Federal regulators have warned for years that certain medical scopes used during colonoscopies and other endoscopic procedures may be difficult to fully clean between patients, and Olympus now faces claims that it knew about infection risks linked to it’s devices, but continued to distribute reusable scopes without adequate reprocessing steps.

The devices are commonly used during procedures such as colonoscopy, endoscopy, bronchoscopy, cystoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures, allowing doctors to diagnose and treat conditions involving the digestive tract, lungs, urinary tract, bile ducts, pancreas and other internal areas.

The FDA indicates that duodenoscopes alone are used in more than 500,000 ERCP procedures each year in the United States, with millions of colonoscopies performed for routine screening among individuals over the age of 50.

Given that Olympus and other manufacturer duodenoscopes are intended to be reused on multiple patients, they must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected or sterilized before each procedure. However, regulators have warned that some devices contain narrow channels, moving parts and hard-to-inspect areas where tissue, fluid or bacteria may remain after reprocessing.

If bacteria survive inside a scope after reprocessing, the device may appear clean but still carry infectious material into the next procedure. That creates a hidden exposure risk for the next patient, who would have no way of knowing that the scope was previously used on someone else, or that contamination could remain inside internal channels or components.

That hidden risk has become the central allegation in Olympus scope lawsuits, which are now being investigated by individuals throughout the U.S. who have been impacted by devastating infections and outbreaks linked to reprocessed endoscopes.

Plaintiffs claim certain reusable devices were defectively designed or manufactured in ways that prevented them from being fully sterilized between patients, allowing bacteria and biological material to remain trapped inside the scopes after cleaning and posing a risk of sepsis, bloodstream infections, pneumonia, drug-resistant infections, organ failure and other serious complications.

FDA Warnings Have Long Flagged Infection Risks With Reprocessed Scopes

Federal concerns over reprocessed endoscopes first emerged more than a decade ago, after duodenoscopes were linked to outbreaks of serious infections, including antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The devices are used during ERCP procedures to diagnose and treat problems involving the bile ducts and pancreas, but their small working parts and internal channels have made them difficult to fully clean between patients.

The concern is not simply that a scope may be dirty on the outside. Regulators have warned that tissue, fluid or bacteria may remain inside hard-to-reach areas of the device after reprocessing, creating a risk that contamination may be carried into the next procedure.

Reported infections and complications linked to contaminated or improperly reprocessed scopes have included:

• Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections
• CRE infections
• E. coli infections
• Sepsis
• Bloodstream infections
• Pneumonia
• Urinary tract infections
• Organ failure
• Death

In 2018, the FDA warned duodenoscope manufacturers, including Olympus, Fujifilm and Pentax, that they had failed to complete required postmarket surveillance studies meant to determine whether the devices could be safely reused after cleaning. The FDA ordered the studies over the severity of the potential contamination concerns, stating:

“Failure of these devices would be reasonably likely to cause infection and possibly death in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures, which would meet the definition of “serious adverse health consequences.”
FDA Warning Letter – March 9, 2018

The FDA warning was followed later that year by a separate federal enforcement action against Olympus. Olympus Medical Systems Corporation and a former senior executive pleaded guilty to failing to file FDA-required adverse event reports involving serious infections connected to duodenoscopes, with prosecutors alleging the company continued selling the devices in the United States without providing regulators required infection-related information.

The Department of Justice said Olympus agreed to pay $80 million in fines and $5 million in criminal forfeiture.

FDA Warning Letters Put Olympus Endoscope Practices Under the Microscope

In 2022, the FDA issued two warning letters involving Olympus-related facilities in Japan, raising new questions about the company’s endoscope operations, reporting practices and manufacturing controls.

In November 2022, the FDA issued a warning letter to Aizu Olympus Co., Ltd., following an inspection of a facility that manufactured sterile and non-sterile endoscopes, as well as automated endoscope reprocessors. The agency cited problems involving federal quality system requirements, indicating that the company’s manufacturing methods, facilities or controls did not conform to required standards.

One month later, the FDA issued a separate warning letter to Olympus Medical Systems Corporation after an inspection of a facility that manufactured gastrointestinal and surgical endoscopes. The agency cited medical device reporting problems and said certain Olympus endoscopes were considered misbranded because the company failed or refused to provide required device-related information under federal reporting rules.

The warning letters directly support the product liability theory behind Olympus scope lawsuits by showing that federal concerns extended beyond isolated cleaning errors at hospitals. The FDA’s findings involved manufacturer-level failures tied to quality systems, reporting obligations, endoscope reprocessing equipment and the safety oversight of reusable devices that were designed to be cleaned and used again on multiple patients.

FDA Actions May Strengthen Olympus Scope Lawsuits

The FDA warnings, warning letters and federal enforcement actions play an important role in Olympus scope lawsuit investigations, particularly for claims alleging that infections were caused by defects in the design, manufacture, warnings or reprocessing instructions provided with reusable medical scopes.

Concerns over Olympus scope infections have already led to litigation, including a recently filed Olympus endoscope lawsuit over an ERCP infection, involving sepsis allegedly caused by a contaminated reusable scope.

Attorneys are reviewing cases involving infections, sepsis, organ failure, or other complications that occurred after a scope procedure. These claims seek compensation for medical bills, long-term health problems, lost income, and other damages. You may qualify for a surgical scope infection lawsuit if:

• You underwent an ERCP, endoscopy, colonoscopy, or bronchoscopy procedure
• The procedure involved a reusable surgical scope
• You developed a serious infection within weeks after the procedure
• The infection required hospitalization, IV antibiotics, or caused severe complications

Consultations are always free and all cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and no attorney fees unless compensation is recovered.

A Colorado man has filed a product liability lawsuit against the makers of the LINX esophageal implant, alleging the defective device leaves him facing surgical removal or the risk that its magnetic beads may break apart and migrate through his body.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Johnathan Heath on June 26 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, naming Torax Medical, Inc., and Ethicon, Inc. as the defendants.

Heath accuses the manufacturers of selling a defective medical implant that can endanger the lives of its recipients. Even if the device does not fail, knowing that it is inside your body and could fail at any time has caused him anxiety and the need for regular medical monitoring, the lawsuit indicates.

LINX Reflux Management System Problems

At issue is the LINX Reflux Management System, which was developed by Torax Medical and approved in 2017 for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Torax was later acquired by Ethicon, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.

The LINX device consists of a small ring of magnetic beads connected by titanium wires, which is implanted around the lower esophageal sphincter to help prevent stomach acid from flowing back into the esophagus. Although the device was marketed as safe and effective, reports later emerged that the wires could break, allowing the magnetic beads to detach and migrate inside the body. In many cases, patients required additional surgery to remove the failed implant.

Those reports led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to announce a LINX Reflux Management System recall in 2018.

Since then, a growing number of LINX implant lawsuits have been filed in courts nationwide. Heath’s complaint raises similar defect allegations, but differs from many other claims because his implant has not yet fractured. Instead, he alleges the device failed to relieve his GERD symptoms, leaving him to either undergo surgery to have it removed or continue living with the risk that it may fail in the future.

Heath’s complaint indicates he was surgically implanted with the LINX system to control his GERD symptoms, which was later subjected to the recall. He indicates that, while intact, he has suffered “a severe recurrence of GERD.” However, he has not had the device surgically removed yet.

The lawsuit notes that by promoting and distributing a defective medical implant, Torax violated federal regulations including manufacturing standards and standards of care.

“Plaintiff’s LINX was defectively manufactured and failed as a result of that defect. At the time the LINX device left the control of Defendant Torax, it was outside of manufacturing specification and was unreasonably dangerous due to its defective manufacture.”

– Johnathan Heath v. Torax Medical, et al.

According to the complaint, Torax itself admits that the device suffers from a manufacturing defect, acknowledging the problem was in “an out of specification condition” that caused the beads to come loose from the titanium wire in its own notice to customers.

FDA data indicated there were 9,131 LINX implants on the market as of May 2018.

Heath presents claims of manufacturing defect, negligence, and negligence per se. He seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and disfigurement.

LINX Implant Lawsuits

The U.S. was not the only country to recall the LINX implant, as the manufacturer also pulled LINX implants from certain foreign markets in September 2025, as concerns about the implants breaking continued to rise.

LINX recall lawyers are currently reviewing additional injury claims and pursuing compensation for patients who experienced complications, including:

• The need for revision surgery or removal of the device
• Device breakage or mechanical failure
• Migration of the implant
• Organ punctures or tissue damage

A California woman’s product liability lawsuit alleges she suffered severe medical reactions, scarring, and other side effects after receiving Juvederm cosmetic injections.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Christina Garcia in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 27, naming AbbVie Inc. as the defendant and seeking class action status on behalf of other Juvederm users nationwide.

Juvederm filler injections are cosmetic hyaluronic acid injections placed under the skin to plump wrinkles and fine lines or enhance facial contours. The products are part of a growing cosmetic filler market, with the lawsuit indicating that more than 5.3 million Juvederm and other hyaluronic acid filler injections were administered in 2023 alone, second only to Botox injections.

According to the complaint, fillers have become increasingly popular due to the growth of medispas, easier access to cosmetic injection services and the influence of social media trends. Garcia’s lawsuit notes that many of these procedures are performed on the face, making the risk of permanent lumps, scarring or disfigurement especially important to consumers deciding whether to receive the injections.

Garcia’s lawsuit indicates she received multiple Juvederm injections in her face in 2023, paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for the cosmetic procedures. In June 2026, she allegedly became extremely ill and was hospitalized due to delayed-onset granulomas that developed at the injection sites.

A granuloma is a hard lump that forms when immune cells cluster around a foreign object or area of inflammation. According to the lawsuit, granulomas from facial fillers may cause painful lumps, discoloration, scarring and disfigurement, and may require steroids, surgery or other medical treatment.

Garcia, a licensed pharmacist, claims she carefully reviews warning labels before using medications and cosmetic products. She alleges she would not have received Juvederm injections, or would have paid substantially less for them, if AbbVie had clearly warned about the risk of granulomas and delayed-onset granulomas.

Juvederm Label Allegedly Failed to Warn About Granulomas

The complaint alleges Juvederm’s warning materials mention temporary redness, swelling, firmness, lumps, bumps and discoloration, but fail to clearly warn that users may develop granulomas months or years after treatment.

Garcia claims the Juvederm label downplays the risk by describing nodules and delayed inflammation as generally temporary or responsive to treatment, without warning that granulomas may cause lasting facial scarring or disfigurement.

The lawsuit also points to Juvederm’s consumer-facing website, which Garcia says she reviewed before the injections. According to the complaint, the site listed common side effects but failed to mention granulomas, delayed-onset granulomas, severe disfigurement or nodules in its side effect discussion.

Garcia alleges AbbVie and its Allergan subsidiary knew or should have known about the risk before she received the injections. The lawsuit cites regulatory materials indicating Juvederm studies identified injection-site lumps, bumps and nodules in some users, which Garcia claims should have prompted stronger warnings about delayed inflammatory reactions.

“The complete and utter failure to warn Plaintiff Garcia and Class members of the risks of Juvederm Products is not a mistake – it is a conscious choice taken in light of studies cited above which clearly discuss these risks.”

– Christina Garcia v. Abbvie Inc.

The complaint seeks class action status for U.S. consumers who purchased Juvederm products, as well as a separate class of individuals who allegedly suffered granulomas or delayed-onset granulomas after Juvederm injections.

Garcia raises claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, failure to warn under strict liability and negligence theories, and unjust enrichment.

She seeks class certification, statutory damages, compensation for medical costs, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring more accurate Juvederm warnings, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a GE Healthcare surgical table collapsed, causing him to fall during surgery and suffer life-threatening internal injuries that required additional emergency operations.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alejandro Moncivais Arriaga in Texas District Court on June 22, naming GE Healthcare Inc. and service technician Jesus Cepeda as defendants.

Arriaga claims the GE Healthcare surgical table collapsed while he was under anesthesia during surgery at a Texas hospital, resulting in him suffering bowel perforation, internal trauma, infection and peritonitis that required additional emergency treatment. 

Surgical Table Risks

Surgical tables are specialized operating room platforms designed to support patients during medical procedures while allowing surgeons to position the body for different types of operations. Most are equipped with adjustable sections that can raise, lower, tilt or rotate to improve surgical access.

They are designed to safely support patients who are often unconscious, immobilized and unable to protect themselves under anesthesia. Since patients rely entirely on the equipment while surgery is underway, a malfunction can have catastrophic consequences. Mechanical failures, structural defects or inadequate inspection and maintenance can cause tables to collapse, shift unexpectedly or become unstable. These issues can potentially result in falls, traumatic injuries, surgical complications or delays in critical medical care.

Surgical Table Collapse Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, Arriaga underwent surgery at Rio Grande Regional Hospital in McAllen, Texas, on July 9, 2024, when the surgical table he was on allegedly malfunctioned and collapsed while he was anesthetized and unable to protect himself.

Arriaga indicates the incident caused bowel perforation, internal trauma, infection and peritonitis, requiring emergency medical treatment and additional surgical intervention.

He claims that he continues to suffer permanent physical impairment, ongoing pain and reduced earning capacity and can no longer perform the physically demanding work he previously did as a mechanic. 

The complaint alleges GE Healthcare designed, manufactured, inspected and maintained the surgical table, while Cepeda was responsible for ensuring the equipment was properly serviced and safe for use before it was returned to clinical service.

“Despite the extreme risk created by placing unsafe equipment into service, Defendants proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including Plaintiff.”

— Alejandro Moncivais Arriaga v. GE Healthcare Inc. et al.

The filing maintains the case does not involve medical malpractice by physicians or hospital staff, instead that the injuries resulted from a catastrophic equipment failure and negligent inspection, servicing and maintenance of the surgical table before it was placed into use.

Arriaga seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, permanent impairment, lost earning capacity and other losses, as well as punitive damages based on allegations the defendants acted with conscious indifference to patient safety.

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

A lawsuit against DraftKings and Casino Queen alleges the online sportsbooks intentionally designed their apps to foster compulsive gambling behaviors that can devastate users’ lives.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Dane Miller in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 24. It accuses the two companies of engaging in wrongful conduct involving the development, design, marketing, advertising and operation of their online gambling platforms.

Miller says after being on the DraftKings app for only a year, he was granted VIP status, flooded with offers and promotions, and assigned “VIP hosts” who analyzed data from algorithms collected on his gambling behavior. These hosts ensured he placed bets as frequently as possible and for as high an amount as possible, leading him to suffer devastating financial losses.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction Problems

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that granted each state the authority to decide for itself whether to legalize sports gambling. Many have done so, leading to websites like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM becoming increasingly popular and profitable.

However, with the rise of online legalized sports betting and sportsbooks have come increased incidents of gambling addiction. Critics claim that this is caused by the apps themselves using aggressive and deceptive promotions, algorithms that detect, analyze and psychologically profile users, and illegal operations and marketing in states where sports gambling laws have not been passed.

Young adults, particularly college-age males, have been hard hit by sports betting addiction. Many are away from home and learning to manage their finances for the first time, while also being more comfortable making quick online transactions after growing up with mobile apps and digital payments.

As a result, young men are disproportionately affected by sports betting addiction, with losses often escalating quickly before parents, schools or others realize there is a problem.

In light of these concerns, a growing number of consumers have filed DraftKings lawsuits, as well as similar FanDuel lawsuits and claims against other sportsbooks. Plaintiffs argue the platforms intentionally encourage compulsive and self-destructive gambling for the sake of increased profits.

DraftKings Compulsive Gambling Allegations

Miller was only 26 years old when he opened a DraftKings account in October 2020. His home state of Illinois had just legalized the practice.

While Miller, a long-time casual fantasy sports player, started with small, infrequent bets, he says his betting quickly escalated as he was drawn into parlays and live betting.

“During this time, DraftKings would send Miller push notifications and offer a live feed of various sporting events where Miller could bet on plays, pitches, and other events in real time. The constant prompts, access, and live-feeds, along with the rapid-fire pace of bets and the personalized attention directed to Miller, fueled an addiction that eventually consumed all aspects of Miller’s life.”

– Dane Miller v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

According to the lawsuit, when DraftKings saw the pattern of his wagers, instead of a warning that he was showing signs of compulsive gambling, Miller was granted VIP status in May 2021. This came with an unending stream of promotions, profit boosts, free bets, deposit matches and even tickets to professional sporting events, he indicates.

It also came with access to a VIP host, who pushed Miller toward bigger and more frequent bets, he says. At one point, the lawsuit indicates Miller bet away the money he had saved for his wedding. In response, DraftKings VIP host gave him two tickets to a suite at Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears.

Gambling Addiction and Suicidal Thoughts

Miller’s gambling habit led to him placing more than $2 million in bets, using credit cards, 401(k) loans and personal loans. In September 2024, his gambling addiction cost Miller his job.

Only two weeks after DraftKings granted him five $200 sportsbook credits, Miller wrote a suicide note and was hospitalized for suicidal ideation. He was diagnosed with severe gambling disorder, anxiety and depression.

Miller was released in early November 2024, and relapsed almost immediately. He joined an intensive outpatient treatment program and self-excluded from online sports betting in late December 2024, using an Illinois law made for these circumstances.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants’ behavior was intentional, employing algorithms with the specific purpose of inspiring and then stoking compulsive gambling habits with technology and data that the average consumer is not prepared or equipped to combat.

“DraftKings collected and used massive amounts of personalized data and analytics to drill down on an individual user’s gambling patterns, uses, and triggers. DraftKings could have easily utilized similar data and algorithms to screen and detect problematic gambling behavior, but failed to do so.”

– Dane Miller v. DraftKings, Inc. et al.

Miller presents claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, anxiety and discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, as well as punitive damages.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

As the use of sportsbooks continues to grow, sports betting addiction lawyers expect thousands of similar gambling addiction lawsuits will be filed in courts nationwide by consumers who have found themselves facing severe financial losses due to predatory algorithms and promotions used by FanDuel, DraftKings and similar online platforms.

As a result, sports gambling addiction lawsuits are being investigated nationwide, focusing on whether the apps intentionally foster compulsive betting in order to profit from those addictions. Platforms named in various sportsbook lawsuits and investigations include:

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

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

A Colorado mother has filed a lawsuit claiming years of deceptive advertising has misled parents and healthcare professionals about the true risks of cow’s milk-based premature infant formula, after her own daughter developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) days after birth.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Nicole Schneider on behalf of herself and her minor child, identified only as K.M. She names Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company as the defendants.

Schneider indicates her newborn daughter developed NEC as the result of being fed the defendant’s Enfamil Premature infant formula in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), starting the day the child was born. The mother claims the manufacturer knew its cow’s milk-based premature infant formula products were dangerous, and often deadly, to newborns.

Premature Infant Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis is a condition that occurs when harmful bacteria infiltrates the walls of the intestines, causing portions of the tissue to become inflamed and potentially die. Infants in general, and especially preterm infants, face an increased risk of NEC after birth as their intestines continue to develop.

The condition often results in newborns needing emergency surgery. This can sometimes include major alterations to the infant’s intestinal tract and surgical complications leading to life-long health problems. Many infants do not survive the condition.

Hundreds of premature infant formula lawsuits have been filed against both Mead Johnson and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories, the makers of Similac, which is also made using cow’s milk. Each complaint raises nearly identical claims that the manufacturers placed their desire for profits ahead of the safety of newborns, aggressively marketing their products despite the knowledge that their cow’s milk-based formula carries a higher NEC risk.

Infant NEC Injury Allegations

According to Schneider’s lawsuit, K.M. was born on June 20, 2009 at only 34 weeks gestation and weighing just 1.93 kg. She was placed in the NICU shortly after birth where the newborn was fed Enfamil Premature 20 Cal that same day.

Six days later, K.M. was diagnosed with NEC Stage 2 and had to be placed on antibiotics until July 3 of that year.

Schneider claims she relied on the manufacturers’ marketing, which promoted the formula and fortifier as products specifically developed to meet the nutritional needs of premature infants, leading her to believe they were safe and necessary for her daughter’s growth and development.

Hospital staff carried the same false beliefs due to years of misleading advertising about the safety and efficacy of cow’s milk-based infant formula, the lawsuit alleges. However, the filing also claims the manufacturers have known of the products’ dangers for years.

Numerous studies by scientists and researchers worldwide, some stretching back decades, have warned that feeding cow’s milk-based products to newborns increases the risk of NEC, and recommend that infants, particularly those born preterm, be fed breast milk from their mother or a donor as much as possible.

Additionally, Schneider’s complaint notes that even if parents knew about the risks, they are very seldom informed what brand of premature infant formula will be fed to their child, particularly when they are transferred to NICU immediately after birth.

“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. To this day, Defendants have never warned the public about the extreme danger its cow’s milk-based products pose for preterm infants like K.M.”

– Nicole Schneider v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC. et al.

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

Premature Infant Formula Lawsuits

Both Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories face hundreds of premature infant formula lawsuits filed in state and federal courts nationwide. Those at the federal level have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The judge intends to hold a series of bellwether trials based on representative claims that will give the parties more jury assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of claims that will be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first federal trial is set to begin on July 6, with a lawsuit filed by Alexis Inman. A second trial is scheduled to start on August 10, focusing on claims brought by Mary Kelton.

However, several trials have already been held at the state level. In a 2024 NEC trial, a Missouri jury ordered Abbott Laboratories to pay nearly $500 million to Margo Gill, whose infant daughter suffered brain damage after surviving NEC. Later that year, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

In April, a Cook County, Illinois, jury awarded four mothers a combined $70 million in damages in a lawsuit involving Similac products. In a separate Cook County trial, another jury returned a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in a lawsuit involving Enfamil formula, but an appeals court threw out that verdict on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

While the bellwether trial outcomes are not binding on other pending claims, they are being closely watched by both sides. The verdicts may help shape future negotiations by showing how juries respond to the evidence, expert testimony and damages arguments in premature infant formula lawsuits.

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

After suffering severe burns, an Illinois man has filed a lawsuit alleging Farberware pressure cooker design defects allowed him to open the lid while the unit was still pressurized, causing scalding hot food and liquid to erupt onto him.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Dawntavius Shamon Walker in the U.S. District Court of Illinois on June 30, naming Walmart, Inc. as the defendant, the manufacturer and seller of the device.

The Farberware 7-in-1 pressure cooker is an electric kitchen appliance sub-licensed and exclusively sold by Walmart, It is designed to cook food rapidly using high pressure. Walmart advertises that the device features a safety locking mechanism on the lid to “prevent the cooker from opening while pressurized.” However, Walker’s lawsuit states those safety claims failed, resulting in severe injuries.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

In recent years, several major kitchen electronic manufacturers have come under fire for similar design defects affecting electric pressure cookers. The design defects have affected brands such as Instant Pot, Ninja, Crock Pot and others.

Hundreds of burn injuries have been reported by consumers after electric pressure cooker safety lid features have failed, causing burns and other injuries to users.

As a result, pressure cooker lawsuits have been filed by injured users nationwide, each citing failures with safety mechanisms that failed to prevent the lid from being removed while the contents were under pressure, leading to explosions, burn injuries and disfigurement.

Farberware Pressure Cooker Injury Allegations

Walker’s complaint alleges he was using the Farberware pressure cooker on August 1, 2024, when the safety lock mechanism failed to work. He was able to open the lid while the device was still pressurized, resulting in a pressure cooker explosion that caused first and second-degree burn injuries to the abdomen, as well as permanent scarring.

The lawsuit alleges that despite the advertisements indicating the pressure cooker was equipped with “important safeguards” to prevent the lid from unlocking while the cooker is pressurized, the lid was able to be removed during use. Walker indicates the failure of the design led to his severe injuries.

The complaint suggests Walmart knew or should have known about the design defect since dozens of complaints have been made by consumers who suffered similar incidents and injuries. Yet, Walmart put profit over safety and continued to sell the product, according to Walker’s claims.

He accuses Walmart of failing to warn consumers of the risks the cooker posed and of failing to issue a recall to prevent additional user injuries.

“Defendant Walmart failed to properly market, design, manufacture, distribute, supply, and sell the pressure cookers, despite having extensive knowledge that the aforementioned injuries could and did occur.”

Dawntavius Shamon Walker v. Walmart, Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Walker seeks damages for bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and diminished enjoyment of life.

European regulators have joined the U.S. in moving toward removing the autoimmune drug Tavneos from the market, following revelations that it may have been approved using false data that hid life-threatening liver risks.

According to a June 26 press release, the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Committee for Medicine Products for Human Use (CHMP) has concluded a review into the safety of Tavneos, determining that the drug’s health risks outweigh its benefits. The assessment came following questions about the legitimacy of clinical data used in the drug’s approval.

Tavneos (avacopan) was first approved in the United States by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2021 for the treatment of adults with severe active anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, a rare autoimmune disease that causes inflammation in small blood vessels and can lead to organ damage, particularly affecting the kidneys and lungs. The drug was promoted as being able to block receptors linked to inflammation.

Since Tavneos was approved five years ago, it has been prescribed to more than 7,000 patients, with an estimated 200 million to 400 million people believed to have ANCA worldwide.

Tavneos Liver Injury Concerns

While once believed to be a breakthrough treatment option, the FDA issued a Tavneos drug safety communication in February, indicating that Tavneos side effects have been linked to an increased risk of liver damage. The warning followed at least 74 reports of serious liver complications among users, including 54 hospitalizations and at least eight deaths due to liver injury and acute liver damage.

According to the agency, post-marketing data linked Tavneos use to vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS); a severe form of liver injury where the intrahepatic bile ducts are destroyed and disappear over time. The blocked bile flow, known as chronic cholestasis, can cause severe liver problems and death. VBDS must often be treated with a liver transplant.

Although the FDA has reportedly asked Amgen to voluntarily remove Tavneos from the market, the manufacturer has refused to do so. As a result, the agency is now moving toward proceedings that could force the drug’s withdrawal.

EMA Tavneos Safety Review

One of the key issues leading to the FDA’s recommendations for a Tavneos recall was the determination by investigators that the new drug application submitted by the original manufacturer, ChemCentryx contained “untrue statements of material facts” that made the drug appear more effective than it really was. The data was based off of a clinical trial known as Advocate.

The FDA warning noted that the real results showed that Tavneos’ health benefits were not statistically significant, meaning patients were putting their liver and lives at risk for little to no benefit.

That revelation led to a review by the European Union’s CHMP. On June 26, the EMA announced the results of that investigation, siding with FDA reviewers in the belief that Tavneos should be removed from the market.

“After reviewing the totality of the available data and new information on how the study data were handled, the CHMP concluded that the Advocate study was conducted in breach of good clinical practice (GCP) principles. Study data provided at the time of the assessment of the marketing authorisation application were found to be incorrect and misleading and could no longer be relied upon for demonstrating Tavneos’ effectiveness.”

– European Medicines Agency

As a result, the CHMP is calling for Tavneos’ marketing authorization to be revoked in the European Union due to the falsified data, the risk of drug-induced liver injury and VBDS. The committee called for the recommendation to be confirmed by the European Commission, which would result in Tavneos losing its use authorization across Europe.

Additionally, the committee recommends that no new patients be prescribed the drug, and that those currently taking Tavneos be switched to a suitable alternative medication.

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

Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants in Cartiva toe implant lawsuits will meet with the federal judge appointed to oversee the litigation for the first time in August, where they will hash out how to proceed and propose plans for how to select and organize lawyers for leadership positions.

Cartiva Inc. faces at least 15 product liability lawsuits over its Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI), a polyvinyl alcohol-based hydrogel implant approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016. However, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to rapidly increase in the coming months and years.

Thousands of individuals nationwide have experienced problems after receiving the implant, which was was marketed as an alternative to big toe fusion for patients suffering from hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, two forms of degenerative arthritis that affect the big toe joint.

Soon after the device hit the market it began to be linked to regular implant failures, despite the manufacturers’ claims that the surgeries had a high success rate. Those failures often required revision surgery to remove the implant and, in many cases, left patients needing their big toe permanently fused, the very outcome they had sought to avoid.

Following growing reports of problems with the implant, the manufacturer announced a Cartiva toe recall in October 2024, after revealing that the device was linked to “higher-than-expected” failure rates.

The recall has been followed by a growing number of Cartiva toe implant lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, each raising similar allegations that the implant’s defective design caused patients to experience device failures, pain, loss of mobility and other serious complications.

Cartiva Implant Lawsuits MDL

In February, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all Cartiva lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas, who will usher the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Baker is expected to establish a series of early bellwether trials, which are test cases selected to help gauge how juries may respond to evidence and arguments that are likely to recur throughout the litigation. However, those trials are still likely years away.

In the meantime, the parties will meet on a regular basis to resolve key issues common throughout the Cartiva toe lawsuits. On June 22, the judge sent a notice (PDF) to all attorneys involved in the litigation, announcing that the first initial organizational meeting will be held on August 26 at the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Before the initial status conference, Judge Baker has asked the parties to meet and confer to select an attorney to serve as liaison counsel for each side. The lawyers assigned to these positions will be the primary contact person for the court, will maintain complete files and will receive orders and notices on behalf of all parties.

She also invited plaintiffs to submit a proposed leadership structure for the litigation, which would result in the appointment of attorneys to plaintiff leadership positions. Throughout the course of the MDL, these attorneys would represent the needs of all individuals pursuing federal Cartiva toe lawsuits. The deadline for submitting proposals and applications is August 19.

“That proposal should address the need for liaison counsel in addition to lead counsel, the need for plaintiffs’ steering committee, the proposed fee and compensation structure, and the need for liaison counsel as to related state cases, if any. Of course, other counsel may file similar proposals if they choose to do so, and the Court will consider all such proposals to make these determinations.”

– Chief U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker

These attorneys will help the Court organize discovery and prepare a small group of representative cases for early bellwether trials. While the outcomes of those trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they may give both sides a better sense of how juries are likely to respond to the evidence and could help drive Cartiva lawsuit settlement negotiations.

If no settlement or other resolution is reached by the end of the coordinated pretrial proceedings, Judge Baker may begin remanding individual cases back to the U.S. District Courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging SharkNinja continues to sell blenders with a dangerous blade design, despite years of reports involving severe lacerations and other injuries linked to the product’s blade system.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Barbara Petersen in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 17, naming SharkNinja Operating LLC as the defendant.

Petersen alleges she suffered deep lacerations while using a Ninja CO750B Series blender to prepare food. She claims the injuries were caused by a defect that allows the stacked blade assembly to separate from the blender base.

Kitchen Appliance Injury Lawsuits

Ninja blenders have become one of the most widely used countertop kitchen appliances, promoted for their high-powered motors and stacked blade systems that quickly process food and beverages. Unlike many traditional blenders, certain Ninja models use a removable blade assembly that lifts out of the pitcher rather than remaining permanently attached.

However, an increasing number of SharkNinja blender lawsuits allege that defects in the products can cause the blade assembly to detach unexpectedly or allow the blender to rupture during normal use, resulting in severe lacerations, burns and other injuries.

The lawsuits are part of a broader wave of litigation involving allegedly defective kitchen appliances that use high-speed motors, sealed containers or pressurized cooking systems. In May 2025, SharkNinja recalled nearly 2 million Ninja Foodi pressure cookers after reports that the lid could be opened while the contents remained under pressure, resulting in more than 100 burn injuries.

These kinds of injuries have fueled numerous pressure cooker explosion lawsuits against manufacturers of Ninja Foodi, Instant Pot, Crock-Pot and other pressure cooker brands. Many of the claims allege that defective lid locking systems allowed hot food and liquids to erupt from the appliances, causing catastrophic burn injuries.

SharkNinja Blade Design Defect Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Petersen was using the blender on July 1, 2024, for its intended purpose of blending food when the unsecured blade assembly detached from the drive shaft, resulting in severe cuts. She alleges the incident left her with painful injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, emotional distress and other damages.

The complaint indicates Ninja blenders use a stacked blade assembly that simply rests on the drive shaft rather than locking into place. While the pitcher and lid secure firmly during operation, the lawsuit claims the blade assembly remains loose and can fall out when consumers remove the lid and pour the contents.

According to the lawsuit, safer alternative designs were readily available, including locking or permanently securing the blade assembly to the drive shaft. Petersen alleges SharkNinja continued selling blenders with the unsecured design despite knowing it posed an unreasonable risk of serious laceration injuries.

The lawsuit claims SharkNinja failed to redesign the product, adequately test the blender or warn consumers about the alleged danger, asserting the company placed profits ahead of consumer safety.

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

— Barbara Petersen v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

As evidence that the company knew about the alleged hazard, the complaint points to a November 2015 Consumer Product Safety Commission recall involving about 1.1 million Ninja BL660 series blenders.

The recall was issued after the CPSC received 53 reports of consumers suffering lacerations when the loose stacked blade assembly fell from the pitcher during pouring. However, Petersen contends SharkNinja continued designing and selling other blender models that rely on the same unsecured blade assembly, including the CO750B Series involved in her case.

Petersen’s lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, negligent products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. She is seeking general, special and punitive damages for her injuries and suffering.

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

Roblox Corporation faces a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about the impact of new age-verification safeguards intended to prevent adult users from sexually exploiting children, claiming the changes caused a sharp decline in platform activity and hurt the company’s financial performance.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on June 26 by Joseph Fernicola in the U.S. District of Nevada. The lawsuit names as defendants Roblox Corporation and several company executives as defendants, including David Baszucki, Gregory Baszucki, Christopher Carvalho, Anthony P. Lee, Gona Mastantuono, Andrea Wong, Jason Kilar and Naveen K. Chopra.

Fernicola claims Roblox misled investors by downplaying the impact new age-verification requirements would have on the platform’s user base. The lawsuit alleges those changes reduced activity on the site, harmed the company’s financial performance and caused shareholders to suffer significant losses.

Roblox Child Sex Exploitation Problems

Launched in 2006, Roblox is a gaming platform that allows users to create their own custom games and is heavily marketed toward children. However, the site has received criticism for years over its alleged failure to protect minors from sexual predators that use the site. These adults often groom children by pretending to be children themselves.

Roblox attracts millions of users each day, many of them children. However, critics say inadequate safeguards over who minors can interact with on the platform have allowed child predators to exploit the site’s chat and social features.

Those concerns are now at the center of nearly 150 Roblox child exploitation lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. The complaints allege Roblox became a hunting ground for predators, who used the platform to groom children, coerce them into sharing sexually explicit images, blackmail them and, in some cases, facilitate sexual assault, kidnapping and child trafficking.

It was not until last year, as lawsuits began to be filed and public outrage peaked, that Roblox began deploying facial recognition software it says will help identify the age of users and prevent adults from contacting minors without their parents’ permission. While critics maintain that the changes come too late and fall short of what is needed, the latest shareholder lawsuit claims the company underestimated the negative impact it would have on the bottom line and stock value.

According to the lawsuit, Fernicola became an investor in Roblox Corporation in 2021. He notes before the system was put in place, Roblox issued an Security Exchange Commission (SEC)  filing for its third quarter fiscal year 2025 earnings, announcing the pending age verification system.

The complaint argues that those statements were materially false and misleading. Fernicola indicates that Roblox knew rolling out the age verification system would adversely affect the company’s bottom line, but has lied to investors, claiming that the stock’s value would be stable.

In its fourth quarter 2025 earnings report, Roblox Corporation reported strong user engagement, bookings growth and increased content on the platform. According to the lawsuit, however, that positive outlook had changed by April, when Roblox filed a new report with the SEC warning that the company was facing new headwinds tied to its age-verification measures and related safety changes.

Since the age verification system began rolling out, the company announced that it has seen reduced user communication engagement, partly driven by a ban on adults communicating with children without the consent of those children’s parents or guardians.

The reduction suggests there was a large number of such communications between adults and children, which critics have long maintained. The investor lawsuit claims the company knew this would happen, but lied to investors.

“The Individual Defendants made little to no cautionary statements on potential knock-on effects, such as reductions in engagement, ratings, and overall bookings growth, that are now claimed to be triggered by the age verification rollout.”

– Joseph Fernicola v. Roblox Corporation, et al.

After the April announcement, Roblox stock saw a sharp decline in value, from $55.26 per share on April 30, 2026, to $45.13 per share on May 1, a drop of more than 18% in just 24 hours.

The lawsuit seeks damages for the alleged mismanagement of the company, which include a failure to address the child exploitation problems earlier and effectively, and then deceiving investors about the effects of the age verification system.

Fernicola presents claims of breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

Roblox Child Sex Exploitation Lawsuits

While this complaint was filed by investors, most Roblox child sex exploitation lawsuits have been filed by the parents of children who were sexually harassed, groomed, or assaulted by adults on the site.

At the federal level, those lawsuits have been consolidated in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Judge Seeborg is expected to guide the parties to select a small group of representative federal cases to serve as potential bellwether trials. These early test cases will allow the parties to gauge how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, if the parties fail to reach a Roblox lawsuit settlement agreement or other resolution once those bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are completed, Judge Seeborg will likely begin remanding cases back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

New research suggests that side effects of heartburn medications like Prilosec, Zantac and Pepcid AC during pregnancy may slightly increase the chance that a child later develops inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

According to findings published in the journal JAMA Network Open on June 24, the increased risk of IBD appears to be small but statistically significant among children whose mothers used heartburn medications, such as Tagamet HB, Nexium or similar drugs, during pregnancy.

IBD refers to a group of conditions that cause chronic inflammation in the digestive tract. The two most common forms are Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Crohn’s disease can cause inflammation through multiple layers of the bowel, while ulcerative colitis typically affects the innermost lining of the large intestine and can lead to ulcers. Both conditions may cause symptoms such as chronic diarrhea, abdominal pain, cramping, unexplained weight loss and persistent fatigue.

Heartburn Drugs During Pregnancy

Heartburn is common during pregnancy, and many women use acid-reducing medications to control symptoms. These include proton pump inhibitors, such as Prilosec, Prevacid and Nexium, which reduce acid production by blocking an enzyme system in the stomach lining, as well as H2 blockers, such as Pepcid AC, Zantac 360 and Tagamet HB, which lower the amount of acid the stomach produces.

Although these medications are widely used during pregnancy and are generally considered safe for expectant mothers, researchers have begun examining whether prenatal exposure may affect a child’s developing gut and immune system.

Those concerns were also raised in a 2023 study by Wake Forest University researchers, which found that use of heartburn medications during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of digestive problems in infants, including inflammation of the esophagus.

In the latest study, researchers led by Dr. Jiyeon Oh, of Kyung Hee University College of Medicine in South Korea examined whether prenatal exposure to acid-suppressive medications was associated with a higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease among children. The researchers noted that proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists are commonly used during pregnancy, but questions have been raised about whether these drugs may affect the developing gut microbiome and immune system, which are believed to play a role in pediatric IBD.

The researchers analyzed 2.6 million mother-child pairs from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service, focusing on children born between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up through the end of 2023. Children exposed to acid-suppressive medications in the womb were matched with unexposed children at a 1-to-3 ratio, allowing researchers to compare later diagnoses of inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Overall, the findings showed a modest increase in IBD risk among children whose mothers used heartburn medications during pregnancy. After matching, prenatal exposure was associated with an 8% increased risk of IBD and a 10% increased risk of Crohn’s disease, but there was no statistically significant increase for ulcerative colitis. Researchers also found the absolute risk difference was very small and not statistically significant, measuring about 0.41 additional IBD cases per 1,000 children.

The study also found some differences by drug type and timing. Children exposed only to H2 blockers had a small increased risk of IBD and Crohn’s disease, while children exposed only to proton pump inhibitors had a higher estimated risk of IBD, although the Crohn’s disease estimate for PPIs alone was not statistically significant. The association appeared strongest for first-trimester exposure and for mothers who received two or more prescriptions during pregnancy.

However, when researchers compared siblings within the same families, they found no significant association between prenatal exposure to acid-suppressive medications and IBD, Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. The authors said that finding may indicate that shared family or genetic factors, rather than the medications themselves, could explain at least part of the observed association.

Researchers concluded that any potential risk to children appears minimal and should be weighed against the need to treat significant heartburn or acid-related conditions during pregnancy. They indicated the findings support continued use of acid-suppressive medications when clinically necessary, while still encouraging caution and appropriate prescribing for pregnant women.

After the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) declined to establish an industry-wide MDL for all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system earlier this month, a group of plaintiffs have filed a new motion seeking to consolidate claims brought against Abbott Laboratories before one judge, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

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

In recent months, lawsuits have been filed over problems with spinal cord stimulators manufactured and sold by various different companies, including unnecessary electric shocks, burning sensations, lead migration and total device failures. In addition to Abbot stimulators, lawsuits have also outlined problems with Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro devices, often resulting in the need for additional surgery to remove the spinal cord stimulator.

Whle the U.S. JPML declined to lump claims involving various different manufacturers into one multidistrict litigation (MDL), this latest motion indicates that the Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits each share common questions of fact and law, alleging that the manufacturer was aware of problems with its spine implants and withheld information about the risks from patients and medical professionals, as part of an effort to keep sales and profits high.

Abbott Laboratories Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Consolidation

On June 22, plaintiffs Ray Lavigne and Renee Moss filed a motion to transfer (PDF) with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting that all Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide be consolidated in the Central District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Such procedures are common in complex litigation where the same medical device or product is linked to injuries affecting numerous patients. Plaintiffs argue that these criteria apply to the Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and that consolidation would serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court. They also say such a move would likely eliminate contradictory rulings and prevent duplicate discovery efforts.

According to the motion, there are currently 15 Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed, as well as 12 substantially similar cases filed by 33 different plaintiffs in six different U.S. District Courts. Plaintiffs note that 10 of the lawsuits also include claims against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which some argue should have never approved Abbott’s spinal cord stimulators for use in patients.

Plaintiffs say that the Central District of California would be ideal for consolidation because the JPML created a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation) in the same district earlier this month. Those cases were assigned to U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton.

If the panel agrees to form an Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL, all the cases would remain individual claims despite going through the pretrial proceedings together, meaning plaintiffs must still individually prove that their injuries were caused by the medical implant.

Following consolidation, it would be expected that the appointed judge would instruct the parties to begin preparing a group of claims that represent most of the circumstances found throughout the litigation. These bellwether early test trials would give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated in many different claims.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

As the JPML considers holding hearings on the proposed consolidation, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review claims over Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro implants for individuals who experienced spinal cord stimulator battery problems or other complications such as:

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

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

A Pennsylvania judge has ordered three top L’Oréal executives to sit for depositions in the state-court litigation, which will likely include probing questions into what the company knew about the risk of cancer linked Dark and Lovely, as well as other hair relaxer products, which have been the focus of thousands of product liability lawsuits in recent years.

The executives include CEO David Greenberg, Assistant Vice President and Head of Product Safety Richard von Stein, and Chief Corporate Affairs officer for North America Matthew DiGirolamo, who will be asked to answer questions that could affect the outcomes of more than 11,000 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits currently pending in both federal and state courts nationwide.

The litigation emerged after a study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October 2022, which found that women who use hair relaxers more than four times per year face a 156% increased risk of developing uterine cancer. Even infrequent use of between one and four times per year was found to increase the risk of uterine cancer by 54%.

Each of the claims indicate that consumers developed reproductive cancers from hair relaxers following years of exposure to toxic chemicals in Dark & Lovely or other popular straightening products manufactured by L’Oréal and other major cosmetics companies. The lawsuits allege that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, their products increased the risk of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries, yet failed to provide adequate warning to consumers.

In Pennsylvania state court, a group of hair relaxer lawsuits are consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a mass tort before Administrative Judge Joshua Roberts in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The judge is expected to plan a series of bellwether trials that will give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

In April, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a motion to compel Greenberg, von Stein and DiGirolamo to sit down for depositions, saying their answers would be a key part of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The manufacturer opposed the move and argued that plaintiffs failed to provide a valid reason for the depositions of the three highly-placed executives, claiming that it was a duplication of effort. The men had already been deposed as part of ongoing discovery in a federal hair relaxer lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois, where thousands of claims filed in federal courts are consolidated before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland. They claimed it defeated a primary purpose of the federal MDL, which was to avoid duplication of discovery.

However, in mid-May, Judge Roberts issued a court order (PDF) siding with plaintiffs, calling for von Stein to sit for a four-hour deposition within 30 days of the order. He gave DiGirolamo and Greenberg 45 days but does not mention a time limit.

On June 18, L’Oréal attorneys filed a motion to appeal (PDF) Judge Roberts’ decision, which has not yet been addressed by the Philadelphia judge.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

While the Pennsylvania trials are expected to begin before those at the federal level, Judge Rowland has selected 10 federal hair relaxer MDL lawsuits to move forward as bellwether trials. No trial dates have yet been scheduled by either court.

Neither the outcomes of the federal or state hair relaxer lawsuit bellwether trials will be binding on any other cases. However, the results are being closely watched as a guide for what juries see as the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments, which could help the parties reach a global settlement agreement.

If the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end with no settlement or other resolution to the litigation, the lawsuits may be remanded back to their originating courts for individual trial dates.

The United Kingdom plans to prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing major social media platforms as early as next year, marking one of the world’s most aggressive efforts to address concerns that social media companies have prioritized user engagement over the safety and well-being of young users.

Former Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a press release on June 15, just days from resigning his position, announcing the proposal and indicating the government intends to introduce regulations before the end of the year that it will begin enforcing next spring. The plan follows a nationwide consultation that found overwhelming public support for stronger protections for children online.

Social media refers to websites and mobile apps that allow people to create profiles, share photos, videos and messages, and interact with others online. Popular platforms include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X and other sites where users can connect with friends, follow creators and discover content recommended by algorithms.

Social Media Addiction Risks

The U.K. is not the only country facing problems over social media’s effect on youth. In a public health advisory (PDF) issued earlier this year, the U.S. Surgeon General warned that excessive social media use may contribute to anxiety, depression and other mental health harms among adolescents. The report noted that nearly half of teenagers report losing track of how much time they spend on their phones.

The advisory also found that screen time generally increases as children get older, with preteens and teenagers averaging about four hours of daily use. Other research has suggested that frequent social media use may increase feelings of loneliness and depression, particularly among younger users.

Parents, educators and mental health professionals have increasingly questioned whether these risks are worsened by platform features intended to maximize user engagement, including algorithm-driven recommendations, infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and persistent notifications. Experts warn that children and adolescents may be especially vulnerable because their developing brains are more responsive to social rewards and repeated digital stimulation.

Those concerns have fueled a growing number of social media addiction lawsuits filed in the United States against Meta, Google, ByteDance, Snap and other technology companies. The complaints allege the platforms were intentionally designed to encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers while failing to adequately warn users about the potential mental health risks.

UK Social Media Ban Proposal

Under the U.K.’s proposal, social media companies would be responsible for preventing users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts on platforms that rely on user-generated content and algorithmic recommendations. This would include services such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube. Messaging services, including WhatsApp and Signal, would initially be exempt from the ban.

The government also announced plans to restrict certain online features for minors under 16, including livestreaming and the ability for strangers to contact children through gaming and other online platforms. Officials are also considering additional safeguards, such as overnight restrictions and limits on addictive platform features for older teenagers.

Rather than imposing penalties on children who attempt to circumvent the restrictions, enforcement would focus on requiring social media companies to implement effective age verification systems. Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, will oversee compliance and develop enforcement standards.

“This is a line in the sand. Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”

— Keir Starmer, Former U.K. Prime Minister

The proposal has drawn criticism from several technology companies, which argue a blanket ban could drive teenagers toward less regulated online services. However, supporters contend stronger restrictions are necessary to reduce children’s exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, online predators and addictive platform designs.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

The proposed restrictions come as thousands of claims filed by families, school districts and state attorneys general across the U.S. are proceeding in a coordinated multidistrict litigation (MDL) being overseen by federal District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.

While each lawsuit involves different circumstances, plaintiffs generally contend the platforms’ features were intentionally designed to maximize user attention while failing to adequately protect children from foreseeable harm.

The first social media addiction bellwether trial was scheduled to begin on June 15, involving claims brought by the Breathitt County school district. However, the parties notified Judge Rogers on May 21 that they had reached a settlement, filing a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal that resolved the case before trial.

If the federal litigation is not resolved through a global settlement or another agreement after the bellwether process concludes, Judge Rogers is expected to begin sending individual lawsuits back to the federal courts where they were originally filed for individual trial dates.

Separate social media addiction lawsuits filed in state courts have already begun reaching juries. In March, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million to a woman who alleged Meta and Google contributed to the anxiety and depression she developed after becoming addicted to platforms such as Facebook and YouTube while still a minor.

Days earlier, a New Mexico jury had ordered Meta to pay $375 million to the state after concluding the company was responsible for harms associated with adolescent social media addiction.

Although those verdicts apply only to the individual cases involved, they are expected to influence ongoing litigation across the country. The results may also encourage additional social media addiction lawsuit settlements, helping the parties avoid years of costly and time-consuming trials.

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

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging she suffered serious injuries after the gas pedal in her Porsche Cayenne became stuck, causing a high-speed crash in which the vehicle’s airbags failed to deploy.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Linda Baca in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California on June 22, naming Porsche Cars North America Inc. as the defendant.

Baca claims the Porsche Cayenne accelerated uncontrollably after the gas pedal became stuck, causing a high-speed crash in which the airbags and seatbelt restraints failed to activate, leaving her with severe head, chest and upper body injuries.

Airbag Failure Risks

Airbags are intended to inflate almost instantly during a collision, helping protect occupants by reducing the impact with the steering wheel, dashboard, windshield and other parts of the vehicle’s interior. When an airbag fails to deploy or otherwise malfunctions, drivers and passengers can lose an important layer of crash protection, increasing the likelihood of severe or fatal injuries.

A series of airbag failure lawsuits have been filed against automobile manufacturers in recent years. In March, a lawsuit was filed against Toyota alleging a design defect caused the airbags of a RAV4 vehicle to fail to deploy. The driver suffered severe head injuries after her head struck the steering wheel.

A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against FCA in mid-June after the airbag of a Jeep Grand Cherokee failed to deploy, allegedly resulting in the death of a Massachusetts man. In addition to the failed airbag, the lawsuit indicates the driver’s seat collapsed backward during the accident.

Porsche Safety Failure Allegations

According to this Porsche airbag lawsuit, Baca was driving her Cayenne on June 14, 2024 when she claims a design defect caused the gas pedal to become stuck, accelerating the vehicle to 80 mph. The Porsche then hit a curb, a mailbox, two trees and a parked Mercedes before going airborne and landing on top of a garage.

Neither the airbag nor the seatbelt restraint activated, Baca claims. As a result, she suffered injuries to her head, chest and upper body after violently striking the steering wheel, dashboard and windshield without any airbag restraint. Baca required medical attention and suffered severe and permanent physical injuries.

Had the airbags deployed as intended, Baca suggests injuries could have been reduced in severity and scope. She claims the design and manufacturing defects made the Porsche Cayenne unreasonably dangerous to drive.

“Porsche owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to design, manufacture, and distribute motor vehicles with safe, reliable, and properly functioning gas pedal and airbag systems.”

— Linda Baca v. Porsche Cars North America Inc.

Baca raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty. She seeks compensation for damages including medical expenses, lost wages, as well as past and future pain and suffering.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over thousands of Uber sexual assault lawsuits pending in the federal court system will meet with lawyers on June 30, as lawyers continue to prepare for the start of the next scheduled “bellwether” trial in September, which may help drive negotiations to settle the litigation.

The rideshare service currently faces more than 3,500 claims brought by women nationwide who say they were sexually assaulted, groped, molested, harassed, raped and sometimes kidnapped by Uber drivers, due to a lack of adequate safety measures that could have protected Uber passengers. Hundreds of similar claims have also been filed in state courts.

Each of the lawsuits involve similar allegations, indicating that Uber should have used stronger background checks, sexual harassment training for drivers, surveillance cameras in vehicles, and an option allowing passengers to choose the gender of their driver, all of which they say could have better protected them from assault.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit MDL

Since October 2023, all Uber sexual assault lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system have been consolidated in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Over the past three years, Judge Breyer has been guiding the parties through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings, and a series of early “bellwether” trials, which are designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the claims.

Several trials have already been held at the state and federal level, but the outcomes have failed to provide a clear picture on which direction the litigation will go. Therefore, Uber sexual assault lawyers are closely watching the next federal trial set to begin in September, which may promote negotiations to resolve the litigation without the need for each individual case to be set for trial.

The first federal trial, held in February, resulted in an $8.5 million verdict after the jury determined Uber drivers are agents of the company under common carrier laws. However, the jury rejected claims of negligence on the company’s behalf and refused to award punitive damages.

A second bellwether trial ended in April, with plaintiff Brianna Mensing being awarded $5,000. Mensing never stated a dollar amount for damages and testified during trial that she wanted an apology from Uber more than she wanted money.

In September 2025, a jury in California state court found Uber negligent in protecting its passengers, but not liable for an attack on the plaintiff, with no damages being awarded.

Third Uber Lawsuit Federal Bellwether Trial

Last month, the Court announced that the next Uber federal bellwether trial will begin on September 14, 2026, involving claims by a woman identified only as B.L., who alleges an Uber driver raped her in the backseat of his vehicle in August 2022. She indicates Uber rehired the driver in another state despite a warrant out for his arrest.

According to a text-only docket entry, the parties met for a case management conference on June 16, determining that jury selection for the trial will begin the week of September 8. The trial will be held in the District of Texas. Judge Breyer ordered the parties to submit a joint case management statement updating the court on the case’s readiness by June 26.

The next case management conference is scheduled for June 30.

While the outcomes of these bellwether trials will not be binding on other claims, the results are being closely watched to find a trend in juries’ interpretations of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ arguments, in hopes of finding enough commonality to help the parties in settlement negotiations.

However, if no Uber sexual assault lawsuit settlement or other resolution is reached by the end of the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings, Judge Breyer would likely begin remanding cases back to the federal district courts where they originated to be prepared for individual trials.

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

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that DraftKings secretly collects and shares personal information from visitors to its website with third-party data brokers, allowing the companies to identify users, track their online activity and build consumer profiles without their knowledge or consent.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by California resident Dana Hughes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 22, raising further concerns about the marketing practices of the popular online sportsbook, which already faces lawsuits that allege it preys on users with known gambling addictions as part of an effort to increase profits. 

Hughes claims that DraftKings is also violating California privacy laws by deploying tracking technology that captures identifying information from website visitors.

Online Gambling Risks

Online sportsbooks like DraftKings, Fanduel, BetMGM and others have exploded in popularity in recent years, after the U.S. Supreme court cleared the way for individual states to legalize gambling apps.

Following aggressive advertising and the employment of complex algorithms designed to encourage increased gambling activities, the sportsbook operators have faced growing legal scrutiny and claims alleging they specifically target users with signs of gambling addiction problems to increase profits.

These concerns have led to a series of DraftKings lawsuits, FanDuel lawsuits and similar claims against other betting platforms, including BetMGM and Caesars. Many of the cases allege these companies are actually causing gambling addictions to develop through the use of promotional offers, so-called “risk-free” bets and game-like app features that encourage frequent betting.

DraftKings Data Privacy Allegations

According to Hughes’ complaint, DraftKings embedded tracking software supplied by data brokers NextRoll, The Trade Desk and Comscore into its website, enabling those companies to collect browser and device information from visitors as soon as they accessed the site.

The lawsuit alleges the software used a technique known as “browser fingerprinting,” which compiles dozens of technical details about a visitor’s device, browser settings, location and other characteristics to create a unique identifier. That information can then be matched with existing consumer databases to identify users, monitor their browsing activity across unrelated websites and deliver targeted advertising.

Hughes claims she visited the DraftKings website on December 28, 2025, when her identifying information was allegedly transmitted to multiple third-party data brokers without her authorization.

The complaint contends DraftKings profited from the arrangement by allowing the companies to collect consumer data that could be used to create advertising profiles and deliver personalized marketing.

“Defendant has installed and deployed data broker software on the Website to secretly collect data about visitors, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis.”

— Dana Hughes v. DraftKings Inc.

Hughes maintains that DraftKings never obtains users’ consent before allowing their information to be collected or shared.

The proposed DraftKings class action seeks to represent California residents who visited the website and were allegedly subjected to the tracking technology. Hughes claims the data collection violates California’s Trap and Trace Law, which generally prohibits the installation or use of devices that capture identifying routing or signaling information from electronic communications without legal authorization. The complaint also raises a common law claim for intrusion upon seclusion, alleging the tracking constituted an unlawful invasion of users’ privacy.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per violation under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, along with punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and an injunction prohibiting DraftKings from continuing the challenged practices.

Sports Betting Privacy Concerns

The lawsuit adds another legal challenge for DraftKings as online sports betting companies continue to face increasing scrutiny over their collection and use of consumer information.

According to multiple DraftKings and FanDuel gambling addiction lawsuits filed nationwide, many online sportsbooks use sophisticated data analytics and behavioral algorithms to monitor users’ betting habits and deliver personalized promotions intended to encourage more frequent wagering and larger bets.

In light of these concerns, sports betting addiction lawyers are currently reviewing claims by individuals who experienced substantial financial losses allegedly linked to the marketing practices, promotional incentives and engagement features used by major online sportsbooks.

Lawsuits are being investigated involving a number of online wagering platforms, including:

Individuals who believe they may have developed a gambling addiction or suffered significant financial harm after using one of these platforms can request a free case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting lawsuit. Attorneys handling these cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees and compensation is owed only if a recovery is obtained.

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

According to the findings of a new study, consuming as little as two beers a night may significantly increase a person’s risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

The research was published earlier this month in the International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, warning about growing evidence of the link between alcohol and pancreatic cancer. Drinking more than 24 grams of alcohol per day significantly increases a person’s risk of developing the pancreatic cancer, according to the findings, which suggest that alcohol may be contributing to dramatic increases in rates of the disease in recent years.

The study adds to a growing body of research highlighting the risk alcohol consumption may pose to human health. While many people know alcohol is harmful in general, some of the specific long-term effects are not as well known.

Alcohol Cancer Concerns

Research published last year indicated alcohol-related cancer deaths have doubled over the past 30 years. For that reason, federal health officials are calling for stricter warning labels on alcohol to highlight the danger of developing multiple types of cancer, including breast, liver and throat cancer.

Roughly 67,000 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the U.S. every year. It is the third leading cause of cancer in the country. However, because pancreatic cancer does not have many early warning symptoms, it is sometimes only discovered when it has reached an advanced, less survivable stage. Additionally, the risk of a person developing alcohol-related cancer is much higher if they already suffer from other conditions such as obesity, diabetes or alcoholic liver disease.

Pancreatic cancer treatments include invasive surgery, such as the Whipple procedure to remove tumors in the pancreas, targeting immunotherapy, chemotherapy and radiation. However, since symptoms regularly show up late, pancreatic cancer is often deadly.

Alcohol Pancreatic Cancer Risks

Researchers from the University of Victoria in Canada conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies focusing on alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer. Led by Dr. Jinhui Zhao, the team compiled 37 studies published in or before January 2024, providing 279 pancreatic cancer incidence/death risk estimates for drinkers vs. non-drinkers.

Overall, researchers determined alcohol consumption at any level poses a potential cancer risk. However, the risk was significantly increased when people drank more than 24 grams of alcohol per day, or roughly 1.5 glasses of beer or wine or a 1.5 ounce shot of 40 proof alcohol.

Data showed a significant dose-response relationship between alcohol and pancreatic cancer. Specifically, the more alcohol a person drank daily, the more likely they were to develop the condition. In fact, data suggested the risk of pancreatic cancer increases by 2.4% for every 10 g consumption of ethanol per day.

Beer and liquor were the alcoholic products most significantly linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer when compared with wine. The greatest risk was seen with consumption of one or two alcoholic drinks per day.

The World Health Organization lists alcohol consumption as linked to seven types of cancer, including mouth, breast and colon cancers. However, researchers in the new study said pancreatic cancer should be added to the list and the link studied further, warning that calculations involving individuals who never drink may be skewing similar research.

For years, there has been growing speculation that mass tort litigation may emerge against the liquor industry, including pancreatic cancer lawsuits alleging that individuals may have avoided a diagnosis if warnings and other information about the known risks associated with alcohol had been disclosed by manufacturers.

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

A bipartisan pair of lawmakers want the U.S. to ban the use of Paraquat and to set a “zero tolerance” policy for the weedkiller’s residue in food, amid continuing concerns about the risk of Parkinson’s disease and other injuries linked to the herbicide.

U.S. Representatives Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, and Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat, introduced legislation in the House on June 18 calling for passage of the Paraquat Prevention Act (PDF). If passed, the legislation would cancel the registration of all Paraquat products in the U.S. and permanently ban their re-registration.

With its introduction only days ago, it is too early yet to see how the legislation will be received. However, the bill has garnered support from both left-leaning environmental groups and supporters of the mostly conservative Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, who want to see large reductions in pesticide exposure through food.

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Risks

Paraquat was originally introduced in 1964 under the brand name Gramoxone. It is a powerful, highly toxic herbicide that is still widely used in the U.S. to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before crops are planted. It is also used as a desiccant to dry out some harvested crops before processing.

However, the lawmakers point to growing scientific evidence about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, as well as other neurological damage linked to the herbicide. Data appears to indicate long-term exposure, such as with agricultural workers who spray, mix or handle the weedkiller, increases the risk of chronic and progressive neurological damage.

That same evidence has led to nearly 6,700 Paraquat lawsuits being filed against Syngenta and Chevron, the manufacturers, arguing that the companies knew about the herbicide’s links to Parkinson’s disease, but failed to warn consumers, fearing a loss in sales of the weedkiller, which was already known to be toxic and required special training and licensing.

The manufacturers are currently trying to finalize a Paraquat settlement that may resolve the litigation for an undisclosed amount.

Paraquat Ban Proposal

Luna and Pingree issued a press release on June 18 announcing the legislation, indicating that the bill is modeled after a Paraquat ban recently enacted in Vermont. They called the bill an effort to make Vermont’s policy national.

In addition to cancelling and prohibiting the registration of any Paraquat-based products, the Act would also ban the sale and use of existing Paraquat inventories and includes provisions that would revoke any current tolerances for Paraquat residue in food, setting the acceptable level to zero.

In the press release, Pingree notes that Paraquat bans are already in place in more than 70 countries and criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its review of the herbicide, which has been ongoing since 2022.

“Our bill cancels paraquat’s registration outright. No more reviews, no more waiting, no more excuses.”

– U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)

The American Parkinson Disease Association (APDA) also issued a press release in support of the legislation, calling the bill a necessary step toward the protection of agricultural workers and rural communities as a whole. The group called for its members and others to urge representatives to support the bill.

The call for the federal Paraquat ban comes only a couple months after Syngenta announced plans to phaseout Paraquat production worldwide, and after several states revealed plans to follow in Vermont’s footsteps.

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

After being selected earlier this month to preside over all Dupixent lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system, U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi will hold an initial case management conference on October 1, 2026, marking the first time lawyers will appear in the MDL (multidistrict litigation) court.

There are currently about two dozen product liability lawsuits against Dupixent manufacturers pending before the MDL judge, each involving similar claims that former users developed cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and other forms of cancer after using the blockbuster treatment. However, it is widely expected that the size and scope of the litigation will rapidly expand in the coming months and years.

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. drug originally approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. However, Dupixent’s approved uses have grown substantially since it was first introduced, with the medication now commonly prescribed for several inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, and other conditions involving overactive immune responses.

The litigation emerged after studies were published last year that linked Dupixent side effects to the development of some forms of T-cell lymphoma, particularly CTCL, which is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. Symptoms may resemble eczema or other inflammatory skin conditions, which plaintiffs allege can make the cancer difficult to diagnose in those being treated with Dupixent for atopic dermatitis. 

As a result of the failure to provide adequate warnings about these risks, the manufacturers now face a growing number lawsuits, with many of the plaintiffs indicating that they continued to receive Dupixent injections while their CTCL progressed, since neither doctors nor patients knew the drug may cause or mask the cancer.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a Dupixent lawsuit MDL, consolidating cases filed throughout the federal court system before Judge Quraishi in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to help coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The litigation currently involves only CTCL cancer claims. However, the JPML indicated that future Dupixent lawsuits involving peripheral T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other non-cutaneous T-cell lymphomas may be considered for transfer through the conditional transfer process.

Dupixent MDL Initial Management Conference

On June 11, Judge Quraishi issued an initial procedure order (PDF), indicating that the Dupixent MDL currently includes 17 complaints. The order schedules an Initial Management Conference for October 1, 2026, when the parties will meet for the first time to address pretrial procedures, discovery and the overall direction of the litigation.

Ahead of that conference, Judge Quraishi directed attorneys for both sides to meet and confer by July 24, in an effort to reach agreement where possible on issues listed in the Initial Management Conference agenda.

The judge also ordered the parties to submit an Initial Management Report by September 10. He called for the report to include the need for attorneys to be appointed to leadership positions, the structure of that leadership and the timing of the appointments, as well as whether those appointments should be reviewed periodically.

It must also include information on previously entered schedules and orders, the scheduling of future case management conferences and other key items that need to be discussed to begin moving the MDL forward.

Following the conference, the parties will jointly prepare a proposed initial management order by November 1, 2026.

Judge Quraishi is expected to eventually guide the parties through the selection of several representative Dupixent injection lawsuits to serve as early test cases. These “bellwether” trials would give plaintiffs and defendants a chance to see how juries weigh the strengths and weaknesses of evidence and testimony that would be commonly employed throughout the litigation.

While the results of these bellwether trials would not be binding on other claims, the outcomes could have a significant impact on any Dupixent settlement negotiations. If there is no settlement or other resolution following the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings, Judge Quraishi would likely begin remanding cases back to their originating federal district to be prepared for individual trials.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted Bayer and Monsanto immunity in all Roundup lawsuits involving allegations that the companies failed to warn about the cancer risks associated with exposure to their controversial glyphosate-based weedkiller.

In a 7-2 opinion (PDF) handed down today, the highest court in the U.S. reversed a Missouri jury’s $1.25 million verdict in favor of John Durnell, a man who said Roundup exposure caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The Supreme Court majority decided that the repeated determinations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that glyphosate contained in Roundup is safe protects the manufacturers from all state law-based failure to warn claims, effectively ending one of the largest mass tort litigations over the past decade.

Roundup Cancer Litigation

Since 2015, Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have faced more than 120,000 Roundup lawsuits brought in federal and state courts nationwide, each involving former users who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The lawsuits raise similar allegations, indicating that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Roundup exposure increased the risk of cancer, yet concealed those risks to protect profit.

Although the company has paid more than $10 billion in Roundup settlements over the past few years, Bayer and Monsanto continue to face thousands of active claims being pursued throughout the U.S. court system, and new claims continue to be brought as former users of the weedkiller develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Several trials have been held through the years, many ending in massive verdicts against Bayer and Monsanto, spurring the manufacturers to petition various states and the U.S. Supreme Court for immunity from the litigation.

In April 2025, Bayer filed a Writ of Certiorari, asking the high court to dismiss all Roundup failure to warn claims, arguing that they should be preempted by federal law. The petition indicated that the EPA has reviewed glyphosate multiple times and has determined that it does not cause cancer, despite numerous studies and evidence to the contrary, including a 2015 assessment by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which indicated that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides may cause cancer.

The move came in connection with efforts to secure immunity from the lawsuits in several individual states as well, which has seen some limited success. This was the company’s third attempt to get the Supreme Court to agree to consider the issue.

The Supreme Court previously rejected an appeal to review another Roundup trial defeat in June 2022, involving an $87 million verdict awarded to a California couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod in May 2019.  

This followed a previous refusal to review another Roundup appeal in March 2019. The Court provided no comment about the reasons why the petitions were rejected in either case, which is not uncommon.

However, this time numerous parties, including the federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general, filed briefs in support of Bayer’s call for immunity, following an intense, multi-state lobbying campaign.

Immunity Granted in Roundup Failure to Warn Claims

In a decision issued on June 25, the Supreme Court sided with the manufacturers, determining that state failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law. The ruling states that Bayer and Monsanto cannot be reasonably asked to put cancer label warnings on Roundup if the EPA says it does not cause cancer.

The court noted that the EPA did additional reviews after the IARC warning and did not change its opinion or require new cancer label warnings. The majority of justices decided that meant Monsanto could not change the label to add a cancer warning even if it wanted to.

“Monsanto is not invoking the mere fact of ‘registration’ as a complete defense to state tort suits. Rather, Monsanto is relying on EPA’s specific determination that cancer warnings are not required for glyphosate-based pesticide labels.”

– U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority

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

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

A Maryland woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burns and other injuries after scalding food was ejected from a Crock-Pot Express multicooker, when the pressure cooker safety features failed and allowed the lid to be removed while there was still intense pressure built up inside the device.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Evelyn Thomas in the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia on June 16, pursuing damages from Sunbeam Products Inc. and Newell Brands Inc. as the defendants.

Thomas claims the companies put profit over safety by continuing to sell the Crock-Pot pressure cooker, after receiving more than 100 similar reports of burn injuries and the device opening while still under pressure.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

The Crock-Pot Express Multicooker is a consumer kitchen appliance that uses high pressure to rapidly cook food. Like other electric pressure cooker brands, it is designed with safety features intended to prevent the lid from opening while the device is pressurized.

However, in recent years, hundreds of burn injuries have been reported by consumers after electric pressure cookers have failed to keep the lids on during pressurization. The reports have impacted various major brands, including Crock-Pot, Instant Pot, Ninja and many others.

In the reports, consumers allege safety features failed on electric pressure cooker lids due to design defects of the devices. As a result, a number of pressure cooker injury lawsuits have been filed in recent years involving similar allegations due to the growing number of injuries that consumers have faced.

Crock-Pot Explosion Allegations

Thomas alleges she was using the Crock-Pot pressure cooker in July 2024 when she was able to remove the lid while the contents were still under pressure. 

Her claim indicates that despite safety features intended to prevent the lid from opening under those conditions, she was able to remove it, unaware the contents were still pressurized. This allowed scalding food and liquid to explode onto her body. The Crock-Pot pressure cooker is advertised as being designed with “safety in mind” and includes safety sensors that are meant to keep the lid from opening while under pressure. The lawsuit alleges those safety features failed when Thomas used the device.

The problem is not new. Sunbeam issued a recall for more than 900,000 Crock-Pot multicookers in November 2020. The complaint indicates the recall was issued only after the company and federal regulators received nearly 120 reports of faulty lids opening during cooking, causing nearly 100 burn injuries ranging in severity from first- to third-degree burns.

Thomas’s lawsuit alleges Sunbeam put profits over safety by continuing to sell the pressure cookers to consumers despite knowing about the faulty lid design. She argues the company failed to warn consumers of the serious risks posed by the defect and failed to issue a timely recall.

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

— Evelyn Thomas v. Sunbeam Products Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Thomas is seeking damages for bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life.

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

A Colorado woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a jar of Tostitos Salsa Con Queso dip contained glass shards, which she unknowingly consumed, leading to severe internal injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Laurel Schnell in Colorado state court last month, pursuing damages from Frito-Lay Inc., Dairy Farmers of America Inc. and Dillon Companies Inc. as the defendants. However, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 16.

Schnell claims the defendants were involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of a Tostitos cheese dip that was contaminated with glass pieces, causing her to suffer a life-threatening gastric hemorrhage, which resulted in the need for multiple surgeries and blood transfusions.

Tostitos Salsa Con Queso Lawsuit

In the lawsuit, Schnell indicates she purchased a jar of Tostitos Salsa Con Queso dip in March 2024 from King Soopers, a Dillon Companies Inc. grocery store. In the days following the purchase, she consumed the product and eventually discovered glass shards after biting into a piece that was much harder than the corn chip she was eating.

Schnell returned to the King Soopers store, where she showed the product to customer service before seeking medical evaluation at a local medical center. Despite no evidence of glass ingestion being found during her initial evaluation, Schnell claims she continued to experience symptoms that did not resolve. 

According to the lawsuit, Schnell sought treatment at another medical center in September 2024, where a scoping procedure revealed bleeding in the lower portion of her stomach. She was diagnosed with a gastric hemorrhage and underwent multiple endoscopies, surgeries to stop the bleeding and blood transfusions.

The defendants allegedly breached their duties and failed to comply with laws and regulations to protect Schnell against injuries from the glass contamination.

“As a direct and proximate result of said negligence, Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries, future injuries, economic damages, non-economic damages, physical impairment, medical bills, and expenses.”

— Laurel Schnell v. Frito-Lay Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty. It seeks damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses, and any other relief the court deems equitable.

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

An Arkansas man has filed a product liability lawsuit against Boston Scientific Corporation, claiming that his WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator (SCS) system failed, causing him to suffer painful shocks, burns and other problems, which ultimately resulted in the need for the pain management device to be surgically removed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Richard G. Pike in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 16, indicating that his WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator was defectively designed and manufactured, causing it to fail months after implantation.

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants designed to treat chronic pain by blocking pain signals to the brain. They consist of electrodes, placed under the skin near the spine, a battery-powered pulse generator also placed under the skin, and a remote control for adjusting stimulation levels.

Although these devices are designed to be permanent implants, a growing number of consumers report experiencing serious problems with spinal cord stimulators, often resulting in the need for complete removal of the implants. These issues have allegedly led to battery problems, electric shocks, increased chronic pain, unexpected shutdowns and loss of therapy.

In light of these concerns, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are now being filed in courts nationwide, each raising similar claims that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with devices.

WaveWriter Alpha Injury Allegations

In this new complaint, Pike indicates that he experienced chronic pain that did not resolve after undergoing cervical spine fusion surgery. As a result, he later underwent a procedure to have a WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator installed in July 2025.

However, the lawsuit indicates that the system contained manufacturing defects, including defective welds, which resulted in the WaveWriter stimulator failing after only six months. This failure caused Pike to suffer several complications, including severe burning and sharp electric shocks, as well as dizziness and fainting without warning.

Pike also found that the chronic pain had returned and worsened, especially during device malfunctions and resets.

These problems were allegedly due to manufacturing defects that included defective welds, which failed to meet design specifications and allowed moisture to enter the system.

“Boston Scientific agents also supervised, maintained, and directed the System and the treatment of Plaintiff’s pain and health more generally during and after the System’s implantation into Plaintiff, assuming the duty to do so with a reasonable degree of care. However, Boston Scientific and its sales representatives and other agents failed to comply with this duty.”

– Richard Pike v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

Pike presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict liability for manufacturing defect, strict liability for failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Massachusetts Business Practices for Consumer Protection Act. He seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints filed throughout the federal court system, all Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are now centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

While a number of Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have also been filed, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled earlier this month that they will continue to move on separately through the court system for the time being.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers are currently pursuing cases for those who have suffered injuries after being implanted with one of the devices, which can result in:

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

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

A federal judge has determined that two proposed class action lawsuits accusing Polymarket of operating an illegal online gambling platform should proceed as a single case, finding the actions involve nearly identical allegations that the company disguised an unlicensed sportsbook as a “prediction market.”

In an order (PDF) issued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 12, Judge Margaret M. Garnett indicated that Polymarket lawsuits filed by Lorenzo Miro San Diego and Alexander Yoon should be combined into one class action, ordering lawyers to file a consolidated complaint by June 25.

Diego and Yoon both claim Polymarket illegally accepted sports wagers nationwide without required state licenses, causing users to lose thousands of dollars. The court determined that the class action claims each share common questions of fact and law, such that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency.

Online Gambling Lawsuits

Polymarket describes itself as the “World’s Largest Prediction Market,” allowing users to purchase “Yes” or “No” contracts based on the outcomes of sporting events. However, lawsuits allege the platform functions much like a conventional online sportsbook, offering wagers on point spreads, moneylines, over-under totals, proposition bets and parlays across professional and college athletics.

In recent years, online sportsbooks have faced criticisms that have resulted in numerous DraftKings lawsuits, FanDuel lawsuits and claims against other online betting sites, such as BetMGM and Caesars. Much of the scrutiny has centered upon allegations that the platforms target younger users through “risk-free” wagers, promotional bonuses and game-like features that encourage frequent participation. Critics claim these platforms are intentionally designed to promote impulsive betting, repeated play and prolonged user engagement.

As a result, sports betting addiction lawsuits are being filed by users who claim they developed compulsive gambling behaviors after using the apps. The complaints contend that major sportsbook operators employed deceptive marketing strategies and addictive platform designs that contributed to severe financial losses and emotional harm, particularly among college students and young adults.

Polymarket Class Action Lawsuit Allegations

The two Polymarket gambling lawsuits, which were filed separately in February, name Blockratize Inc., Adventure One QSS Inc. and QCX LLC as defendants. They allege the companies operate Polymarket as an unlicensed online sportsbook while falsely marketing the platform as a legal prediction market.

According to the complaints, Polymarket allows users to wager real money on the outcomes of sporting events, player performances, point spreads, over-under totals and parlays in a manner plaintiffs claim is virtually indistinguishable from traditional sportsbooks. The lawsuits allege the company adopted the “prediction market” label solely to avoid gambling regulations while continuing to profit from sports betting.

Diego and Yoon each contend Polymarket aggressively marketed the platform as a legal way to bet on sports in all 50 states, despite allegedly operating without the state licenses required to offer online sports wagering. The complaints point to social media advertisements and promotional campaigns encouraging users nationwide to place sports bets through the platform.

The lawsuits also cite prior regulatory action against the company, noting Polymarket previously agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022 and temporarily ceased U.S. operations before later returning to the market. The complaints further reference recent enforcement actions by gaming regulators in Nevada and Tennessee challenging Polymarket’s sports betting operations.

In his complaint (PDF), Diego alleges he incurred thousands of dollars in Polymarket gambling losses between September and November 2025 after relying on representations that the platform offered legal sports betting. He claims he would not have used the platform had he known the alleged gambling operation violated state laws.

“Plaintiff was harmed because Defendants took Plaintiff’s money due to their unlawful, false, unfair, and deceptive misrepresentations of their product, including the product Plaintiff utilized.”

— Lorenzo Miro San Diego v. Blockratize Inc. et al.

The proposed Polymarket class action lawsuits each seek to recover money allegedly lost by users wagering on the platform, along with injunctive relief preventing the company from continuing the challenged business practices. The complaints assert claims under New York gambling and consumer protection laws, California unfair competition statutes and common law unjust enrichment.

Along with consolidating the lawsuits, Judge Garnett has established a schedule for the next phase of the litigation, including briefing on an anticipated motion by defendants seeking to compel arbitration. The court also denied, without prejudice, a joint request to appoint interim co-lead class counsel, finding the parties had not provided sufficient information addressing the factors required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sports Betting Lawsuits

Although the Polymarket lawsuits focus on whether the platform illegally operated as an unlicensed sportsbook, they come amid broader legal scrutiny over the rapid expansion of online sports betting and its impact on young users.

Sports betting addiction lawsuits are being investigated for individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who incurred more than $10,000 in gambling-related losses after using online platforms such as:

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

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

Facing an increasing number of youth social media addiction lawsuits, Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is now trying to convince lawmakers to grant the industry immunity from damages for problems linked to their platforms.

More than 2,500 such complaints are already filed against Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat and other major social media corporations, with plaintiffs ranging from parents and young adults to school districts and states. Each involves allegations the defendants caused serious developmental, educational and mental health problems for youths by intentionally designing social media apps to be addictive.

Many of the lawsuits also include allegations that the companies illegally collected data on minors using their platforms, plugging the information into sophisticated algorithms designed to keep children scrolling longer, increasing their addiction for the sake of profits.

According to plaintiffs, these factors combined can cause anxiety, depression, eating disorders, behavioral problems, self-harm and suicide. Additionally, states and school districts say that the effects of social media addiction lead to the use of huge amounts of taxpayer money for tutoring, counseling and mental health treatment.

Meta Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Trial Losses

As the litigation continues to increase, Meta and other companies have already been hit with multi-million dollar social media addiction lawsuit trial verdicts in state courts nationwide.

In March, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million in damages to a woman who said she suffered anxiety and depression due to social media addiction fostered by apps like Facebook and YouTube when she was a minor. 

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

Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Immunity Sought

A recent Reuters report now indicates Meta has begun lobbying members of Congress to place language into pending legislation that may bar future social media addiction lawsuits, like those that continue to be filed in courts nationwide.

The proposed language would be added to the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which failed to pass the Senate in 2024, but was reintroduced this year. On Monday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) announced they had reached a bipartisan deal they believe will allow passage of KOSA later this year.

The proposed Meta addition would make social media companies immune from liability for alleged violations of state laws involving child safety and privacy of minors, as well as any other lawsuits linked to KOSA provisions.

Meta officials indicated that the immunity, if granted, would not affect the social media addiction lawsuits and child privacy violation claims it already faces. According to Reuters, no lawmakers have yet taken the company up on its offer.

Federal Social Media Addiction Trials

At the federal level, all social media addiction lawsuits are consolidated in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is shepherding the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rogers has also guided the parties through the preparation of several representative cases for early test trials. These “bellwether” trials are designed to give the parties an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony that would be common to the majority of claims.

The first of those federal bellwether trials was scheduled to begin on June 15, involving claims by the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky. Meta was the last defendant, after Snap, TikTok and YouTube had already settled the litigation.

Meta and the school district informed Judge Rogers in late May that they had also reached a settlement and the case was being dismissed. The details of that agreement have not been released to the public.

The next federal bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on February 8, but no specific case has been assigned to the trial date.

Neither the outcomes of the bellwether trials nor the state trials are binding on any other social media addiction lawsuits, but they are being closely watched, with the results likely to have a major impact on any settlement negotiations.

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

Both the makers and distributors of a popular Aovopro electric scooter face a product liability lawsuit filed by a Florida man, who alleges that a design defect caused him to be thrown from the scooter, resulting in severe injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Ryan Murray in Florida Circuit Court on April 22, and it was removed to the U.S. District Court of Florida on June 15, naming Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Logistics Inc., Prime Now LLC, Aovopro Electric Scooters, and Huizhou and Peter Technology Co. as defendants.

Murray claims he suffered permanent disfigurement and disability after an Aovopro e-scooter wheel stem unexpectedly failed, violently throwing him to the ground.

Electric Scooter Risks

Aovopro is a brand of electric scooters powered by rechargeable batteries. They are intended for short distance travel on roads, bike lanes and sidewalks, and have been marketed to teens and young adults by the CEO, who has demonstrated aggressive spins and tricks with the products.

While e-scooters have become increasingly popular in recent years, their widespread use has also raised concerns about rider safety, especially when the devices contain design defects or otherwise fail during use.

A lawsuit was filed in March alleging a defective Amazon e-scooter collapsed during normal use and threw the rider to the ground. The woman suffered orthopedic injuries and other soft tissue injuries. In May, a complaint was filed against Lime, alleging the e-scooter’s defective design caused a woman’s fall, resulting in a traumatic brain injury as well as other life-altering injuries.

Amazon E-Scooter Injury Allegations

Murray alleges his mother purchased the Aovopro e-scooter from Amazon when he was 17 years old. He was using the scooter on April 26, 2024, when the suspension and the front wheel stem suddenly failed, throwing him violently from the device. At the time, the lawsuit notes that Murray’s face struck the pavement and he sustained severe injuries.

Murray was hospitalized with catastrophic bodily injuries that caused permanent scarring, disfigurement and disability. He indicates that he will continue to suffer ongoing health issues and disability in the future.

The filing claims the scooter was unreasonably dangerous and the manufacturer, along with Amazon, either knew of the design flaw or failed to test the scooter sufficiently to detect the defect. Murray claims safer alternative designs were available, yet the companies failed to implement them.

“Defendants, Amazon.com, Amazon Logistics, Prime Now, and H&P Technology knew that the scooter posed a substantial risk of harm because it had an unreasonably dangerous propensity to rupture and fracture during known foreseeable use, which included jumps and spins.”

— Ryan Murray v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations against Aovopro Electric Scooters and H&P Technology over their role in designing and manufacturing the defective scooter. It also alleges Amazon shares responsibility for the sale of the scooter on its online marketplace and fulfillment system.

In addition, the filing raises claims of strict liability against all defendants, as well as negligence against Amazon.com, Amazon.com Services LLC and Prime Now.

Murray is seeking damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering, hospitalization expenses, medical care expenses and treatment, loss of income and loss of earning capacity.

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

A Georgia woman has filed an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit after suffering repeated infections from two separate SmartPort implants, which caused her to undergo multiple surgeries to remove and replace the allegedly defective port catheters.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Britney Schettini in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 15, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Schettini claims AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical knew their implantable port catheters carried an elevated risk of infection and other serious complications, yet they failed to adopt safer designs or adequately warn physicians and patients. 

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Problems

AngioDynamics manufactures several implantable port catheter systems, including the SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela, which are designed to provide long-term access to a patient’s bloodstream for repeated delivery of medications, chemotherapy, fluids and other treatments. Each system consists of a port implanted beneath the skin that connects to a catheter inserted into a vein.

In recent years, AngioDynamics and other port catheter manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, have faced mounting allegations that their devices are prone to serious complications, including infections, blood clots, catheter fractures and other failures. According to plaintiffs, defects in the catheter materials and design can allow biofilm and blood products to accumulate on degraded surfaces, increasing the risk of dangerous medical complications.

As a result, a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits have been filed by patients nationwide. The complaints allege the company knew its devices carried an elevated risk of failure but continued to market them without adequate warnings.

SmartPort Infection Allegations

According to this new filing, Schettini underwent implantation of her first AngioDynamics SmartPort device at AdventHealth in Orlando on May 20, 2024, to provide long-term vascular access for medical treatment. About one month later, she was diagnosed with an infection and doctors recommended removing the implanted port.

The complaint indicates the first SmartPort was surgically removed on July 7, 2024, and replaced with another AngioDynamics SmartPort eight days later. However, the replacement device also became infected, resulting in another diagnosis on Christmas Day 2024, that was initially treated with antibiotics before the infection returned in March 2025.

The filing states doctors ultimately recommended removing the second SmartPort as well, which occurred on March 27, 2025.

Schettini alleges both devices were defectively designed and manufactured, leaving them prone to bacterial growth and infection.

The complaint contends the SmartPort catheter contains polyurethane or silicone mixed with barium sulfate to make the device visible on medical imaging. According to the lawsuit, excessive concentrations of barium sulfate and defects in the manufacturing process can create microscopic cracks and an irregular catheter surface that promotes biofilm formation, increasing the risk of infection and other serious complications.

“As a result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions, Plaintiff was injured due to the use of the SmartPort, which has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff’s various physical, mental, and emotional injuries and damages, and to incur substantial medical bills due to the defective product that was implanted in her body.”

— Britney Schettini v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

Schettini raises allegations of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. She seeks general and punitive damages for past, present and future medical expenses.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

The case joins hundreds of other AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits pending in federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where the litigation has been centralized for coordinated proceedings to streamline discovery and resolve common pretrial issues involving similar claims against the manufacturer.

As the litigation moves forward, the parties will prepare a small group of representative cases for early bellwether trials. While the outcomes will apply only to the individual plaintiffs involved, the proceedings are expected to provide insight into how juries may evaluate evidence and testimony common to lawsuits throughout the MDL. This could wind up influencing future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations.

Similar allegations have also been raised in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those cases likewise allege the implantable port catheters were defectively designed and manufactured, making them susceptible to cracking, thrombosis, infections and other serious complications.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended last month with a mixed result. Jurors rejected claims that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings or committed consumer fraud. However, they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on allegations that the port catheter was defectively designed or that the company violated state consumer protection laws. The plaintiff in that case has asked for a new trial, arguing the jury was given improper instructions that led to the verdict. 

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are scheduled to begin on July 7, August 18, October 13, December 1 and February 2, 2027. If those proceedings do not lead to settlements or another resolution of the litigation, individual lawsuits may eventually be remanded to federal district courts nationwide for separate trials.

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

A federal judge has established the pretrial schedule for a LINX surgery lawsuit filed earlier this year, setting key litigation deadlines that will move the case toward a March 2028 trial.

Michael Lopez brought the LINX procedure lawsuit in the District of Minnesota on January 19, indicating he had to undergo additional surgery after the controversial acid reflux implant failed and had to be surgically removed.

Designed by Torax Medical, the LINX Reflux Management System was approved in 2017 for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and has since been acquired by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary. The implant consists of a small ring of magnetic beads connected by titanium wires, which is placed around the lower esophageal sphincter to help keep stomach acid from washing back into the esophagus.

While the implant was marketed as a safe alternative for patients who did not respond to proton pump inhibitors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a LINX Reflux Management System recall in 2018, after noting that certain devices suffered from a manufacturing defect that could allow the wire to break and the beads to detach inside of a patient’s body, potentially migrating and damaging nearby organs or causing other serious health problems. This frequently leads to patients undergoing more LINX surgical procedures to have the failed implant removed.

Lopez is just one of several patients now pursuing LINX surgery lawsuits, each alleging the devices broke inside their bodies, leaving them with devastating injuries after the devices failed. The complaints claim the manufacturer knew or should have known about the design defects, indicating they either failed to test the device properly or failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks of breakage.

LINX Device Failure Lawsuit

According to Lopez’s complaint, he underwent the LINX procedure in December 2018. At that time, he was unaware the implant had been recalled several months earlier, and neither he nor his doctor were made aware the device had been removed from the market, indicating the manufacturers failed to provide proper recall notices.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, negligence and negligence per se, seeking compensatory damages.

In March, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a pretrial scheduling order (PDF) in the case, announcing that she intends for the lawsuit to be trial-ready by March 22, 2028. The trial is expected to last three days.

The order includes details on protecting and preserving evidence and calls for fact discovery to be completed by June 24, 2027. All expert discovery, including depositions, will be completed by September 22, 2027. Dispositive motions are due by November 22, 2027.

While the order also indicates that the court may schedule settlement conferences to see if there is a way to resolve Lopez’s claims without need for a trial, no such conference has yet been ordered or set.

LINX Surgery Lawsuits

Following the LINX device recall in the U.S., the manufacturer also pulled LINX implants from certain foreign markets in September 2025, as concerns about the implants breaking continued to rise.

LINX surgery attorneys are currently reviewing additional LINX injury claims and pursuing compensation for patients who experienced complications, including:

• The need for revision surgery or removal of the device
• Device breakage or mechanical failure
• Migration of the implant
• Organ punctures or tissue damage

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

Another Oxbryta lawsuit has been settled by Pfizer, who indicated in a court filing that it has agreed to resolve claims involving a teenage boy who developed vaso-occulive crises (VOCs) after receiving the recalled sickle cell disease drug.

The original Oxbryta lawsit was filed in early October 2026, pursuing claims against Pfizer Inc. and its Global Blood Therapeutics Inc. unit, on behalf of a 13-year-old boy identified only as Z.C., by a parent identified only as W.W.

The lawsuit alleged Oxbryta side effects left the boy with severe and permanent injuries, after it increased the risk of VOCs that the drug was supposed to prevent.

Oxbryta Health Concerns

First approved in 2019, Oxbryta (voxelotor) was designed to address the root causes of sickle cell disease by helping blood cells retain more oxygen and preventing VOCs, which occur when red blood cells block blood flow. VOCs can cause an inflammatory response that results in symptoms like pain in the chest, back and limbs, as well as fever. They can cause kidney failure, stroke and even death.

However, reports submitted by doctors and patients later raised concerns that Oxbryta may increase the risk of VOCs, rather than prevent them. The FDA and the manufacturers identified a higher number of VOC reports than expected, leading to an Oxbryta recall in September 2024, after the manufacturer concluded that the drug’s risks appeared to outweigh its benefits, including reports of serious and fatal events. 

Z.C.’s complaint was one of a number of Oxbryta VOC lawsuits filed by users of the sickle cell disease drug, which it appears the manufacturers are working to resolve without the need for long and expensive trials that could end in blockbuster verdicts.

Oxbryta Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

According to a status report (PDF) issued in late May, the parent of the teenage boy and Pfizer have reached an out-of-court agreement to settle the Oxbryta claim, indicating that the lawsuit will be dismissed once the settlement is finalized. The parties said they will update the court once they have a timeline for completing the resolution process.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Z.C., who was 13 years old and identified only by his initials in court filings. According to the lawsuit, Z.C. participated in an Oxbryta safety study in 2021, then continued using the medication after it became available on the market.

The lawsuit alleged that Z.C. suffered a high number of vaso-occlusive crises after using Oxbryta. The complaint indicates he was placed in critical care and the intensive care unit on several occasions, nearly died multiple times and required oxycodone and morphine to manage severe pain caused by the VOC incidents.

The agreement marks at least the second Oxbryta lawsuit settlement disclosed in recent months. The first involved claims brought by Dana Ford, whose case had been scheduled to go to trial in September 2027.

Ford filed one of the first Oxbryta lawsuits in May 2025, alleging that Pfizer and Global Blood Therapeutics sold and promoted a defective medication that caused the death of her husband, Bruce Ford. According to that complaint, Ford began taking Oxbryta in September 2022 and died in May 2024 after suffering a VOC and stroke. Terms of that settlement also have not been publicly disclosed.

Oxbryta Lawsuits

The settlement agreement is believed to be restricted to the Z.C. lawsuit, but the manufacturers have been working with plaintiffs since last year to hammer out a global Oxbryta settlement. It is unclear how close they are to a final deal.

In the meantime, Oxbryta lawyers continue to investigate potential lawsuits for individuals who were prescribed the drug for the treatment of sickle cell disease and developed any of the following side effects, injuries or severe complications:

• Vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs)
• Stroke
• Severe pain and swelling
• Death

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

A California family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging a defective 2020 Land Rover Discovery unexpectedly rolled backward and ran over a woman as she was getting out of her vehicle.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Pierce Rooney, Erin Farrell, Kathleen Rooney and Molly Willis as successors in interest on behalf of the Estate of Sue Rooney in the Superior Court of the State of California on June 12. It names Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Limited and Niello Imports II Inc., doing business as Land Rover Sacramento, as defendants.

The family claims the Land Rover Discovery that ran over and killed Sue Rooney contained all the equipment necessary to prevent unintended rollaways. However, the manufacturer chose not to enable features that would have secured the vehicle when it detected the driver had exited while the engine was running and the transmission was not in Park.

Vehicle Rollaway Dangers

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.

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

Just last month, a Chevrolet Blazer rollaway lawsuit was filed alleging that defects in the parking and braking systems caused the vehicle to roll backward unexpectedly, resulting in a woman suffering from brain injury, multiple fractures and severe internal injuries.

Land Rover Discovery Rollaway Allegations

This new complaint alleges that on May 15, 2026, Sue Rooney was run over and killed by her 2020 Land Rover Discovery after she exited the still-running vehicle. The lawsuit claims the vehicle’s electronic gear shifter was confusing to use and did not clearly indicate what gear it was in, making it easier for drivers to accidentally leave the vehicle in the wrong gear.

According to the filing, Jaguar Land Rover has faced at least two separate lawsuits over rollaway incidents involving serious injuries and one death. In addition, numerous complaints have been filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), involving similar Land Rover rollaway problems.

The lawsuit claims the manufacturer could have fixed the issue with a software update but instead knowingly sold vehicles with a defective electronic gear selector, failed to include readily available rollaway-prevention software, and did not adequately warn consumers of the risk.

“The [Jaguar Land Rover] Defendants thus possessed the very remedy that would have prevented Decedent’s death, yet made a conscious decision to withhold it from the Subject Vehicle and the hundreds of thousands of other vehicles they continued to manufacture and sell without it, in order to avoid the cost and adverse publicity of a recall.”

— Pierce Rooney et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence for wrongful death and personal injury, and survival action. It seeks general, punitive and special damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits has ordered plaintiffs who have not yet signed on to a pending settlement agreement to each personally meet with the Special Master presiding over the negotiations, and is requiring lawyers to submit a new status report by July 6, 2026.

For months, Syngenta and Chevron have reportedly been on the verge of a deal that could resolve nearly 6,700 product liability lawsuits filed by landscapers, farmers and other agricultural workers, each indicating they developed Parkinson’s disease from exposure to Paraquat, a controversial weedkiller that has been banned in several countries.

First introduced in the U.S. under the brand name Gramoxone in 1964, Paraquat is a powerful and toxic herbicide widely used nationwide to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before crops are planted. It is also used to dry out some crops before processing.

Paraquat has long been known to carry serious poisoning risks. However, in recent years an increasing body of scientific evidence has also linked Paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease. Data appears to indicate long-term exposure, such as with agricultural workers who spray, mix or handle the weedkiller, increases the risk of chronic and progressive neurological damage.

Amid a steady stream of claims being filed across the U.S., all federal Paraquat lawsuits were centralized in the Southern District of Illinois as part of a federal MDL (multidistrict litigation) in June 2021, and U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengal has been presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings over the past five years.

Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement

Originally, the judge planned to hold a series of “bellwether” early test trials that would have given the parties a chance to see how juries ruled after weighing evidence and testimony that would have likely been used throughout the litigation. However, the first trial, scheduled to begin in January, was cancelled after the parties announced a Paraquat lawsuit settlement agreement was being finalized, which was expected to resolve the litigation.

Plaintiffs and defendants have been indicating they are finalizing terms of the deal since April 2025. Judge Rosenstengal placed a stay on the litigation when the deal was announced, to give the parties a chance to iron out the details of the agreement with the help of Special Master Randi Ellis, who has overseen negotiations.

On June 12, Judge Rosenstengal issued a case management order (PDF) impacting all plaintiffs who have either decided not to participate in the Paraquat settlement, have yet to make a decision or who file claims in the future. The order calls for all of these plaintiffs to contact Special Master Ellis within 30 days to arrange a personal meeting to discuss the settlement details, their concerns and requirements for moving forward.

Any plaintiffs who still do not participate will have to meet a series of requirements, such as documentation and affidavits on use, Parkinson’s disease diagnoses and other evidence necessary to prove their injuries. However, Judge Rosenstengal noted there is not yet any deadline for that part of the process, as the deal has yet to be finalized.

The order did not state how many plaintiffs have rejected the deal or remain undecided.

“The Court is issuing this CMO now so that each Plaintiff who elects not to participate in the Settlement or any Plaintiff who asserts a claim against Defendants after the date of this CMO has notice of what will be required of them and can begin to gather the required information.”

– U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel, Southern District of Illinois

In a separate text docket entry issued this morning, Judge Rosenstengal directed plaintiffs to provide a status report to the Special Master on or before July 6, 2026.

In March, Syngenta announced a phaseout of global Paraquat production to be completed this month. The decision came as lawmakers in a growing number of states called for a Paraquat ban. Syngenta still maintains that Paraquat was safe, claiming it decided to move on to new technologies.

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

An Illinois appeals court has vacated a landmark verdict returned by a state court jury in a necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) lawsuit brought by a woman whose premature infant died from the devastating gastrointestinal condition after receiving Enfamil formula, indicating that the court provided incorrect instructions before deliberations began.

In March 2024, an Illinois jury awarded $60 million to Jasmine Watson, whose child, Chance Dean, suffered fatal complications after being born prematurely and fed Enfamil. The infant developed NEC and did not survive, leading to a wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer, Mead Johnson.

The trial began in late February 2024 and lasted more than four weeks in a St. Clair County court. However, the jury took only two hours to reach a verdict, awarding Watson $25 million in excess of what she asked.

Infant Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis occurs when harmful bacteria breaches the walls of the intestines, causing portions of the tissue to become inflamed or die. Preterm infants are particularly vulnerable because their intestinal tract is often underdeveloped.

The condition frequently results in the need for emergency surgery while the newborn is still in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), which can leave the infant with life-long health problems. However, many infants do not survive a NEC diagnosis.

Both Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories, the makers of Similac infant formula, have each faced hundreds of infant formula NEC lawsuits. These claims raise nearly identical allegations that the manufacturers placed their desire for profits ahead of the safety of newborns, aggressively marketing their products despite the knowledge that their cow’s milk-based formula carries a higher NEC risk.

New Infant Formula NEC Trial Ordered

Mead Johnson appealed the Watson verdict to the Appellate Court of Illinois’s Fifth District, arguing that the jury was given improper instructions about the state’s failure to warn laws and that some of the evidence shown to the jury should not have been permitted.

On June 12, the court issued an opinion (PDF) agreeing with Mead Johnson, overturning the $60 million damages award and ordering a new trial. The decision comes after the trial court refused to grant a summary judgment on Mead Johnson’s behalf and denied post-trial motions for a new trial.

According to the appeals court, Watson’s claim indicated Mead Johnson failed to warn her about the risks of NEC. However, Illinois has something known as the “learned intermediary doctrine,” which puts the onus on doctors to inform their patients of potential medical risks, only requiring that the doctors be adequately informed.

The appeals court determined the jury should have never been instructed to consider whether Watson was adequately warned by Mead Johnson.

“The trial court erred when it expressly declined to apply the learned intermediary doctrine and instructed the jury that Mead Johnson’s duty to warn was owed both to Mother and Chance’s physicians.”

– Appellate Court of Illinois

Additionally, the panel also found that financial evidence showing Mead Johnson’s wealth led the jury to make decisions based on what would be large enough to impact the company’s bottom line, as opposed to what damages were appropriate based on its actions.

The case will now be transferred back to the lower court for a new trial.

Watson’s verdict was one of the first state trials to go before a jury. In another trial held that same year, a Missouri jury awarded nearly $500 million to a family whose child suffered a NEC diagnosis allegedly caused by Abbott Laboratories’ Similac formula. Later that year, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

More recently, a Cook County, Illinois, jury awarded four mothers a combined $70 million in damages in a lawsuit involving Similac products. 

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

In addition to infant formula NEC lawsuits filed in state courts nationwide, all federal claims have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois. She has directed the litigation against both Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Pallmeyer plans to hold a series of bellwether trials based on representative claims that will give the parties more jury assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of claims that will be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first federal trial is set to begin on July 6, with a lawsuit filed by Alexis Inman. A second trial is scheduled to start on August 10, focusing on claims brought by Mary Kelton.

Following those bellwether trials, if the parties fail to negotiate NEC lawsuit settlements for families, it is likely Judge Pallmeyer will start remanding dozens of individual claims back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for separate trial dates.

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

A new class action lawsuit alleges Natera deceptively marketed its preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as an accurate and effective tool for improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes, despite scientific evidence showing the testing may not increase pregnancy or live birth rates.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on June 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Melissa Klein of New York and Valerie Griffeth of Illinois, who seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who paid for Natera’s Spectrum PGT-A testing. It names Natera Inc. as the sole defendant.

Klein and Griffeth allege patients spent thousands of dollars on the testing based on false claims that it was highly accurate and could reduce miscarriage risks, increase implantation rates and improve the chances of delivering a healthy baby.

PGT-A Testing Concerns

IVF is a common fertility treatment that involves fertilizing eggs in a laboratory before transferring selected embryos into the uterus.

PGT-A testing is offered as an add-on during many IVF treatments. After embryos reach the blastocyst stage, a small number of cells are removed and sent to a laboratory for genetic analysis. The results are then used to determine which embryos are considered suitable for transfer and which are labeled abnormal.

According to the lawsuit, Natera promoted its testing as being 99% accurate and capable of increasing implantation rates, reducing miscarriages, shortening the time to pregnancy and improving IVF success rates, particularly for women over age 35. However, Klein and Griffeth claim those representations were false and omitted key information about the limitations of the testing, which may have led prospective parents to discard viable embryos and suffer significant financial and emotional strain.

PGT-A Accuracy Allegations

The complaint alleges there is no reliable scientific evidence showing that PGT-A improves pregnancy outcomes when compared to IVF cycles that do not use the testing. Klein and Griffeth point to positions taken by major insurers, including United Healthcare and Aetna, which allegedly classify PGT-A as unproven, investigational or lacking sufficient evidence of effectiveness.

The lawsuit further claims PGT-A results can produce false positives and false negatives, leading patients to discard or decline transfer of embryos that may have resulted in healthy births. According to the complaint, inaccurate testing can influence critical treatment decisions, trigger additional egg retrieval procedures and result in the unnecessary loss of embryos.

Klein and Griffeth cite a number of published studies that allegedly found substantial discrepancies when embryos labeled abnormal were retested. In one study referenced in the complaint, researchers found that more than half of embryos initially classified as abnormal were later determined to be normal or potentially viable upon reevaluation. The lawsuit alleges these findings undermine claims that PGT-A can reliably determine embryo viability.

The complaint also alleges that despite growing scientific criticism, the use of PGT-A genetic testing increased from approximately 13% of IVF cycles in 2014 to about 40% by 2021, creating a market that generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Plaintiffs claim Natera continued promoting the testing despite knowing it lacked evidence supporting many of the benefits highlighted in its marketing materials.

“Plaintiff Klein relied upon Defendant’s false and misleading misrepresentations and omissions and paid approximately $2,850.00 plus additional costs for her PGT-A testing which she would not have purchased absent Defendant’s false and misleading misrepresentations and omissions.”

— Melissa Klein et al. v. Natera Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of violations of consumer protection laws in New York and Illinois, as well as fraud, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. It seeks class action certification, monetary damages, restitution and other relief for consumers nationwide who paid for Natera’s PGT-A testing based on the company’s alleged misrepresentations.

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

A Nevada woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered life-altering injuries after a Dupray Neat Steam Cleaner she purchased from Amazon unexpectedly and violently exploded during use, spraying her with shrapnel.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Julie Allen in Nevada District Court on April 7, naming Dupray Industries Inc., Dupray USA LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Logistics Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court of Nevada on June 12.

Allen claims the Dupray steam cleaner contained a defective pressure release valve that allowed the boiler to rupture, leaving her with severe and permanent injuries.

The Dupray Neat Steam Cleaner is marketed as a chemical-free cleaning device that uses superheated steam reaching temperatures of up to 275 degrees to remove dirt and grease. However, the product has also been linked to more than a dozen reports of similar steam cleaner explosions caused by boiler ruptures.

As a result, federal safety officials announced a Dupray Steam Cleaner recall in February 2026, impacting more than 650,000 units sold in the U.S. and another 100,000 sold in Canada, warning the devices could explode if the pressure release valve fails.

Dupray Steam Cleaner Injury Allegations

In the complaint, Allen indicates she purchased a Dupray steam cleaner from Amazon on November 27, 2020 and used the steam cleaner over the course of four years.

She says she began using the steam cleaner on February 23, 2025, to clean her bedroom when the device violently exploded and sent large and small pieces of shrapnel in every direction, breaking windows, embedding into drywall and breaking her big screen television.

The complaint notes that the explosion was so violent only small pieces of the Dupray Neat Steam Cleaner remained. The device was completely shattered.

According to the lawsuit, the explosion and shrapnel severely injured Allen, including nearly blowing off her hand. She also suffered severe and permanent injuries, including severe abrasions and extensive bruising to her legs. Allen indicates that the injuries cost her a job as vice president of a gene therapy biotech company where she earned a generous salary and annual bonus.

Allen argues her life was permanently altered by the catastrophic injuries she suffered. The lawsuit states she endured severe physical, mental and emotional injuries as well as pain and suffering. She claims that she continues to suffer physical limitations and needs frequent doctor and therapy appointments.

According to the complaint, Dupray was the number one bestselling steam cleaner on Amazon’s website during the time Allen and other consumers suffered injuries from explosions. After the explosion, Allen learned other consumers had suffered similar catastrophes. Later, Dupray issued its widespread recall for the steam cleaners due to faulty pressure release valves that can lead to the boiler rupturing.

The filing alleges Dupray knew or should have known about the dangerous conditions of the steam cleaner and the likelihood of explosion due to the defective pressure valve.

“At the time of this incident, the product had a design and/or manufacturing defect that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and potentially deadly. The defect, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous, existed at the time the subject product and its component parts left the care, custody and control of the above-named defendants.”

— Julie Allen v. Dupray Industries Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, defective design, manufacture and or failure to warn against all defendants, as well as claims of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and punitive damages against only the Dupray defendants.

Allen seeks compensation for pain and suffering, disfigurement, emotional distress and agony. She requests special damages for medical expenses and punitive damages.

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

A group of five plaintiffs have filed a joint lawsuit against the makers of Suboxone film strips, saying the opioid treatment caused severe and lasting dental problems that could have been avoided with adequate label warnings or by promotion of an already-approved monthly injection.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mandie Boatman, Corey Goode, Katie Kjonaas, Troy Wallace and Scott Knutson, who is representing himself and the estate of Cam E. Knutson, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 12. It names Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc. and Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., formerly known as MonoSol RX LLC, as the defendants.

All of the plaintiffs claim they were prescribed Suboxone film strips, which resulted in them suffering dry mouth, enamel erosion and other dental problems. They accuse the defendants of failing to tell them or their prescribing physicians the true risks of Suboxone dental damage.

Suboxone Dental Problems

Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) was first approved in tablet form in 2002, as an opioid addiction treatment that helps reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms. As the original patent protection for Suboxone tablets was running out, the manufacturers introduced the oral film strip version, which critics say was more about maintaining exclusivity than providing a better way to deliver Suboxone to recovering addicts.

Following hundreds of reports of dental decay and tooth damage, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Suboxone tooth decay warning in June 2022, alerting consumers and doctors that the film strips presented serious risks of tooth enamel erosion. According to the agency, use of Suboxone film strips can lead to tooth loss, disfigurement and the need for dental surgery.

Since then, thousands of Suboxone dental damage lawsuits have been filed nationwide, each alleging the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential risks, yet failed to provide adequate tooth decay warnings.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Allegations

According to the lawsuit, switching from tablets to film strips lengthened the amount of time dental enamel was exposed to Suboxone, increasing the risks of damage. Suboxone film strips can take up to 30 minutes to fully dissolve and may leave residue in the mouth for as long as two hours. Users take up to three film strips at a time.

While Suboxone tablets did not originally carry a tooth decay warning in the U.S., plaintiffs behind this latest lawsuit say it was obvious the manufacturers knew it was a problem, as Indivior warned consumers in other countries, but not the U.S.

“Unlike the American labels, the combined Product Monograph for the tablets and the film in Canada reports that 7.8% of the patients in the pivotal tablet trials experienced ‘tooth disorder’ and warns of dry mouth, gingivitis, gum hemorrhage, and tooth caries.”

– Mandy Boatman et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs say the manufacturers kept the warnings off U.S. products until forced to update them by the FDA. The reason for this delayed response was allegedly to protect and increase profits by cashing in on the opioid addiction crisis. Since 1999, more than 760,000 people have died from a drug overdose, of which nearly three-quarters involved opioid use.

The lawsuit indicates the manufacturers took advantage of addicts seeking to recover, noting that the Suboxone tablets were just as effective as the film strips, which were only created to protect Indivior’s profits and not Suboxone users. According to the complaint, the “victims of the opioid epidemic needed safe and reliable support to manage their disease. And again, the American pharmaceutical industry let them down.”

The lawsuit claims that Indivior had a much safer alternative in a monthly injection called Sublocade, which has been approved by the FDA since 2017. The injections would mean that patients avoid exposure to the enamel-eroding side effects of buprenorphine. However, Suboxone film strips proved more profitable.

Plaintiffs present claims of failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, pre-approval defective design, pre-approval negligent design defect and survival action. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Suboxone Dental Problem Lawsuits

These latest claims will be consolidated with thousands of other Suboxone dental problem lawsuits filed throughout the nation and centralized in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge has the parties currently working on preparing a group of representative claims for early test trials. Known as “bellwether trials,” some of these claims will go before juries to see how they respond to evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Judge Calabrese has ordered the parties to select 15 lawsuits to serve as the bellwether pool by July 13, of which four will be selected to serve as bellwether trials by June 11, 2027. The first trial is not expected to go before a jury until March 2028.

Despite the results of these trials not being binding on other Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits, they will still be closely observed by the parties, as the outcomes could have a significant effect on Suboxone lawsuit settlement negotiations. If there is no settlement by the time the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings are completed, Judge Calabrese will likely begin remanding cases back to their original district courts to be prepared for individual trial dates.

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

An Oregon man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Nexgrill implemented an inadequate grill brush recall program, which failed to fully compensate consumers for millions of defective products that contained dangerous wire bristles that may fall off, contaminate food and cause severe injuries if ingested.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Woodrow Russell in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, naming Nexgrill Industries Inc. as the defendant.

Russell is seeking to represent consumers nationwide who purchased Nexgrill metal wire grill brushes that were recalled earlier this year.

Wire Grill Brush Recalls

According to the lawsuit, a Nexgrill wire brush recall was issued on March 26, covering about 10.2 million grill brushes sold at Home Depot stores and online between 2015 and 2026. The recall followed reports that small metal bristles could detach during use, stick to food or grill surfaces, and potentially be swallowed by consumers. 

The Nexgrill recall is separate from an earlier Weber grill brush recall issued in February, which removed more than 3.2 million wire bristle brushes from the market. In that case, federal regulators indicated they had received nearly 40 reports of injuries linked to the recalled grill brushes.

In the wake of the recall, a number of Weber Grill Brush lawsuits have been filed in courts nationwide. 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.

Nexgrill Defective Recall Allegations

Russell alleges Nexgrill was aware of the defect long before the recall was announced, yet continued selling the products despite mounting evidence that detached bristles posed a serious safety risk. The lawsuit points to consumer complaints, injury reports and public warnings issued over the past decade about the dangers associated with wire-bristle grill brushes.

The complaint notes that federal health officials published warnings about injuries caused by ingested grill brush bristles as early as 2012, while consumer safety organizations and media outlets continued highlighting the hazard in subsequent years. Despite those warnings, Russell claims Nexgrill continued marketing the brushes as safe, reliable and durable.

Russell says he purchased a Nexgrill Long Handle Grill Brush from a Home Depot store in Grants Pass, Oregon sometime between 2019 and 2020. He says he used the brush to clean his grill until bristles began detaching from the product, prompting him to stop using it.

The lawsuit maintains that the recall itself is inadequate because consumers are not offered a cash refund or replacement product. Instead, Russell claims consumers must navigate a multi-step process requiring them to obtain a registration code, upload photographs of the recalled brush and wait for approval before receiving a gift card.

Russell argues that a gift card does not provide full compensation for consumers who paid cash for the products and does not account for the time and effort required to participate in the recall process.

The complaint further alleges that the recall was structured in a way that minimizes participation because only consumers who still possess the brush may seek compensation. As a result, the lawsuit claims many purchasers who discarded the products before the recall was announced have been left without any remedy.

“The Recall is ineffective as it provides the Plaintiff only a gift card refund and offers no replacement product comparable to the Product he purchased, it does not provide a cash monetary refund to Plaintiff but rather allows him to receive a gift card refund after complying with burdensome recall requirements that do not provide complete relief for the defective Product he purchased.”

— Woodrow Russell v. Nexgrill Industries Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of unjust enrichment, fraud, negligence and violations of California consumer protection laws, including the state’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It seeks damages and other relief on behalf of consumers nationwide, as well as a California subclass.

If certified, the lawsuit could include hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers who purchased the recalled grill brushes over the past decade.

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

An insurance company has filed a lawsuit over a New Jersey house fire, alleging defective lithium-ion batteries caused a RAEV e-bike to explode, resulting in devastating property damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the New Jersey Manufacturer’s Insurance Group (NJM), representing the homeowners, Steven and Kathleen Hoffman, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on June 11. The lawsuit names Shenzen Yilankee Electric, doing business as RAEV Bikes, and Amazon.com Services LLC as defendants.

NJM alleges two defective lithium-ion batteries for RAEV e-bikes sparked the fire, while the bicycles’ batteries were charging in the garage. The fire and smoke destroyed the family home and caused more than $1.6 million worth of damage.

Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks

Electric bicycles, or e-bikes, rely on lithium-ion batteries and integrated motors to help riders travel farther distances and climb hills more easily.

However, lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and other consumer products can also suffer thermal runaway, which causes the battery cell to overheat. This triggers a rapid increase in temperature that can lead to fires, property damage, injuries and deaths. The risk is especially high among low-quality battery products that use substandard materials, lack rigorous safety testing or suffer from design defects.

Earlier this month, a product liability lawsuit was filed by a Florida man who suffered severe burn injuries after an Amazon e-bike burst into flames while the battery was charging. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Alabama in May, alleging a fire broke out while a Rad Power e-bike was charging, injuring a woman and killing her husband during the blaze.

RAEV E-Bike Battery Fire Allegations

NJM’s lawsuit indicates the Hoffmans purchased two RAEV Bullet X V2 e-bikes on August 16, 2024, along with a dual battery charging converter.

According to the complaint, the Bullet bikes were plagued by defects from the beginning, experiencing damaged tires, defective headlights and a defective throttle. Additionally, the bikes could not maintain the expected mileage per ride.

The Hoffmans requested assistance from RAEV, including repair from a local bike shop, but received no response. In February 2025, the couple requested to return the bike, yet RAEV denied the request.

Later that month, the Hoffmans contacted RAEV again about defects with the bikes, including new sensor problems and an ERR25 error code, but the company still did not respond.

On March 24, 2025, the Hoffmans requested warranty support. Four days later, a fire broke out in their garage, destroying the family’s home and much of their property.

Investigators traced the fire to defective lithium-ion battery packs that exploded while charging. After the Hoffmans submitted a claim for fire and smoke damage, NJM paid more than $1.6 million for the losses.

“The subject E- Bikes and their component parts were not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions; or was designed and/or manufactured in a defective manner.”

— New Jersey Manufacturer’s Insurance Group v. Shenzen Yilankee Electric et al.

The complaint raises allegations of products liability and breach of warranty. NJM is seeking compensation for damages paid for the Hoffman’s insurance claim.

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

A Tennessee man has filed a Dupixent lawsuit alleging the drug’s manufacturers failed to warn that the eczema treatment increases the risk of developing a rare form of lymphoma, resulting in his cancer diagnosis.

William Douglas brought the complaint (PDF) on June 11, originally in New Jersey Superior Court. However, the defendants, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on the same day.

The lawsuit accuses the manufacturers of misrepresenting the safety and effectiveness of the drug, placing patients at risk of cancer for the sake of profits.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was originally approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to increase its approved uses over the years to include a number of inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, and other conditions involving overactive immune responses.

The drug targets immune system pathways linked to inflammation, but growing evidence has linked Dupixent side effects to an increased risk of causing, or accelerating, rare forms of T-cell lymphoma. The primary cancer linked to the eczema drug is known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), which is a kind of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin.

Because the symptoms of CTCL may resemble eczema or other inflammatory skin conditions, which the drug is often used to treat, it can be difficult to detect if doctors are not told what to look for. Some complaints claim individuals continued receiving Dupixent while their CTCL progressed because doctors and patients were not adequately warned to monitor for signs that the medication may be worsening or revealing an underlying malignancy.

These revelations have led to a growing number of Dupixent cancer lawsuits being filed, each alleging that the manufacturers failed to give the medical community or patients adequate warnings about the cancer risks and failed to instruct healthcare providers to provide the necessary medical monitoring to detect any early signs of cancer development.

Dupixent Cancer Diagnosis Allegations

In the complaint, Douglas indicates he first began receiving Dupixent injections in January 2025 and continued to receive the shots until September 2025. The same month he began taking the drug, the FDA launched an investigation into reports of Dupixent CTCL diagnoses.

Douglas was diagnosed with a subtype of CTCL known as mycosis fungoides in September 2025, eight months after beginning Dupixent treatment. Since then, he has received treatments including phototherapy and Targretin. Healthcare providers have already advised Douglas that he will probably need ongoing medical treatment and medical monitoring for the rest of his life.

The lawsuit notes that federal regulators issued a report in March 2025, warning of serious risks that linked Dupixent to a rising rate of cancer reports being submitted through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). However, the lawsuit indicates the manufacturers still refuse to correct the medication’s label warnings.

“As of the filing of this complaint, Defendants have still failed to implement appropriate labeling revisions to add necessary information regarding the risk of CTCL development or exacerbation with Dupixent use or appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate the risk of Dupixent-induced and Dupixent-exacerbated CTCL.”

– William Douglas v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.

Douglas presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with similar Dupixent cancer lawsuits in the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) created earlier this month. U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi will oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Currently, the litigation is restricted to CTCL diagnoses. However, other cancers may be considered if cases are filed involving separate forms of T-cell lymphoma, according to a ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)

As the litigation progresses, Judge Quraishi is expected to direct the parties to prepare several cases representative of the litigation as a whole to serve as bellwether trials. These early test trials would give the parties a chance to see how juries interpret the evidence and testimony that would likely be repeated throughout most other Dupixent cancer lawsuits.

While the results of these trials are not binding on other Dupixent claims, the outcomes will be closely watched to serve as a potential basis for a Dupixent cancer lawsuit settlement agreement.

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

A 13-year-old girl has filed a lawsuit alleging adult predators used Roblox, Snapchat and Discord to groom, exploit and extort her into sending sexually explicit images and videos under threats of physical harm.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a minor identified only as WL-0001, and her court-appointed guardian WL-GAL-0001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 8. It names Roblox Corporation, Snap Inc. and Discord Inc. as the defendants.

WL-0001 claims she suffered severe and lasting harm as a result of grooming, manipulation, exploitation and extortion carried out through the defendants’ platforms.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox is one of the largest online platforms for children and teenagers, with roughly 150 million daily active users worldwide, featuring a combination of gaming, social networking and user-generated content. The service allows users to create personalized avatars, interact with others through text and voice communications, and participate in millions of experiences developed by other members of the Roblox community.

Over the years, child safety organizations, researchers and consumer advocates have repeatedly raised concerns that the platform’s features may be exploited by adults seeking to contact and manipulate minors. Critics have questioned whether Roblox has implemented adequate age-verification measures, account authentication procedures and content-monitoring tools to prevent inappropriate interactions between adults and children.

Those concerns have resulted in a growing number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed in courts across the country. The complaints generally allege the company failed to implement reasonable safeguards that would prevent predators from creating accounts, contacting minors and using the platform to facilitate grooming and other harmful conduct.

According to the lawsuits, those alleged shortcomings have contributed to incidents involving online grooming, sexual coercion, sextortion and the exchange of explicit images involving minors. Some complaints further allege that interactions initiated through Roblox ultimately led to sexual assaults, human trafficking and other forms of exploitation.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Allegations

This new complaint states that WL-0001 began using Roblox in 2020 when she was about 7 years old. She indicates her mother believed Roblox was safe for children because of its child-friendly design, avatars and popular games. The filing goes on to point out that Roblox spent considerable time and money promoting its image as a “child-friendly” site.

However, within the first year of her use of Roblox, WL-0001 was targeted by several predators who quickly transitioned their conversations to Snapchat and Discord.

Once communications moved to those platforms, the predators allegedly escalated the sexual nature of their conversations and threatened WL-0001 with physical harm unless she sent them sexually explicit images and videos, which she ultimately did. The girl alleges the exploitation has caused significant emotional and psychological injuries that continue to affect her today.

The lawsuit alleges Snapchat’s disappearing messages and Discord’s private communication features make it more difficult for parents to detect ongoing exploitation. Combined with allegedly inadequate age-verification safeguards on Roblox, predators can use the gaming platform to identify and contact children before moving conversations to Snapchat and Discord, where communications are less easily monitored. As a result, the lawsuit argues all three platforms function together in a way that facilitates the sexual exploitation of minors.

WL-0001 also contends all three companies prioritized user growth over implementing safeguards designed to protect children. She references multiple reports and studies that allegedly document the defendants’ failures to protect minors from online predators while continuing to prioritize user growth and revenue.

“Had Plaintiff’s mother known the truth about Roblox, she would have never permitted Plaintiff to use the app. Had Defendants implemented even the most basic age and identity verification technologies, as well as other basic safety measures, Plaintiff never would have interacted with these predators, been exploited, and never would have suffered the harm that she did. Plaintiff’s life has been devastated as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct.”

— WL-0001 v. Roblox Corporation et al.

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

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

All Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits filed across the federal court system were centralized late last year before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, where the claims are proceeding through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of the litigation, the court is expected to establish a bellwether process, selecting a small group of representative cases for early trial dates. Those proceedings are designed to gauge how juries may react to common evidence, testimony and allegations that are likely to be repeated throughout the broader litigation.

While any bellwether verdicts will apply only to the individual cases selected for trial, the outcomes often provide important guidance for both sides by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of key claims and defenses.

In an effort to move the litigation toward resolution, plaintiffs earlier this year asked the court to appoint a special master to facilitate preliminary 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 attorneys continue to review potential claims involving children allegedly harmed through interactions on the platform. Lawyers handling these cases offer free and confidential case evaluations, with no fees or expenses unless compensation is recovered.

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

An Illinois woman has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming that the defective design of a Boston Scientific pelvic mesh system caused her to suffer severe complications, which required multiple corrective surgeries and left her with life-long injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jessica Guzman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 11, naming Boston Scientific Corporation as the sole defendant.

Guzman indicates she was implanted with a Boston Scientific Advantage Mid-Urethral Sling System, which is a synthetic pelvic mesh designed to treat stress urinary incontinence. However, the lawsuit states that the device later failed, causing severe complications.

Transvaginal Mesh Risks

The Advantage, first approved in 2002, is one of numerous pelvic mesh products sold and marketed by Boston Scientific and other medical device manufacturers in recent years for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or, as in Guzman’s case, stress urinary incontinence (SUI). These pelvic mesh devices are designed to reinforce weakened vaginal walls or support the bladder using a synthetic mesh.

In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded an investigation into a similar type of mesh, known as transvaginal mesh, also designed to treat POP and SUI. The agency determined that transvaginal mesh risks to patients exceeded their potential benefits.

As part of its decision to remove transvaginal mesh products from the market, the FDA cited postmarketing surveillance studies from manufacturers, including two conducted by Boston Scientific, which found that there was little difference in the effectiveness of transvaginal mesh and traditional transvaginal native tissue repair procedures.

As a result of design defects associated with the products, more than 100,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in prior years against Boston Scientific and other manufacturers. The companies, which also include C.R. Bard, Ethicon and others, have paid out billions in financial compensation. Despite massive transvaginal mesh lawsuit settlements, hundreds of individual cases are still proceeding through state and federal courts.

Plaintiffs like Guzman also indicate pelvic mesh implants are defectively designed and have reported complications, which may include the mesh contracting or shrinking, infections, pelvic pain, vaginal scarring and the mesh eroding into the vagina, in addition to other painful complications. 

Each plaintiff alleges the manufacturer knew, or should have known, about the potential complications, yet failed to provide sufficient warnings to healthcare personnel or patients.

Advantage Pelvic Mesh Injury Allegations

In the complaint, Guzman indicates she was implanted with the Boston Scientific Advantage Mid-Urethral Sling System during surgeries conducted in May 2023 and September 2024, for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. 

However, she states that the device failed, causing her to suffer permanent and substantial physical deformity, permanent injuries, as well as physical and mental pain and suffering.

The lawsuit notes Guzman has undergone additional surgeries to address the complications caused by the Boston Scientific pelvic mesh failure, and will likely require additional procedures in the future.

“Defendant breached its duties to Plaintiff when it failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, processing, advertising, marketing, testing, labeling, assembling, packaging, distribution, detailing, promotion and sale of its Product so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to women in whom the Product was implanted, including Plaintiff.”

– Jessica Guzman v. Boston Scientific Corporation

According to the lawsuit, Boston Scientific’s pelvic mesh “kits,” including the Advantage System, are considered Class II medical devices, which indicates they can be approved through the FDA’s 510(k) approval system. 

This means the manufacturer only has to show that the device is “substantially equivalent” to an already existing device to receive approval. Therefore, Boston Scientific was never required to show the Advantage System was safe or effective.

However, Guzman alleges the company was aware, or should have been aware of serious dangers in the design, regardless of whether the FDA approved it for sale through its fast-track approval system. She presents claims of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn and breach of warranties. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

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

The estate of a Massachusetts man indicates in a recently filed lawsuit that his 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee was not crashworthy, alleging that defects in the vehicle’s seat, airbag and restraint systems turned a rear-end collision into a fatal accident.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Michelle Bedard, as administrator of the Estate of Jose Casiano, in the Superior Court of Massachusetts on June 8. It names FCA US LLC, General Motors LLC and Alexandra Borges as defendants.

Bedard claims the defective Jeep Grand Cherokee failed to protect Casiano during a June 2023 rear-end collision when the driver’s seat collapsed backward and the airbag system failed to deploy. 

Airbag and Seat Failure Risks

Airbags are designed to deploy within milliseconds of a collision, cushioning vehicle occupants and reducing the force of impact against the steering wheel, dashboard, windows and other interior components. However, when an airbag malfunctions or fails to deploy during a crash, occupants may be left without critical protection, increasing the risk of serious or fatal injuries.

Separate risks associated with seat-back failures have also been highlighted in a growing number of lawsuits against automakers. In December 2025, a Hyundai seat collapse lawsuit alleged defects in the driver’s seat, headrest and seatbelt system of a 2023 Hyundai Kona caused catastrophic spinal injuries that left a New Jersey man paralyzed.

Just months earlier, a Hyundai Tucson lawsuit claimed a front-seat failure during a rear-end crash killed a Pennsylvania man’s wife and left him paraplegic.

Jeep Airbag Failure and Seat Collapse Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Casiano was driving a 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee on Massachusetts Route 24 in Berkley in June 2023, when traffic slowed near a construction zone. While stopped or moving slowly, his vehicle was struck from behind by a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse driven by Alexandra Borges.

The lawsuit alleges the collision exposed critical defects in the Jeep’s occupant protection system. Specifically, the complaint claims the driver’s seat was not properly secured and collapsed backward during the impact, striking the rear seat and causing severe injuries.

Bedard further alleges the Jeep’s airbag system failed to deploy during the crash and that the seat restraint system did not function properly, allowing crash forces to transfer directly to Casiano instead of protecting him from injury.

The lawsuit alleges FCA designed, manufactured and sold the Jeep with defects involving the occupant restraint system, airbags, airbag sensors and related components. The complaint claims the vehicle was not crashworthy and contained unsafe occupant protection systems that created unreasonable dangers during foreseeable collisions.

“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of FCA, the Plaintiff’s decedent sustained catastrophic injuries, experienced conscious pain and suffering and fear of impending death, incurred medical expenses, and died prematurely and preventably.”

— Michelle Bedard v. FCA US LLC et al.

In addition to product liability claims against FCA, the lawsuit also alleges General Motors bears responsibility for the severity of the crash because the 2016 Chevrolet Traverse lacked automatic emergency braking technology. The complaint claims GM knew for years that forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems could reduce rear-end crashes and had incorporated similar technology into other vehicle models before the Traverse involved in the collision was manufactured.

According to the lawsuit, GM failed to include forward collision alert technology in all Traverse models and failed to equip the vehicle with automatic emergency braking, which plaintiffs claim could have prevented or mitigated the collision.

The complaint also names Borges as a defendant, alleging she negligently operated the Chevrolet Traverse causing her to crash into the rear of Casiano’s vehicle.

Bedard raises allegations of negligence, wrongful death, breach of warranty and violations of a Massachusetts law that prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct, in addition to negligence and wrongful death actions against Borges. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, attorney’s fees and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

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

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

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

Spinal Cord Stimulator Battery Problems

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

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

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

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Failure Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—  Stephanie Giacovelli et al. v. Abbott Laboratories

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

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

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLP-1 Vision Loss Risks

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

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

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

Wegovy Vision Side Effects Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

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

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

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

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

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

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

However, if the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end without a GLP-1 lawsuit settlement or other resolution, Judge Marston is likely to begin remanding the claims back to their originating districts for individual trial dates.

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

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

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

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

Enfamil Formula NEC Risks

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

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

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

Enfamil EnfaCare NEC Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

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

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

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

Infant Formula NEC Verdicts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midea Air Conditioner Recall

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

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

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

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

Midea Respiratory Issue Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Depo-Provera Expert Hearing Still Moving Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Jane SL104 v. Lyft Inc.

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

Rideshare Sexual Assault Litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

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

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

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

Farberware Pressure Cooker Injury Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

— Carol Moore v. Walmart Inc.

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

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