedly expanded in recent months as the parties explore the potential for broader resolution agreements that could avoid the need for thousands of individual trials.

However, if the bellwether process and settlement efforts do not result in agreements, the court is expected to begin sending cases back to federal courts nationwide for separate trial proceedings.

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

A settlement has reportedly been reached between CooperSurgical and couples whose embryos were destroyed due to damage caused by the company’s recalled LifeGlobal IVF culture media, which was used at certain fertility clinics.

As part of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, embryos are typically placed in a culture media that promotes and supports development through the blastocyst stage, before it is implanted back into a woman’s body to be carried to term.

LifeGlobal IVC Culture Media Recall

In late 2023, CooperSurgical announced a LifeGlobal IVC culture media recall. In its notice, the company indicated that the product was destroying embryos instead of helping them grow, dashing the hopes of couples hoping to have children and significantly increasing an already costly fertility treatment.

This has led to dozens of CooperSurgical IVF culture media lawsuits being filed over the last couple years, each raising similar allegations that indicate the company manufactured and distributed a defective product that was unreasonably dangerous for the embryos. The filings also claim CooperSurgical failed to warn prospective parents or the clinics that their fertilized embryos could be destroyed, making them unusable.

CooperSurgical Settlement

A settlement was announced on May 5 in an order to dismiss (PDF) the existing lawsuits once the agreement is finalized. It resolves a LifeGlobal IVC culture media recall class action lawsuit filed in March 2024, which sought to represent individuals who experienced embryo loss due to the allegedly defective culture media.

The agreement follows a decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to reject a motion by plaintiffs seeking to centralize all CooperSurgical culture media lawsuits before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. That motion, filed in June 2024, indicated there were at least 30 CooperSurgical culture media lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide.

However, the panel found that formal consolidation was unnecessary, determining that informal coordination between the parties and various courts was sufficient to manage the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the dismissal order, which did not include any details about the settlement terms. The deal was presented to Judge Tigar last Friday, and he noted that the lawsuit could be reinstated within three months if the settlement is not completed.

“This order will be vacated if any party, after meeting and conferring with opposing parties, files a notice that settlement has not occurred within 90 days of the date of this order.”

– U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, Northern District of California

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

Federal safety officials have announced a recall involving certain Boston Scientific Accolade pacemakers and cardiac devices, warning a software defect may impair their ability to deliver life-sustaining therapy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Boston Scientific Accolade Pacemaker recall on May 7 after reports of 2,557 serious injuries and four deaths. Regulators have classified the correction as a Class I recall, the agency’s highest-risk category.

The action involves a firmware update to address a known issue that may cause the devices to enter “Safety Mode,” limiting pacing function and potentially preventing delivery of adequate therapy for patients who rely on the products to regulate heart rhythms. 

Pacemaker Risks

Pacemakers are small devices implanted in the chest to regulate abnormal cardiac rhythms by delivering electrical signals that keep the heart beating at a steady rate.

However, malfunctions or design defects can lead to life-threatening complications, with regulators saying the current correction addresses an ongoing safety concern noted in multiple related Accolade recalls.

The FDA indicates the issue has been under ongoing review amid a growing number of adverse event reports that raise concerns about reliability for patients who depend on continuous cardiac therapy.

Accolade Pacemaker Recall

According to federal regulators, a software issue can cause certain Boston Scientific Accolade pacemakers and CRT-Ps to switch into a backup operating state, known as Safety Mode, which is not intended to provide long-term pacing support. This could lead to symptoms such as dizziness, fainting, heart failure complications or other serious cardiac events.

The FDA indicates affected devices were distributed nationwide and are widely used among patients requiring cardiac assistance. Specific product names, model numbers, device listings and UDIs can be found in the FDA’s recall announcement or with the help of the Boston Scientific device lookup tool.

Boston Scientific initiated the current correction to expand prior recalls and address issues introduced by its earlier Brady SMR5 software update, which was intended to reduce Safety Mode risks but led to unintended battery and telemetry problems.

The updated Brady SMR6 firmware is designed to correct incomplete telemetry shutdown, false battery test readings and other performance concerns, while reducing the risk that certain Accolade devices may require premature replacement due to high battery impedance.

Physicians are being urged to prioritize software updates for patients who are most dependent on pacing support, particularly those at higher risk of complications if the device fails to function properly. Regulators are not recommending device removal. Instead, they are advising patients to consult healthcare providers about whether their pacemaker is affected and when the correction should be applied.

Boston Scientific has indicated that the update can be performed during a routine office visit using a programmer, without additional surgery.

For more information, Boston Scientific’s U.S. Technical Services can be contacted at 1-800-227-3422 or by email at tech.services@bsci.com. Healthcare providers and patients can also submit reports of adverse events or device quality issues to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Pacemaker Lawsuits

The recall comes amid growing litigation over alleged pacemaker defects. Late last month, a product liability lawsuit claimed that a defective Medtronic Azure pacemaker failed to properly detect and record dangerous heart rhythm abnormalities, leaving a Pennsylvania woman to experience worsening arrhythmias, repeated complications and emotional distress.

Separately, a Washington woman filed a lawsuit earlier this year claiming a Boston Scientific pacemaker malfunctioned more than a decade after implantation, triggering a life-threatening emergency that required urgent surgery.

Another complaint, brought shortly before that case, alleged a Medtronic Azure dual-chamber pacemaker caused abnormal electrical activity and serious heart rhythm problems for a Connecticut woman, ultimately requiring removal and replacement of the device.

Similar defect allegations have also been raised in spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against Medtronic and Boston Scientific, where plaintiffs claim the devices’ electrical systems led to unexpected shocks, burns and other complications due to design or manufacturing issues.

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

According to a new lawsuit, James Quinn underwent root canals, extractions, crowns, bridges and dentures after using Suboxone film strips to treat opioid addiction, which he claims lacked adequate warnings about the risk of dental damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 30. It names Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc. and Aquestive Therapeutics Inc. as defendants.

Quinn is attempting to hold the manufacturers of Suboxone film strips liable for the extensive dental damage he claims to have suffered.

Suboxone Film Strip Risks

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) was originally approved in tablet form in 2002, as a prescription treatment for individuals recovering from opioid addiction. It is designed to reduce cravings and lessen withdrawal symptoms. However, as the patent was running out, the manufacturers released a sublingual film strip formulation, retaining exclusivity.

Reports then began to surface linking Suboxone film strips to incidents of severe tooth decay and dental damage, leading many users to require extensive dental work due to tooth loss and disfigurement. In June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a Suboxone tooth decay warning after receiving hundreds of complaints, which was followed by a wave of personal injury claims.

The manufacturers now face thousands of Suboxone dental damage lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide, who say they failed to warn millions of patients and their doctors about the risks of tooth decay until forced to do so by federal regulators.

Suboxone Dental Damage Allegations

According to Quinn’s lawsuit, he became addicted to opioids as a minor after they were prescribed to him by a doctor following arm surgery in 1997. As an adult, he sought to break the addiction and was prescribed Suboxone film strips to help with the withdrawal symptoms.

Once Quinn began using the film strips, he began experiencing “severe and progressive dental deterioration,” the lawsuit states. This led to tooth loss, tooth fractures, infections and abscesses, and the need for extensive dental treatments.

“During the relevant time periods, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s treating physicians were given no warning and had no knowledge of the serious risk of dental erosion and decay Suboxone film posed.”

– James Quinn v. Indivior Inc. et al

The lawsuit alleges that manufacturers knew about the risks of dental erosion linked to buprenorphine for years. However, because it was originally in tablet form, dental enamel exposure was not a significant issue, yet even that delivery system was linked to some reports of tooth decay. Quinn goes on to note that the FDA has been receiving adverse event reports regarding the tablets since 2007.

The influx of those reports accelerated once Suboxone film strips hit the market. Prior to the FDA’s 2022 safety communication, the agency had received at least 136 reports of dental damage from patients taking Suboxone tablets or film.

Despite these warning signs, the filing notes that the label warning in the U.S. was not changed until the FDA order. However, in Europe and other parts of the world, the labels already carried specific warnings of potential dental enamel erosion and tooth decay.

The lawsuit indicates the manufacturers purposefully played down or hid Suboxone dental damage risks from U.S. doctors and patients in order to maximize profits in its largest market, at the expense of consumers’ dental health. The filing presents claims of failure to warn, negligent failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions, defective design, and negligent design defect. It is seeking both punitive and compensatory damages.

Suboxone Dental Damage Lawsuits

Quinn’s complaint will be consolidated with other Suboxone dental damage lawsuits centralized as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Ohio, where they are undergoing coordinated pretrial proceedings under U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese.

Over the past year, Judge Calabrese has guided the parties through the process of preparing a group of representative cases for bellwether trials, which are designed to help both sides gauge how juries may respond to evidence and arguments likely to be repeated throughout the Suboxone litigation. 

Having started with a Records Collection Pool consisting of 500 claims in May 2025, the pool has since been whittled down to 100 claims. Judge Calabrese has called for parties and the court to select 20 random cases from the list for core discovery by June 10. The parties will then select 15 claims to serve as bellwether trials by July 13, 2026.

In June 2027, plaintiffs and defendants will select four final bellwether selections. The first trial is not expected to go before a jury until at least March 2028.

While the outcomes of these bellwether trials are not binding, they will be closely watched because their results would likely play a role in any Suboxone lawsuit settlement agreements. If the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings conclude with no settlement or other resolution to the litigation, Judge Calabrese would likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts for individual trial dates.

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

A new lawsuit from a Colorado woman alleges that Lyft’s lack of passenger safety considerations resulted in her being sexually assaulted by one of the rideshare service’s drivers in August 2024.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a plaintiff identified only as L.D. to protect her anonymity. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 27, naming Lyft Inc. as the defendant.

In recent years, multiple passengers like L.D. indicate Lyft has refused to conduct meaningful and effective background checks on its drivers, place surveillance cameras in vehicles, allow passengers to choose the gender of their driver, or put its drivers through sexual harassment training.

As a result, the rideshare service faces a growing number of Lyft passenger sexual assault lawsuits, each containing similar claims that the company abandoned its duty to protect passengers in favor of profits. This has allegedly allowed a service-wide culture to flourish, which has resulted in passengers, almost all women, being sexually harassed, groped, assaulted, kidnapped and even raped.

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

According to L.D.’s complaint, she ordered a Lyft ride through the company’s app in August 2024 because her own car was out of commission. However, once the driver arrived and she got in the vehicle, L.D. indicates he began asking her very personal questions.

Later in the ride, the driver pulled the vehicle over, claiming he needed to get something out of the trunk. Instead, he entered the back of the vehicle with the passenger, threw her phone out of the car, and began trying to force her to perform oral sex on him.

The lawsuit indicates L.D. kicked the driver in the genital area, allowing her to escape the attack and flee. She states that the driver hunted her for some time as she hid until he gave up. L.D. then retrieved her phone and reported the incident to Lyft, which she says never responded. The complaint notes that her story is similar to those of many other passengers of the rideshare service, which has refused to address the problem.

“Lyft’s response to this sexual predator crisis amongst Lyft drivers has been appallingly inadequate. Lyft continues to hire drivers without performing adequate background checks. Lyft continues to allow culpable drivers to keep driving for Lyft. And, perhaps most importantly, Lyft has failed to adopt and implement reasonable driver monitoring procedures designed to ensure the safety of its passengers.”

– L.D. v. Lyft Inc.

L.D. presents claims of general negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, common carrier negligence, negligent failure to warn, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, strict product liability – design, and strict product liability – failure to warn.

She seeks damages for physical pain, mental anguish, anxiety, medical expenses, and lost earnings or earning capacity.

Rideshare Service Sexual Assault Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with other federal claims as part of a Lyft passenger sexual assault lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation, centralized in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Rita Lin for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Eventually, Judge Lin is expected to organize a series of bellwether trials for the MDL, which will help the parties understand how juries respond to evidence and arguments that may be similar throughout the litigation.

Lyft currently faces about 30 sexual assault lawsuits. However, another 3,300 federal Uber sexual assault lawsuits have been filed against its competitor and consolidated in the same district under a different judge, who is already leading the claims through a series of bellwether trials.

The first federal bellwether trial resulted in an $8.5 million verdict for Jaylynn Dean earlier this year. Dean indicated she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2023. Despite determining Uber was not negligent in the handling of its safety features, the Arizona federal jury still determined that the rideshare service was responsible for the attack, since the driver was an acting agent of the company.

A prior Uber sexual assault trial was held by the state of California in September 2025, ending in a verdict where jurors determined the company did not do enough to protect riders, yet ultimately declined to hold Uber legally responsible or award damages.

While the outcomes of these bellwether trials will not directly affect other claims, they are being closely watched as a potential guide to settlement negotiations. However, if no settlement or other resolution is reached, the individual lawsuits would likely be remanded to their federal district of origin for individual trial dates.

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

A New York man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective Misha Knee System implant fractured inside his body less than a year after surgery, leaving him with permanent injuries and disability.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Frank N. Sgrizzi and his wife, Allison L. Sgrizzi, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on February 18, naming Moximed Inc., Revzero Inc., and the Hospital for Special Surgery as defendants. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 1.

The Sgrizzis claim that a defective Misha Knee System implant fractured inside Frank Sgrizzi’s knee within months of surgery, leading to worsening pain, swelling and further complications. The failure allegedly occurred at the same location later identified in a federal recall. 

Knee Implant Risks

The Misha Knee System is an implantable shock absorber designed to treat patients with mild to moderate medial knee osteoarthritis by reducing pressure on the joint without replacing it. Surgically placed alongside the knee, the device connects the femur and tibia and uses a spring-like mechanism to absorb some of the load placed on the joint during movement. This helps to alleviate pain and improve function.

The device is typically marketed as an option for patients who have not found relief from conservative treatments, but who are not yet ready to undergo a total knee replacement. Instead, it offers a less invasive alternative intended to preserve the natural joint.

Misha Knee Implant Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Sgrizzi underwent surgery on June 24, 2024, to implant the Misha Knee System. However, within months of the procedure, Sgrizzi allegedly began experiencing worsening pain, swelling and complications.

By January 2025, imaging revealed that the implant had fractured at the distal end of the absorber component, which Sgrizzi’s surgeon diagnosed as a failure of the device.

As a result, Sgrizzi underwent a second surgery on February 10, 2025, to remove the failed implant. During the procedure, doctors reportedly confirmed that the device had fractured at the same location later identified in a federal safety recall.

Misha Knee System Recall

The lawsuit indicates that in December 2024, months after Sgrizzi’s implant surgery but before its failure, Moximed initiated a Misha Knee System recall for certain devices. The FDA’s Class II recall warned that the implant may fracture due to a defect involving reduced wall thickness and microcracks in a component of the device.

The recalled devices were linked to risks of pain, swelling and stiffness, with federal regulators indicating they could require removal. The complaint alleges that the specific implant used in Sgrizzi’s surgery was among the affected lots.

“Upon information and belief, the explanted MISHA hardware removed from Plaintiff FRANK N. SGRIZZI fractured at the exact point of concern identified in the FDA recall.”

— Frank N. Sgrizzi v. Moximed Inc. et al

The Sgrizzis claim that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the defect prior to marketing and selling the device, yet failed to provide adequate warnings to physicians or patients.

Misha Knee System Defects

According to the complaint, the device was expected to last for years but instead fractured within seven to eight months, allegedly due to nonconforming geometry in the absorber component that weakened the structure.

As a result of the failure, Sgrizzi claims he has suffered severe and permanent injuries, including chronic pain, limited mobility and advanced osteoarthritis in his knee. The lawsuit indicates he can no longer sit or walk for extended periods and requires assistance with daily activities.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability, negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties. Allison Sgrizzi has also filed a loss of consortium claim, alleging the complications have impacted their relationship and household.

The Sgrizzis are seeking damages for medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses allegedly caused by the defective knee implant. Prior to the incident, Sgrizzi reportedly worked as a high-level executive and earned more than $1 million annually. As a result, the total claimed economic damages exceed $21 million.

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

A Wisconsin woman has filed a lawsuit claiming the widespread sale and promotion of ultra-processed foods has fueled the rise in childhood obesity and metabolic diseases over recent decades.

Olivia Kreie brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 27, targeting several major food industry corporations behind popular ultra-processed food brands she says were marketed to her and her parents throughout her life.

The defendants include Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International Inc., Post Holdings Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo Inc., General Mills Inc., Nestlé USA Inc., Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars Inc., Conagra Brands Inc. and Unilever United States Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that those corporations are responsible for some of the most-consumed foods in the U.S., and have caused “one of the greatest threats to health and the health of children” the nation has ever faced.

Ultra-Processed Food Health Concerns

Ultra-processed foods (UFP) are mass-produced products that primarily use refined ingredients, additives and chemicals, instead of whole foods. Designed for convenience and long shelf life, they include sodas, frozen dinners, sugary cereals and many packaged snacks. Most of these products rely heavily on added sugars, saturated fats and preservatives that often offer few nutritional benefits.

Concerns have risen about the health effects of ultra-processed foods in recent years as they have become a larger and larger staple of the average American diet, particularly among children. Numerous studies have linked diets high in ultra-processed foods to increases in obesity, type 2 diabetes and other metabolic chronic health problems.

As more findings have emerged, major food manufacturers have faced a growing number of ultra-processed food lawsuits like Kreie’s, each alleging that the companies knew about the health risks associated with their products, yet continued to market and sell them without adequate warnings, putting profits ahead of public health.

Ultra-Processed Foods Type 2 Diabetes Allegations

According to her complaint, Kreie was born in 2006 and grew up during a time period that began in the 1980s, which has seen an explosion of childhood obesity and diabetes. Like many children in recent decades, she was raised on Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Hot Pockets, Lunchables, Pop Tarts and other well-known foods commonly consumed by U.S. youth.

The lawsuit notes that countless studies, some by the manufacturers themselves, have shown UPFs to meet the criteria for addictive, psychoactive products that induce cravings and overconsumption. Internal documents indicate companies did their own research to figure out how they could use UPFs to “hack the brain” of consumers.

“UPF formulation strategies were guided by the same tobacco company scientists and the same type of brain research on sensory perceptions, physiological psychology, and chemical senses that were used to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes. Studies of how electrical messages are transmitted throughout the central nervous system are used to formulate UPF.”

– Olivia Kreie v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al

Kreie argues that manufacturers campaigned directly to children using scientific data to generate addictive qualities in their products. As a result, obesity rates and diabetes exploded right along with the popularity of UPFs.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the manufacturers liable for Kreie’s Type 2 diabetes, which she was first diagnosed with at only 10 years old, and will have lifelong consequences for her diet and health. Kreie indicates that neither she, her parents, nor millions of other American families living typical lives had any chance of resisting the incessant, science-based marketing and chemically-enhanced flavors, particularly children.

Kreie presents claims of negligence, failure to warn, defective design, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection law, civil conspiracy/concerted action, and aiding and abetting wrongful conduct. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits

The complaint joins an increasing number of similar ultra-processed food lawsuits filed by both young adults and the parents of children who developed metabolic diseases following childhood exposure to UPFs, including diabetes and fatty liver disease.

These lawsuits allege ultra-processed food products were intentionally engineered and marketed to encourage overconsumption in ways similar to addiction. They claim the companies targeted children and other impressionable consumers to create lifelong customers, despite the potential harm to their health. 

Ultra-processed food attorneys representing plaintiffs nationwide are currently reviewing additional cases involving individuals who regularly consumed UPFs during childhood and later developed metabolic illnesses.

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