A former pest control worker has filed a product liability lawsuit, alleging that 23 years of mixing and spraying chlorpyrifos insecticides caused irreversible neurological damage that resulted in his Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alexander Ramos on June 16 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, naming Corteva Inc., Corteva Agriscience LLC, The Dow Chemical Company and FMC Corporation as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 17.

The chlorpyrifos lawsuit alleges the companies designed, manufactured, marketed and sold insecticide products for decades without adequately studying their long-term effects on the adult brain or warning users that repeated exposure may cause Parkinson’s disease. Ramos claims the defendants instead concealed evidence of the pesticide’s neurotoxicity and continued promoting the products as safe.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Risks

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide that kills foliage and soil-borne pests by interfering with acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that plays a critical role in nervous system function. Farmers, farmworkers, pesticide applicators, pest control employees and groundskeepers commonly mixed and applied the chemical using handheld sprayers, truck-mounted tanks and agricultural equipment.

Dow first introduced chlorpyrifos in the United States in 1965, and products containing the chemical were later sold under brand names that included Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, Bolton, Nufos and Stallion. Although most residential uses were withdrawn in 2000, agricultural and other occupational applications continued for years afterward.

However, there is now mounting research that has directly linked long-term exposure to chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s disease, as well as oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and the loss of dopamine-producing brain cells. In 2018, an independent analysis of Dow-sponsored research also allegedly identified neurological effects at exposure levels previously characterized as safe.

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive and incurable neurological disorder that damages dopamine-producing brain cells responsible for controlling movement. Common symptoms include tremors, slowed movement, muscle stiffness, impaired balance, difficulty walking and, as the disease advances, loss of independence.

Against this backdrop of research linking the insecticide to neurological injuries, individuals are now pursuing chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits, alleging manufacturers failed to adequately study the long-term risks or warn workers that repeated exposure could cause permanent brain damage.

Pest Control Worker Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Ramos worked for a pest control company from 1992 through 2015, where he was repeatedly exposed to chlorpyrifos products manufactured, distributed or sold by the defendants. He claims the exposure occurred while he personally mixed and applied the chemical with truck-mounted tanks and handheld sprayers, as well as while working near other employees spraying the insecticide.

He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2017. However, Ramos claims he did not learn that chlorpyrifos caused his Parkinson’s disease diagnosis until much later, because the manufacturers never warned users about that alleged risk. Ramos maintains that product labels, medical professionals and other available information gave him no earlier reason to suspect his workplace exposure was responsible for the disease.

Ramos alleges the defendants never proposed a chlorpyrifos label warning that repeated exposure could cause Parkinson’s disease. He claims they also failed to communicate the alleged risk through advertisements, sales representatives, training programs or other materials provided to pesticide users.

Instead, the complaint maintains the companies continued marketing chlorpyrifos as safe for its intended uses while concealing or downplaying information about its neurological dangers. Ramos says he relied on those representations and would have avoided chlorpyrifos if the alleged Parkinson’s disease risk had been disclosed.

“By failing to include a Parkinson’s warning on the Chlorpyrifos label, Defendants took unreasonable advantage of the reasonable reliance of consumers, including Plaintiff, on the warning labels and other advertising and marketing materials used by Defendants to market and sell Chlorpyrifos.”

Alexander Ramos v. Corteva Inc. et al. Case ID: 260602361

The lawsuit also claims safer broad-spectrum insecticides were technologically and economically available throughout the period when Ramos worked with chlorpyrifos. Those alternatives allegedly included pyrethroid, carbamate and neonicotinoid products.

As a result of his Parkinson’s disease, Ramos says he can no longer work or maintain steady employment. He alleges the progressive condition will continue to impair his motor function and eventually prevent him from living independently.

The complaint presents claims of negligence, strict product liability for failure to warn, design defect and unfair or deceptive business practices. Ramos seeks compensation for permanent physical injuries, disability, pain, mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, lost income and medical expenses, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief through a jury trial.

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

Lawyers are investigating chlorpyrifos lawsuits for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after repeated exposure to chlorpyrifos-containing insecticides, including:

• Personally mixing or applying chlorpyrifos
• Working on a farm during or after chlorpyrifos applications
• Living on a farm where chlorpyrifos was regularly used
• Using chlorpyrifos as a residential insecticide
• Working near chlorpyrifos spraying or pesticide drift
• Occupational exposure through pest control, construction, golf course maintenance or military service during the Gulf Wars

Chlorpyrifos lawyers provide free consultations and claim evaluations for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, reviewing their treatment history, the products involved, and the location, duration and circumstances of their exposure to determine whether they qualify to pursue a claim.

All chlorpyrifos lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are paid only if they successfully obtain compensation.

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

A New York man has filed a port catheter sepsis lawsuit alleging a defective AngioDynamics SmartPort implant caused a serious bloodstream infection, forcing additional medical treatment after it was implanted to provide chemotherapy access.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Eastwood Mannan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 10, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Mannan claims the manufacturers knew their implantable port catheter systems were associated with infections, thrombosis and other serious complications, yet failed to adequately test, redesign or warn physicians and patients about the risks. 

SmartPort Catheter Infection Risks

Implantable port catheters are placed beneath the skin to provide long-term access to a patient’s bloodstream for chemotherapy, medications, blood transfusions and other intravenous therapies. Devices such as the AngioDynamics SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela consist of a small implanted port connected to a catheter that delivers fluids directly into a vein.

In recent years, AngioDynamics and other manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, have faced hundreds of product liability lawsuits alleging port catheter systems caused serious complications such as bloodstream infections, blood clots, catheter fractures and vascular injuries. The complaints allege certain design and manufacturing defects allow the catheter material to degrade over time, creating a surface where bacteria and blood components can accumulate and increasing the likelihood of infection and other adverse events.

Patients pursuing AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits claim the manufacturer knew or should have known about these risks, but continued marketing and selling the devices without adequately warning physicians and patients about the potential for failure.

SmartPort Sepsis Lawsuit Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Mannan underwent implantation of an AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter on July 25, 2025, at Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center in Medford, Oregon, for ongoing chemotherapy treatment.

The complaint alleges the SmartPort was defectively designed and manufactured, making it prone to surface degradation, thrombosis and bacterial colonization that can lead to bloodstream infections and other serious complications.

Mannan indicates he sought treatment at Guthrie Lourdes Hospital in Binghamton, New York, on January 27, 2026, after developing a persistent fever and swelling in his right arm.

Blood cultures drawn from the SmartPort tested positive for sepsis, while imaging revealed a partially occlusive thrombus where Mannan’s right internal jugular and subclavian veins meet.

The lawsuit alleges the SmartPort had been implanted and used as intended, and that no misuse or alteration of the device contributed to the complications.

Mannan claims AngioDynamics and Navilyst knew for years that SmartPort devices were associated with bloodstream infections, thrombosis, catheter fractures, vascular perforations and other serious complications, yet continued marketing the devices as safe and effective.

The complaint further alleges the manufacturers concealed adverse event reports involving SmartPort failures and failed to adequately test, redesign or warn physicians and patients about the risks associated with the implanted catheter.

Mannan argues that safer alternative designs were available which could have reduced the risk of thrombosis, bacterial colonization and other device failures.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defective SmartPort and the wrongful acts and omissions of the Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff was injured due to the use of the SmartPort, which caused Plaintiff various physical, mental, and emotional injuries and damages.”

— Eastwood Mannan v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of negligence, strict products liability—failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violation of New York General Business laws. It seeks punitive, exemplary and general damages.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Mannan’s lawsuit joins hundreds of other AngioDynamics port catheter cases pending before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings are underway involving claims that the company sold defective implantable port systems.

As part of the coordinated proceedings, the court is expected to select a small group of representative cases for bellwether trials. While the outcomes of those early cases will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they are intended to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and allegations, which could affect future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement discussions.

Similar allegations are also being raised in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those complaints contend the implantable port systems contain design and manufacturing defects that increase the risk of catheter fractures, blood clots, infections and other serious complications.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial concluded in May with a mixed outcome. Jurors rejected claims involving failure to warn and consumer fraud, but were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the design defect allegations. The plaintiff has since requested a new trial, arguing the jury instructions improperly influenced the deliberations.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are scheduled throughout 2027. If those proceedings and any settlement discussions do not resolve the claims, individual lawsuits may ultimately be returned to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trials.

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

A Louisiana man has filed a Sapien 3 TAVR lawsuit alleging his mother died from severe injuries after an Edwards Lifesciences heart valve and related delivery devices perforated her iliac artery and abdominal aorta during an implantation procedure.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Timothy Paul Broussard on behalf of himself and his deceased mother, Brenda Carol Goudry, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on July 13, naming Edwards Lifesciences LLC as the defendant.

Broussard claims the Edwards Sapien 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve and related delivery systems were defectively designed and manufactured, causing catastrophic injuries during a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure.

Sapien 3 TAVR Vascular Injury Risks

The Sapien 3 Ultra is a balloon-expandable replacement heart valve manufactured by Edwards Lifesciences for use during TAVR procedures.

TAVR is a less-invasive alternative to open-heart surgery for patients with severe aortic stenosis, a condition that occurs when the aortic valve narrows and restricts blood flow from the heart.

During the procedure, doctors use a catheter to guide the replacement valve through the patient’s blood vessels and position it inside the damaged aortic valve.

While TAVR can reduce the need for open-heart surgery, studies have identified potential risks involving stroke, bleeding and damage to the blood vessels. In January, Japanese researchers found TAVR procedures may damage healthy red blood cells, potentially contributing to hemolytic anemia and other complications.

A separate study published in 2024 found balloon-expandable replacement valves used during TAVR procedures were associated with an increased risk of valve dysfunction and death. Researchers determined the devices were four times more likely to fail or develop blood leaks.

Sapien 3 TAVR Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Goudry underwent a TAVR procedure in October 2024 to treat severe aortic stenosis. Doctors used an Edwards Sapien 3 Ultra valve, Commander delivery system and related devices manufactured by Edwards Lifesciences.

However, the complaint alleges defects involving the valve and delivery systems allegedly caused or contributed to severe damage to Goudry’s blood vessels. It further alleges that the devices perforated the iliac artery, which carries blood through the pelvis and into the legs, as well as the abdominal aorta, the body’s largest artery.

The lawsuit states that despite emergency medical efforts, Goudry died from her injuries.

Broussard claims Edwards Lifesciences knew or should have known its TAVR products could cause serious vascular injuries, including perforations, internal bleeding and death.

The lawsuit alleges the company failed to adequately design, manufacture and test the devices or provide sufficient warnings about the potential risks. It also argues that Edwards Lifesciences failed to properly investigate reports of similar problems and continued marketing the products as safe and effective for TAVR procedures.

Broussard argues that his mother experienced severe pain, suffering and emotional distress before her death as a result of the injuries caused during the TAVR procedure.

“Ms. Guidry was pronounced dead at 11:49 AM on January 2, 2024. Her death certificate lists exsanguination (approximately two hours duration) due to vascular trauma during TAVR as the cause of death.”

— Timothy Paul Broussard v. Edwards Lifesciences LLC

The lawsuit raises allegations of construction or composition defect, design defect, inadequate warning, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, redhibition and breach of warranty of fitness for ordinary use. It is seeking damages for injuries and losses allegedly caused by the defective heart valve and delivery devices.

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

A New York man has filed a product liability lawsuit against Amazon, alleging he suffered severe and permanent injuries after falling from a defective Rikade telescoping ladder sold on the platform.

The complaint (PDF) was originally brought by Mordechai Fogel in Kings County Supreme Court of New York in April 2025, naming Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Marketplace, Rikade-XQ and Youngchun Xu as defendants. However, the case was just removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 20.

The Amazon lawsuit involves a Rikade 20.3-Foot Aluminum Telescoping Ladder with Non-Slip Feet, which is a portable extension ladder marketed for indoor and outdoor use. It collapses to 42 inches for storage and transport and can telescope to a maximum height of approximately 20 feet.

According to the lawsuit, Fogel fell while using the ladder and suffered permanent injuries. He alleges the product was defectively designed and was not reasonably safe when used as intended.

Amazon Telescoping Ladder Allegations

The lawsuit states Fogel was using the telescoping ladder on May 16, 2023, when the device suddenly collapsed without warning, resulting in a fall that caused severe injuries.

Following the accident, Fogel has required medical attention and ongoing medical care. He claims his injuries are permanent and he continues to suffer pain and inconvenience as a result of the incident.

The complaint alleges the Amazon telescoping ladder was defective and not reasonably safe or fit for its intended purpose. Fogel indicates that Amazon, Rikade and Youngchun are all liable for the product’s defective design and manufacturing, as well as for not offering sufficient instructions or warnings.

Moreover, the filing argues the companies are negligent for allowing the defective product to go to market and remain available to consumers.

“The plaintiff was using the Telescopic Ladder for the purpose and in the manner normally intended or for reasonably foreseeable purposes, uses and operations and could not, by the exercise of reasonable care, have averted the accident and his injuries.”

— Mordechai Fogel v. Amazon Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict product liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty for particular purpose and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It is seeking compensation for damages, past and future medical care, and pain and suffering.

Ladder Collapse Lawsuits

A number of similar ladder collapse lawsuits have been filed in recent years, attempting to hold retailers and manufacturers respondible for severe injuries linked to defects in products sold through their platform.

A Home Depot ladder lawsuits was complaint was filed earlier this year, after a Massachusetts man fell from a 15-foot ladder and suffered severe spinal and nerve injuries in a ladder collapse.

Werner Co. faces product defect allegations as well, following a case where a Missouri man claims he underwent serious injuries after a Werner ladder collapsed while he was working on his home.

A similar lawsuit was brought against Little Giant Ladder by a Connecticut man after one of that company’s adjustable ladders collapsed during regular use as well.

Amazon also faces separate product defect allegations after a LEVELEVE ladder sold on the platform collapsed while a New York man was using it at a height of more than 18 feet, resulting in him suffering permanent injuries.

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

According to a new product liability lawsuit, three years of receiving Dupixent injections left a Massachusetts man with a rare form of cancer that attacks the immune system.

Andrew Zaikis filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 10, naming Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Dupixent’s manufacturers, as the defendants.

The lawsuit accuses the manufacturers of failing to properly test the drug before it was released on the market, which could have revealed the injections’ link to cancer risks. Zaikis alleges that the companies placed profit before patient safety, rushing the drug to market without adequate safety warnings.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2017 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. Since then, the agency has expanded approvals for the drug, allowing it to be marketed as a treatment for inflammatory conditions affecting the skin and respiratory system, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, and other conditions involving overactive immune responses.

However, the FDA has received an increasing number of reports from patients who indicate Dupixent side effects caused them to develop cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a form of T-cell lymphoma related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. The two most common forms of CTCL are mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.

Due to the cancers similarity to many of the conditions Dupixent is designed to treat, like itchy, rashy skin, doctors can have difficulty making the proper diagnosis. In some instances, patients report they continued receiving Dupixent as the disease progressed because neither the patients nor the medical community were made aware of the potential cancer risks.

The reports have led to a growing number of Dupixent cancer lawsuits being filed in courts nationwide. Many of the cases involve claims that Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis failed to provide proper instructions to doctors or alert them to the need for medical monitoring to detect early signs of cancer development.

Dupixent Mycosis Fungoides Diagnosis

Zaikis’s lawsuit indicates he began receiving Dupixent injections in October 2022. He continued to receive the shots every two weeks until discontinuing the drug in January 2026.

In November 2025, Zaikis developed an itchy rash, which continued to worsen until January, when his doctor took him off the drug. The next month Zaikis was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides, which is the most common form of CTCL.

The complaint alleges that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential cancer risks, which can exacerbate or accelerate pre-existing T-cell lymphoma, in addition to causing new diagnoses.

Zaikis indicates the companies ignored evidence from peer-reviewed reports, case studies, epidemiologic articles and other scientific evidence linking Dupixent to increased cancer risks.

“Numerous case reports and scientific studies have established that Dupixent causes T-cell lymphoma, including CTCL, and/or accelerates its progression. Defendants failed to warn, instruct, advise, educate, or otherwise inform Dupixent users and prescribers, including Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s treating physicians, about the risk of development and/or exacerbation of CTCL. The U.S. label for Dupixent makes no mention of these risks.”

– Andrew Zaikis v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals et al.

Zaikis’s CTCL diagnosis has resulted in severe physical and emotional injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and physical pain and suffering and medical expenses. He presents claims of breach of warranty, violation of the New Jersey Product Liability Act and negligence, seeking both punitive and compensatory damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

As one of a number of similar Dupixent cancer lawsuits, Zaikis’s complaint will be consolidated with other claims filed in federal courts nationwide as part of a Dupixent multidistrict litigation (MDL) based in the District of New Jersey before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge is eventually expected to direct attorneys to prepare several cases representative of the litigation as a whole to serve as “bellwether” trials. These early test trials are meant to provide an opportunity to see how juries respond to the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ arguments and evidence.

While not binding on other claims, the bellwether results could help attorneys negotiate a global Dupixent cancer lawsuit settlement. However, if the litigation is not resolved after pretrial proceedings and selected cases are completed, Judge Quraishi is expected to remand the remaining claims to their originating federal court districts for individual trials.

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

A Michigan couple has filed a Cyclospora lawsuit claiming they contracted a parasitic infection after eating contaminated shredded iceberg lettuce served at a Taco Bell restaurant.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Preston and Marie Parrish in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 17. It names Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America LLC and Taylor Fresh Foods Inc., doing business as Taylor Farms, as defendants.

According to the complaint, the couple ate food containing shredded iceberg lettuce at a Taco Bell restaurant in Durand, Michigan, on June 30. They allege the lettuce was contaminated with the Cyclospora parasite, causing both of them to develop cyclosporiasis.

2026 Cyclospora Outbreak

Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that causes the intestinal illness cyclosporiasis, which is typically contracted by consuming food or water contaminated with human waste. Symptoms commonly include severe diarrhea, nausea, stomach cramps, fatigue, fever and weight loss, with untreated infections sometimes lasting for weeks.

Federal health officials launched an investigation last week after hundreds of consumers reported illnesses linked to a Cyclospora outbreak.

As of July 16, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had identified at least 1,644 confirmed Cyclospora infections across Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia involving individuals who reported eating at Taco Bell, including 94 hospitalizations. Officials indicated there were potentially thousands more cases across 34 different states that could potentially be connected to the outbreak.

Traceback investigators issued an announcement on July 17, indicating they had identified shredded iceberg lettuce from Taco Bell as the common food item among those who had become ill. The fast food chain issued a statement that same day, indicating they had removed all of the potentially contaminated products from their stores “out of an abundance of caution.”

Officials determined the product had originated from a single supplier in Mexico, which was named as Taylor Farms. That company announced a recall of the potentially contaminated products on July 17 as well.

In light of these concerns, Cyclospora outbreak lawsuits are being filed against Taylor Farms and Taco Bell, alleging the distributor provided the fast food chain with a contaminated product that resulted in customers contracting severe parasitic infections.

Taco Bell Cyclospora Outbreak Allegations

The complaint contends Taylor Farms supplied shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated during growing or processing, allowing the Cyclospora parasite to reach Taco Bell restaurants in multiple states.

It further alleges Taco Bell required franchised restaurants to purchase lettuce and other produce through its approved supply chain, giving the company control over the sourcing and distribution of the ingredients served to customers.

After the outbreak was identified, Taco Bell removed shredded iceberg lettuce and other potentially affected produce from restaurants in the impacted region and stopped using lettuce supplied through the source identified during the FDA investigation.

Plaintiffs claim Taco Bell and Taylor Farms failed to ensure the lettuce was safe for human consumption and violated federal and state food safety requirements by manufacturing, distributing and selling contaminated food.

“On information and belief, Defendant Taylor Farms grew, processed, and/or supplied the contaminated lettuce prepared and sold by Taco Bell and consumed by Plaintiffs.”

— Preston Parrish et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of breach of warranty, negligence, negligence per se, strict liability and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The couple seeks compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, emotional distress and other damages allegedly resulting from their Cyclospora infections.

FDA Retracts Taylor Farms Cyclospora Test Result

Although lawsuits have already been filed against Taco Bell and Taylor Farms over the outbreak, the FDA revised its outbreak update on July 19, after determining that an earlier laboratory result linking Taylor Farms lettuce to Cyclospora was a false positive.

According to the agency, a more detailed review found the test did not represent a true detection of the parasite. However, the agency said it continues working with Taylor Farms to ensure any produce potentially associated with the outbreak has been removed from the market.

Federal and state investigators are continuing to collect and analyze lettuce samples, and the FDA reports there have been no confirmed positive product tests for Cyclospora. The agency also emphasized that its investigation into the source of the multistate outbreak remains ongoing.

As investigators continue tracing the source of the outbreak, attorneys expect additional Cyclospora lawsuits to be filed by individuals who allege they became ill after eating contaminated food. If a specific source is identified, the litigation could expand to include restaurants, growers, distributors and other companies involved in bringing the contaminated produce to market.

Previous outbreaks involving E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria have resulted in multiple product liability lawsuits alleging companies failed to implement adequate safety measures, allowing contaminated items to enter the food supply. 

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

A California woman has filed a Roblox exploitation lawsuit alleging she was sexually abused as a child after a predator used the popular gaming platform to contact and groom her before moving their communications to other social media apps.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a woman identified only as Jane Doe A.S. in California state court on July 14, naming Roblox Corporation and Meta Platforms Inc. as the defendants.

Jane Doe A.S., now a young adult, indicates she began using Roblox when she was 12 years old, believing the platform was a safe environment where she could play games and interact with other children.

However, the lawsuit claims Roblox failed to implement adequate age verification, parental controls and other safeguards to protect young users from sexual predators who use the platform to identify and groom children.

Roblox Child Exploitation Risks

Roblox is one of the world’s largest online gaming platforms, with tens of millions of users accessing virtual games and experiences each day. A significant portion of those users are children.

The company has repeatedly promoted Roblox as a safe and appropriate environment for young users, emphasizing its content moderation systems, parental controls and other safety measures designed to protect children.

However, a number of recent Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits allege those representations conceal serious problems involving explicit content and predators who use the platform to identify vulnerable children.

In many claims, Roblox allegedly provides predators with access to millions of young users, allowing them to misrepresent their ages, establish relationships with children and eventually convince them to move conversations to other platforms where there may be fewer restrictions.

In many cases, the sexual exploitation escalates to include video and picture exchanges, and in some cases face-to-face meetings ending in sexual assault, rape, kidnapping or human trafficking. 

Roblox eventually began implementing facial recognition technology late last year that the company says can estimate users’ ages and restrict communications between adults and children without parental approval. However, families pursuing lawsuits maintain the safety measures were introduced too late to protect children who had already suffered abuse through the platform.

Roblox Abuse Allegations

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, now 19, started using Roblox at age 12. She was eventually contacted through Roblox by an adult predator who falsely presented himself as a child. The predator allegedly gained her trust through interactions on the platform before convincing her to communicate through Instagram.

On Instagram, the communications allegedly escalated into sextortion. The complaint claims the predator sent the girl sexually explicit images through the platform and pressured her to respond in kind, threatening to contact her mother and reveal their conversations if she refused. Fearing the consequences, the plaintiff alleges she complied with the predator’s demands.

The lawsuit argues this process follows a predictable pattern that Roblox has known about for years, with predators posing as children, befriending young users and gradually manipulating them into sharing personal information or engaging in sexually explicit communications.

Jane Doe A.S. alleges Roblox could have reduced those risks by implementing stronger age verification requirements, more effective parental controls and safeguards designed to prevent adults from contacting children or moving conversations off the platform.

Instead, the complaint claims Roblox prioritized user growth and engagement while continuing to market the platform to parents and children as a safe place to play and socialize.

The lawsuit similarly alleges Instagram has become a platform where predators can target children, claiming Meta prioritizes expanding and monetizing its user base over implementing safeguards that could have reduced the risk of sexual exploitation.

“Plaintiff suffered this sexual exploitation and abuse as the direct result of
Defendants’ conduct. For years, Defendant has misrepresented and deliberately concealed information about the pervasive predatory conduct that their apps enable and facilitate. Had Defendants disclosed the truth of what was really occurring on their apps, Plaintiff’s mother would never have permitted Plaintiff to use these apps without her strict supervision.

— Jane Doe A.S. v. Roblox Corporation

The case raises allegations of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking, design defect and failure to warn. The plaintiff seeks damages for past, present and future general, economic and special damages, medical expenses and punitive damages.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

The complaint is expected to join at least 170 other Roblox child exploitation lawsuits consolidated in the Northern District of California, where U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg is overseeing coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

As the litigation moves forward, Judge Seeborg is expected to establish a bellwether process, allowing the parties to identify a group of representative claims for early trial dates. The outcomes of those test cases may provide insight into how juries will respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Earlier this year, the court also appointed a special master to facilitate preliminary settlement negotiations. If those discussions result in a global resolution, large numbers of claims could be resolved without the need for individual trials, reducing the time and expense associated with continued litigation.

However, if the bellwether process and settlement negotiations fail to resolve the litigation, Judge Seeborg may eventually begin returning individual lawsuits to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

Six women from Oklahoma, Maine, Alabama, West Virginia, Texas and Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit alleging they suffered hair loss, thinning hair, allergic reactions and other scalp side effects after using TRESemmé shampoo or conditioners.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Tarrah Kinney, Johanna Wheeler, Carliss Eaton, Jennifer Kiggans, Jeannie Walker and Kristina Sinclair in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on July 14. It names Conopco Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA, as the defendant.

The plaintiffs allege Unilever knowingly used DMDM hydantoin, a formaldehyde preservative, in their TRESemmé hair products. They argue the preservative has been known to cause scalp side effects for users, and the company has known about these kinds of problems for more than a decade.

DMDM Hydantoin Health Risks

DMDM hydantoin functions as a preservative that helps increase the shelf life of personal care products and reduces the growth of microorganisms. However, research has long shown DMDM may also carry harmful side effects including hair loss, allergic reactions, immune system concerns and other risks.

Researchers have identified DMDM as a formaldehyde-releasing ingredient and known human carcinogen, with evidence suggesting repeated exposure may increase the risk of adverse reactions. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been brought over the use of DMDM in hair products.

A lawsuit filed against Unilever in 2023 claimed DMDM hydantoin in TRESemmé products caused users to suffer hair loss and scalp injuries. A separate class action lawsuit filed against the company in 2012 over its line of Suave shampoo and conditioners containing DMDM claimed users of those products also suffered hair loss and shedding, as well as damage to the scalp. That lawsuit resulted in a more than $10.2 million settlement.

TRESemmé DMDM Damage Allegations

The lawsuit alleges the six women suffered significant hair loss after using TRESemmé shampoos and conditioners containing DMDM hydantoin.

According to the complaint, Unilever marketed the products as capable of smoothing hair, adding softness and shine, reducing frizz and tangles, and “deeply nourishing” and “repairing” damaged hair.

However, plaintiffs contend Unilever has known since at least 2012 that products containing DMDM hydantoin were associated with hair loss and scalp injuries. The filing alleges the company received hundreds of consumer reports involving hair damage and compensated more than 400 users who reported injuries after using Suave products containing the ingredient.

Despite those reports and prior lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege Unilever continued selling TRESemmé products containing DMDM hydantoin even as it reformulated some of its other brands and competitors removed the ingredient from similar products.

The complaint further alleges Unilever never warned consumers on its website or product labels that TRESemmé products could increase the risk of hair loss or scalp injuries, despite being one of the world’s largest shampoo manufacturers.

“Defendant has known of the dangers of DMDM since at least late 2012, and has concealed from, or failed to, notify each Plaintiff and the public of the full and complete nature of the dangers, including skin irritation and hair loss, even after receiving numerous reports of injuries from consumers and being sued by consumers for skin injuries and hair loss.”

— Tarrah Kinney et al. v Conopco Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability for manufacturing defect and design defect, failure to provide adequate warning and negligence. It is seeking punitive damages, compensation for physical injury, pain and suffering, and medical treatment.

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

The U.S. District Judge overseeing thousands of Uber driver sex assault lawsuits pending in the federal court system has approved a jointly proposed scheduling order that would have the fourth bellwether trial begin in early October 2026.

The rideshare service is currently in the process of facing a handful of representative claims from the more than 3,500 women who say they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. Each of the claims contains similar allegations, that the women were groped, molested, harassed, raped and sometimes kidnapped by drivers due to the company’s lack of adequate safety measures.

Plaintiffs say that Uber should have employed stronger background checks, included sexual harassment training requirements for drivers, placed surveillance cameras in vehicles, and should have provided an option allowing passengers to choose the gender of their driver.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit MDL

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, of the Northern District of California, was appointed in October 2023 to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

That process includes a series of early “bellwether” trials intended to test the evidence and arguments presented by both sides before juries, while identifying legal and factual issues that may recur throughout the litigation.

Although several trials have already taken place in state and federal courts, the mixed results have not provided plaintiffs or defendants with a clear indication of how juries are likely to decide similar claims. That uncertainty has increased the significance of the next two scheduled trials.

The very first Uber sex assault lawsuit trial was held in California state court in September 2025. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in failing to protect its passengers, they also ruled that the company was not liable for the attack on the plaintiff, resulting in no damages being awarded.

However, the first federal trial was held in February, and ended very differently, with an $8.5 million verdict against the rideshare service. In that case, the jury determined Uber’s drivers are agents of the company under common carrier laws, making the company liable for their actions. The second federal trial ended in only a $5,000 verdict in favor of Briana Mensing, who never stated a dollar amount for damages and testified during trial that she wanted an apology from Uber more than she wanted money and for the company to change its ways.

Upcoming Uber Sex Assault Bellwether Trials

The third federal Uber bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on September 14. It involves claims that a woman identified only as B.L. was raped in the backseat of a driver’s vehicle in August 2022 after he responded to her call for a ride. According to the lawsuit, Uber later rehired the driver, despite him having a warrant out for his arrest.

On July 13, Judge Breyer issued a court order (PDF) granting approval to a proposed schedule for the fourth federal bellwether trial submitted jointly by both sides. It calls for the trial to begin on October 5, 2026.

The order also sets a number of key dates toward preparing the fourth complaint for trial, but does not identify which, if any, case has been selected.

The schedule calls for the close of expert discovery by September 2, with motions for summary judgment due two days later on September 4. The order also calls for any Daubert motions by September 8, with jury instructions and a joint pretrial order by September 22. The last pretrial conference will be held on September 25, with jury selection on September 30.

While the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on any other claims at the federal or state level, they serve as examples to attorneys on both sides as to how they would likely fare if thousands of trials were actually held throughout the country. In this way, the results can help in negotiations toward reaching a settlement agreement.

However, no such pattern has solidly shown itself in the previous bellwether trials. If Uber driver sex assault lawyers cannot reach a settlement agreement or resolve the litigation in some other way, Judge Breyer may begin remanding individual cases back to federal court districts to be prepared for individual trials.

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

A Florida mother’s product liability lawsuit claims her premature newborn developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed Similac infant formula shortly after birth.

Jasmine Crawford filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 9, representing herself and her minor son, identified only as N.A. She presents claims against Abbott Laboratories, the maker of the cow’s milk-based formula.

According to the lawsuit, N.A. suffered bloody stools, gaseous distention and other injuries as a result of being fed Similac formula in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Similac Infant Formula NEC Risks

NEC occurs when dangerous bacteria breach the walls of the intestines, resulting in tissue inflammation and necrosis. While infants, particularly preterm with underdeveloped gastrointestinal systems, already face an increased risk of NEC, a growing body of research indicates that cow’s milk-based formula, like Similac, exacerbates that risk.

As a result, many newborns require emergency surgery that may involve removing damaged portions of the intestine, creating an ostomy or making other major alterations to the digestive tract. Even with aggressive treatment, NEC can lead to lifelong nutritional, developmental and gastrointestinal complications, and some infants do not survive.

Due to these risks, a series of infant formula NEC lawsuits have been filed against Abbott Laboratories and its competitor Mead Johnson, the makers of Enfamil. Each plaintiff alleges nearly identical claims, indicating manufacturers placed the safety of newborns below their desire for profits.

Similac NEC Allegations

The lawsuit indicates N.A. was born in 2024 at only 30 weeks of development and was immediately placed in NICU for treatment.

In July 2024, the hospital began feeding N.A. Similac Human Milk Fortifier. By July 13, he was diagnosed with NEC.

“At the time he was diagnosed with and treated for NEC, N.A.’s parents were unaware of the fact that the Defendant’s Cow Milk-Based Products he was fed caused or substantially contributed to his development of NEC and the resulting injuries.”

– Jasmine Crawford v. Abbott Laboratories

The lawsuit notes that there is a long history of scientific evidence warning of the dangers of giving newborns cow’s milk-based infant formula. Some of these studies date back to 1990, when a multicenter study revealed that infants fed formula were six to 10 times more likely to develop NEC than infants who were fed breast milk alone, and three times more likely than those fed a mix of breast milk and formula.

In 2011, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning that feeding newborns infant formula was linked to a higher rate of NEC, calling for increased support of breast feeding. The warning indicated that, overall, premature infants who were not breast-fed face a 138% increased risk of the potentially deadly condition.

As evidence increased, Crawford’s lawsuit alleges that Abbott began heavily promoting its cow’s milk-based products as “human milk fortifiers,” which she says was meant to mislead consumers into thinking they are buying a product derived from human milk.

The lawsuit presents claims of strict liability, negligent design, negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability misrepresentation and failure to warn. Crawford seeks damages for past, present and future emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of consortium.

NEC Infant Formula Lawsuits

Crawford’s complaint joins hundreds of NEC infant formula lawsuits against Abbott and Mead Johnson filed in federal and state courts nationwide. The federal claims, like hers, are being consolidated for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois being overseen by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.

Judge Pallmeyer intends to hold a series of bellwether trials involving cases that are representative of the litigation as a whole, which will give lawyers a sense of how juries will respond to evidence and testimony common to all of the litigation.

The first federal trial began 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.

These follow several trials already held at the state level, including a 2024 trial in Missouri that led a jury to order Abbott to pay nearly $500 million to a woman whose daughter suffered brain damage due to NEC. In that same year, another Missouri case initially ended in a defense verdict. However, the judge ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

At the state level, a Cook County, Illinois, jury handed down a $70 million verdict in a Similac lawsuit in April, and another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in a lawsuit involving Enfamil formula. However, an appeals court threw out that verdict on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

Although the outcomes of these bellwether trials are not binding on other cases, the results are being carefully watched due to the chance they could contribute to a future Similac infant formula NEC settlement agreement. If the litigation is not resolved by the end of the bellwether trials or pretrial proceedings, Judge Pallmeyer is likely to begin remanding cases back to their originating federal district for individual 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 study indicates that social media “likes” may be particularly rewarding for individuals with depression, offering new insight into how platform algorithms and engagement-driven features may worsen mental health symptoms.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry on July 8, highlighting growing concerns about the potential impact of social media use on mental health.

Researchers indicate social media platforms provide users with frequent social rewards through likes and other engagement features, which may influence future online behavior. However, the extent to which individuals respond to those rewards may differ depending on their mental health.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

The findings come amid concerns about the impact of social media platforms on the mental health of children and young adults.

Social media companies are currently facing thousands of social media addiction lawsuits alleging platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube were intentionally designed with addictive features that encourage compulsive use.

Many of these complaints claim social media companies use sophisticated algorithms, infinite scrolling, notifications, likes and other engagement features to keep children and teens returning to their platforms for extended periods.

Families allege those features exploit the developing brains of children and teens, encouraging repeated platform use even when it begins to interfere with sleep, school, relationships and daily activities. The lawsuits claim this compulsive use has contributed to depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body-image problems, self-harm and suicide among young users.

School districts have also filed lawsuits alleging widespread social media addiction has disrupted classrooms, strained counseling and disciplinary resources, increased absenteeism and forced schools to spend additional money addressing student mental health and behavioral problems.

Social Media and Depression

In the study, researchers from Princeton University and Trinity College Dublin found individuals diagnosed with depression or experiencing greater symptoms of depression were more likely to increase their posting activity after receiving likes on previous posts.

Led by Dr. Dan-Mircea Mirea, the team analyzed more than 17 million posts from 7,736 Twitter users across three separate datasets, examining whether the number of likes received on one day influenced how frequently users posted the following day.

The study relied on three separate datasets. One included social media users who publicly disclosed a depression diagnosis, another involved participants recruited through Twitter advertisements, and the third included individuals recruited through an online research platform.

Researchers assessed depression differently in each group. The measures included self-reported diagnoses, symptoms experienced during the previous four weeks and responses to a validated depression questionnaire.

Despite those differences, the results were consistent across all three datasets. Individuals with a depression diagnosis or more severe symptoms were more likely to increase their posting activity after receiving social media likes.

That association remained statistically significant even after researchers accounted for other factors that could influence online behavior.

In the third dataset, participants who were more responsive to social media likes also reported greater symptoms of anxiety and depression. Meanwhile, a tendency to continue posting repeatedly was associated with compulsive behavior and intrusive thoughts.

“These findings suggest potential mechanisms linking social media use to worse mental health or vice versa, and emphasize the importance of studying real-world behavior.”

— Dr. Dan-Mircea Mirea, The Reinforcement Effect of Social Media Likes in Depression

The findings differ from previous laboratory research suggesting individuals with depression may have a reduced response to rewards.

Researchers indicate social media environments may operate differently from controlled laboratory settings, since likes provide real-world social rewards that can repeatedly influence users over extended periods.

Social Media Age Restrictions

The findings appear alongside a separate study published in The BMJ on June 24, which suggests Australia’s restrictions on social media accounts for children under age 16 have not substantially reduced immediate platform use, as many adolescents continue to find ways around the age-verification requirements.

Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act established a minimum age of 16 for holding accounts on 10 designated social media platforms, requiring companies to take reasonable measures to prevent younger children from creating or maintaining accounts.

Led by Courtney Barnes, researchers from the University of Newcastle examined social media use among 436 Australian adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 before the restrictions took effect and approximately three months later. Follow-up data were available for 408 participants.

The findings indicated:

• More than 85% of participants under age 16 continued using social media platforms covered by the law, with 54% to 68% accessing the services through their own accounts.
• 66% of those who continued using social media encountered age verification measures, most commonly requirements to self-declare their age or upload a photograph.
• 15% to 19% of participants reported using fake accounts to circumvent the restrictions, while 6% to 11% accessed social media through private browsers.
• Daily social media use remained relatively stable among children ages 12 and 13.
• Daily use declined from 78% to 69% among adolescents ages 14 and 15, but increased from 80% to 89% among those over age 16.

Researchers indicate the findings raise concerns about the effectiveness of age verification measures and the ability of children to circumvent social media restrictions. However, they caution that the study examined only the first three months after the law took effect and longer-term research is needed to determine whether the restrictions become more effective over time.

Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials

Both sets of findings come as a series of social media addiction lawsuits in the U.S. have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.

As part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings, a series of representative cases are being prepared for early trial dates to help the parties gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that could be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first social media bellwether trial was initially set to begin June 15, involving claims brought by the Breathitt County school district against Meta, YouTube and TikTok. However, the trial was canceled after the district reached a settlement with Meta in late May, following earlier agreements with YouTube and TikTok.

The next social media addiction bellwether trial is scheduled to begin February 8, and is expected to address claims brought by either the Tucson Unified School District or Charleston County School District, although a final selection has not yet been announced.

Meanwhile, a separate group of youth social media addiction lawsuits is moving forward in state courts, where several cases have already gone before juries. In March, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million to a woman who alleged she developed anxiety and depression after becoming addicted to Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms as a minor.

Shortly before that verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million to the state after finding the company liable for contributing to social media addiction among teens and resulting mental health problems.

Although the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other claims, lawyers involved in the litigation are closely watching the verdicts for indications of how juries may respond to similar evidence and testimony. The results could give either side additional leverage in negotiations and ultimately influence potential social media addiction lawsuit settlements.

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

C.R. Bard, the maker of PowerPort port catheters, wants a federal judge to divide an upcoming bellwether trial into two phases: with the jury first asked to reach a verdict on liability and compensatory damages, before being asked to consider whether punitive damages should be awarded.

The request comes as the parties prepare for the second in a series of early bellwether test trials that were chosen from more than 3,500 Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending in the federal court system, each alleging that the company distributed dangerous and defectively designed port catheter implants, which have caused patients to experience serious complications, including infections, pulmonary embolisms, blood clots and the need for additional surgery.

A port catheter is a subdermal implant consisting of a small injection port and a polyurethane catheter. The port gives access to the veins of patients who need regular drug or fluid injections, such as during chemotherapy, without the need for a new needle stick each time.

Plaintiffs say the PowerPort was not correctly designed due to defects in the materials used in the catheters, which can chip, crack and break. They accuse C.R. Bard and its Becton, Dickinson parent company of marketing the catheters as safe and effective, despite knowing they presented failure and health risks to patients.

Nearly three years ago, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits were consolidated in the District of Arizona as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who has led the litigation through its coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, resulting in the preparation of six representative cases that will serve as early test trials to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The first trial, held earlier this year, ended in a defense verdict on some counts and a hung jury on others. However, the plaintiff recently filed a motion for a mistrial, saying the jury was given faulty instructions and were pressured by a court-ordered deadline.

Second Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Trial

The second Bard PowerPort bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on August 18, involving claims brought by Kimberly Divelbliss. On July 10 attorneys for both sides presented a proposed final pretrial order (PDF) laying out issues that both sides feel need to be addressed before the trial at a final pretrial conference scheduled for today.

These issues include contested questions of fact and law, such as whether plaintiffs can prove their claims and how many jurors should be seated. The order also lays out a disagreement over how the trial should be conducted, with defendants requesting that the trial be bifurcated, meaning split into two phases.

If Judge Campbell heeds the defendants’ request, the first phase of the trial would involve the liability claims and issues of compensatory damages, while the second phase would focus solely on whether the manufacturer should pay punitive damages and, if so, how much.

Divelbliss’s attorneys oppose the bifurcation suggestion, arguing there is no need for it in this case, but if the trial were split, the issue of whether punitive damages are owed should be handled in the first phase.

“Plaintiff does not oppose bifurcation of the amount of any punitive damages award, including evidence of Defendants’ net worth, as was done in IVC. Plaintiff contends, however, that the question of whether punitive damages are warranted (i.e., whether Defendants acted with the requisite culpable mental state) must be determined in the liability phase alongside the underlying claims.”

– Proposed Final Pretrial Order, Kimberly Devilbliss v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al.

While the outcome of these bellwether trials will not have any binding impact on other claims, they are being closely watched and may have an influence on the average Bard PowerPort settlement amounts the manufacturer may be required to pay to resolve the litigation.

However, if the bellwether trials end without a Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement or other resolution to the litigation, Judge Campbell is likely to begin remanding individual cases back to their originating districts for separate trial dates over the next few years.

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

An Ohio man has filed a Cyclospora outbreak lawsuit against the operator of a Taco Bell restaurant, alleging contaminated food served at the fast-food chain caused him to contract a severe parasitic infection.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mohammed R. Ayyad in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 16. It names Pacific Bells LLC, which operates the Taco Bell restaurant in North Olmsted, Ohio, as the primary defendant, along with unidentified growers, suppliers and distributors that allegedly provided contaminated ingredients used in the restaurant’s food.

The lawsuit was filed as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state health agencies continue investigating a multistate Cyclospora outbreak that has sickened thousands of people nationwide.

Cyclospora Outbreak Investigation

Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that causes the intestinal infection cyclosporiasis, which is typically contracted by consuming fresh produce or water contaminated with human waste. Unlike many foodborne illnesses, Cyclospora is not usually spread directly between people because the parasite must first undergo a period of maturation in the environment before it becomes capable of causing infection.

The CDC issued a nationwide health advisory on July 14 reporting 1,645 laboratory-confirmed domestically acquired Cyclospora infections since May 1, along with more than 5,100 additional illnesses still under investigation. The agency has also identified an epidemiological link between more than 400 illnesses in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and West Virginia that appear to have originated from a common source.

On Thursday, health officials linked the outbreak to shredded iceberg lettuce sold through Taco Bell locations in at least five states. Reports suggest the lettuce came from Mexico and was distributed by Taylor Farms to Taco Bell and potentially other vendors. Investigators had previously indicated fresh produce was the leading suspect, consistent with prior Cyclospora outbreaks involving leafy greens, herbs and other produce items.

Ayyad’s complaint notes Taco Bell temporarily stopped serving lettuce, cilantro, onions, pico de gallo and guacamole at some restaurants while officials examined whether ingredients used by the chain may have contributed to the outbreak.

Taco Bell Cyclospora Outbreak Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Ayyad ate multiple meals from a Taco Bell restaurant in North Olmsted, Ohio on June 14 and June 21, including Cheesy Fiesta Potatoes and Avocado Ranch Chicken Stackers containing fresh produce ingredients. Within days of his final meal, he allegedly developed symptoms consistent with Cyclospora infection, including severe headaches, chills, vomiting, persistent diarrhea, weakness and an inability to tolerate food.

The complaint indicates Ayyad sought medical treatment after his symptoms continued for more than a week. A stool sample collected on July 6 allegedly tested positive for Cyclospora cayetanensis on July 9, confirming the parasitic infection.

The lawsuit maintains Taco Bell sold contaminated food that was unfit for human consumption and failed to take adequate steps to prevent contaminated ingredients from reaching customers. It also alleges unidentified suppliers and growers are responsible for allowing contaminated produce to enter the food supply.

“As a direct and proximate result of his Cyclospora infection, Plaintiff missed approximately two weeks of work and suffered lost income, in addition to his physical illness, pain, suffering, and other injuries.”

— Mohammed R. Ayyad v. Pacific Bells LLC et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act and breach of warranty. It seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost enjoyment of life and other losses allegedly caused by the infection.

As the investigation continues, additional Cyclospora food poisoning lawsuits are expected to be filed by individuals who believe contaminated food served by Taco Bell or other restaurants caused their illnesses. If investigators identify a specific contaminated ingredient or supplier, the litigation could expand to include growers, distributors and manufacturers alleged to have allowed contaminated produce to enter the food supply.

Similar outbreaks involving E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria have resulted in multiple product liability claims alleging companies may have failed to follow adequate food safety practices.

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

A product liability lawsuit alleges a defective Medtronic MiniMed insulin pump suddenly stopped delivering insulin during normal use, causing a Florida woman to suffer severe injuries and fall into a diabetic coma.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christine Hunter in Florida state court last month, naming Medtronic Inc. as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 6.

Hunter indicates that she was using a Medtronic MiniMed 780G insulin pump, which is designed to continuously deliver insulin to people with diabetes. However, she alleges the pump catastrophically failed on June 12, 2022, abruptly stopping insulin delivery even though she had maintained the device properly and used it as intended.

Medtronic MiniMed Insulin Pump Failure

Medtronic MiniMed insulin pumps are intended to help people with diabetes manage their blood sugar by continuously delivering insulin throughout the day and providing additional doses as needed.

However, a malfunction that causes an insulin pump to deliver too much or too little medication can result in serious and potentially life-threatening complications. Excessive insulin may cause hypoglycemia, which can lead to confusion, seizures and death, while insufficient insulin can result in dangerously high blood sugar levels and potentially life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

MiniMed Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Hunter’s MiniMed 780G insulin pump was covered by a four-year warranty and had been used normally and maintained in good working condition before the alleged malfunction.

However, Hunter claims the device suddenly stopped delivering insulin without warning, resulting in severe medical complications.

She maintains Medtronic negligently designed the insulin pump with defects that could cause it to fail during normal operation and used components that were insufficient to maintain the device’s intended function.

The lawsuit also claims the manufacturer failed to adequately warn users about the potential for MiniMed insulin pump failures and marketed the devices in a manner that misled consumers about their safety and expected useful life.

The complaint argues that Medtronic had a duty to ensure its insulin pumps were free of defects and did not pose an unreasonable risk of injury during normal and foreseeable use.

“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendant MEDTRONIC, Plaintiff CHRISTINE HUNTER suffered and suffers bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, inconvenience, hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and/or aggravation of previously existing condition.”

— Christine Hunter v. Medtronic Inc.

The lawsuit presents claims of negligence and strict liability, seeking compensatory damages and other relief.

Medtronic MiniMed Lawsuits

Several safety concerns have resulted in MiniMed insulin pump recalls in recent years, including issues linked to incorrect insulin delivery, device failures and cybersecurity risks. Those problems have led to a growing number of Medtronic MiniMed lawsuits filed by patients nationwide.

In many of the cases, patients have been warned they may receive insufficient amounts of insulin, potentially resulting in diabetic ketoacidosis. This condition occurs when the body does not have enough insulin to process glucose and begins breaking down fat for energy, causing dangerous levels of ketones to accumulate in the blood.

Symptoms of DKA may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, rapid breathing and breath with a fruity odor. Without prompt medical treatment, the condition can result in severe dehydration, organ failure and death.

MiniMed insulin pumps have also faced a series of problems related to security. In September 2022, the FDA warned that certain MiniMed pumps contained cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could potentially allow someone in close proximity to gain unauthorized access to the pumps’ wireless communication systems.

Federal regulators indicated the risk could increase when affected insulin pumps communicated with other devices, including continuous glucose monitors, blood glucose meters and CareLink USB systems.

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

More than 50,000 Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits are being recalled due to the risk of uncontrolled fires and flames shooting from fuel containers, which could result in serious or fatal burn injuries.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Houswise Tabletop Fire Pit warning on July 16, indicating that flames may burn across the surface of pooled or spilled alcohol, creating an uncontrolled fire that can spread beyond the fire pit.

Tabletop Fire Pit Dangers

A tabletop fire pit is a small, portable device designed to sit on a table or other flat surface. It typically burns liquid alcohol or another clean-burning fuel to produce an open flame for warmth, ambiance or cooking. Consumers often use tabletop fire pits on patios, decks and balconies, or indoors when the product is specifically approved for indoor use.

The affected Houswise fire pits require users to pour liquid fuel into an open container and ignite it. These fuels can burn at temperatures exceeding 1,600°F and cause third-degree burns in less than one second. Spilled or pooled fuel may also ignite, causing flames to spread rapidly across nearby surfaces or onto consumers.

Over the last year, these dangers have resulted in a rising number of serious burn injuries among people refilling tabletop fire pits and nearby bystanders.

As a result, tabletop fire pit lawsuits are now being filed against various different manufacturers, distributors and retailers accused of selling dangerously designed products without adequate safety features, refueling instructions or warnings about invisible flames and flame jetting.

Houswise Tabletop Fire Pit Warning

Federal officials are advising consumers to immediately stop using Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits following more than two dozen reports of flame-jetting, fuel leaking outside of the fire pit and unexpectedly high flames resulting in seven injuries, including third-degree burns.

The warning includes at least 53,500 fire pits with rectangular, round or square bases and include the model names:

• Vesper
• Altair
• Quad
• Astra

These fire pits were sold in various colors, including marble, black, light gray and dark gray, and were sold with accessories such as skewers and cheese boards.

All of the affected fire pits were manufactured in China and sold online on Houswise, Amazon, Walmart and other retailers since March 2023.

Consumers are urged to stop using the products immediately, dispose of them and not to sell or give away the products. Any incidents involving injuries or product defects can be reported to the CPSC at www.SaferProducts.gov.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

Following multiple recalls and burn reports, attorneys nationwide are investigating potential tabletop firepit lawsuits involving those injured or who lost loved ones due to flame jetting, flashbacks and explosions.

Injuries linked to tabletop fire pits include:

• Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical treatment
• Permanent scarring, nerve damage or limited mobility
• Inhalation injuries caused by sudden bursts of flame
• Incidents occurring during refueling that trigger flare-ups
• Fatal injuries linked to fire pit explosions
• Lost income due to time away from work
• Ongoing medical care, including hospitalization and rehabilitation
• Lasting disfigurement or emotional and psychological trauma

Consumers who suffered burn injuries caused by a tabletop fire pit may be eligible to receive compensation for their injuries. Tabletop fire pit attorneys can help determine the product involved, evaluate whether it contained a defect or was included in a recall, and discuss the legal options that could be available.

Lawyers are pursuing these claims on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront legal fees or expenses. Attorneys are paid only if they recover compensation on your behalf.

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

The U.S. District Judge recently assigned to oversee all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits will meet next month for the first time with attorneys representing parties involved in a growing number of claims alleging that the implants are prone to failure, can cause serious injuries and are defectively designed.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants marketed as a treatment for chronic and hard-to-manage pain by using mild pulses of electricity to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin and near the spine, as well as a remote controller for adjusting the stimulation levels.

Boston Scientific is one of several medical device manufacturers selling the devices, which have become increasingly popular in recent years. Its own line includes the WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. The manufacturer promotes the implants as potential treatments for failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic low back pain, leg pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and other nerve-related pain disorders.

However, Boston Scientific’s SCS devices, as well as those of other manufacturers, have been linked to increasing reports of spinal cord stimulator problems. Patients indicate the devices failed to provide pain relief, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery. In some cases, the electrodes or the pulse generator have migrated out of position and protruded out of the skin.

In addition to claims against Boston Scientific, a wave of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been also been filed against manufacturers of similar devices, including Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro. Each of the claims raises similar allegations, indicating that the manufacturers relied on the FDA’s substantial-equivalence clearance process to bring the devices to market, then made significant design changes over time without adequate clinical testing or regulatory review.

Plaintiffs claim those practices allowed defective spinal cord stimulators to reach patients while the manufacturers withheld known risks from doctors and consumers.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

On June 5, following a request by plaintiffs, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order consolidating all federal claims over Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who will preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery.

At that time, there were nearly two dozen product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer’s spinal implants. However, spinal cord stimulator lawyers widely anticipate that number will grow dramatically in the coming weeks and months, as more patients discover that complications experienced in recent years may be linked to problems with the devices.

Judge Staton is expected to organize the litigation in preparation for a series of bellwether trials. These early test cases take claims that are representative of the litigation as a whole and put them before several juries, which weigh the evidence and testimony. This process can help the parties decide if the trials can form the basis of a settlement agreement.

Boston Scientific SCS Lawsuit Initial Conference

In a pretrial order (PDF) issued on June 23, Judge Staton called for counsel for all parties to appear for an initial scheduling conference on August 5, 2026. The judge indicates the conference will address the leadership structure and the appointment of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel.

Such appointments involve selecting several plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve in MDL leadership roles and represent the interests of everyone with a pending claim. This structure is common in mass tort litigation, helping ensure plaintiffs are represented consistently while channeling key information and decisions through a small group of lawyers rather than every firm involved nationwide.

The judge appointed two attorneys to arrange the initial status conferences but called for all plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer by July 24, and propose a leadership structure for the course of the MDL, including positions such as Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel and a proposed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. July 24 is also the deadline for applications for plaintiffs lead and liaison counsel positions.

The order also calls for the parties to prepare a joint preliminary report on the litigation by the July 24 date, which should be limited to no more than 25 pages. Additionally, Judge Staton indicates the conference will cover any outstanding motions, preliminary case management issues, set a schedule of regular status conferences, and address any other issues “requiring prompt resolution.”

Abbott and Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Abbott Laboratories and Nevro are also facing a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, leading to separate requests for consolidation in federal court.

On June 22, two plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Central District of California. The petition identified 15 pending cases, along with 12 similar lawsuits involving 33 plaintiffs across six federal districts.

A separate petition filed on June 26 seeks consolidation of Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the same district. That motion identified 17 similar cases pending across six jurisdictions and asked that the litigation be assigned to U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, who is overseeing the Boston Scientific proceedings.

Both requests seek separate manufacturer-specific MDLs that would move forward on parallel tracks. If approved, the courts would coordinate discovery and pretrial motions before selecting representative cases for bellwether trials.

Those verdicts would not bind other claims, but they could help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and arguments, potentially influencing settlement negotiations.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Wegovy and Ozempic NAION lawsuits has directed the parties to focus early discovery on whether plaintiffs can establish that side effects of the GLP-1 medications can cause vision loss, as well as whether federal law preempts their failure-to-warn claims.

Ozempic and Wegovy belong to a class of medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which have become widely popular in recent years. Originally designated for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, the drugs have become blockbuster medications as they have been increasingly linked to weight loss and other metabolic health benefits.

The class includes diabetes drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro, Saxenda, Trulicity, Victoza and Rybelsus, as well as the weight loss compounds Wegovy and Zepbound. However, the manufacturers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, now face more than 130 GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits filed nationwide, with most focused on the drugs Ozempic and Wegovy.

The litigation began following publication of a study in July 2024 linking GLP-1 use to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a condition caused by a lack of sufficient blood flow to the optic nerve. Ozempic and Wegovy were linked to a seven-fold increased risk in the condition when compared to other drugs. However, research has also seen increased risks across the GLP-1 class.

Each complaint alleges that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, of the potential vision loss risks, which can occur suddenly and result in permanent blurred or reduced vision and blindness. The lawsuits claim the drug makers placed profits ahead of patient safety in order to maximize revenue.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Bellwether Trials

Due to common questions of fact and law, all Ozempic and Wegovy vision loss lawsuits are consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston, who is overseeing the litigation through pretrial proceedings and coordinated discovery.

The judge is expected to schedule a series of early test trials to help the parties determine how juries may respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. These “bellwether” trials’ outcomes could provide a basis for potential settlement negotiations.

However, the parties must first go through a discovery process in which they collect evidence, records and testimony in support of their arguments. This involves both sides turning over various records, such as clinical trial data, patient use histories, medical reports and taking depositions from expert witnesses.

According to a case management order (PDF) issued by Judge Marston on July 2, lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants have disagreed on how the discovery should be conducted. Plaintiffs wanted to dive right into the main discovery process to promote efficiency and begin preparing a group of test cases for early trials. However, defendants sought a period of early discovery that focused on determining whether general causation can be proved and whether the lawsuits are disqualified because they are preempted by federal law.

Judge Marston agreed with defendants, calling for early discovery on these “cross-cutting issues” to be handled first. She disagreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that the early discovery could slow the litigation down substantially, noting that defendants have suggested fact discovery be completed by October 2026, expert discovery by the end of 2026 and calls for motions to be fully briefed by the first quarter of 2027.

“Most importantly, while the parties proceed on these cross cutting issues, they will also begin exchanging marketing discovery in line with the parties’ agreement and producing Plaintiffs’ fact sheets so that if this case is not resolved on the early cross cutting motions, the parties will be ready to select bellwether cases in short order.”

– U.S. District Judge Karen Marston

The order calls for the parties to meet and confer in preparation to submit a proposed scheduling order by July 13, 2026.

GLP-1 Stomach Paralysis Lawsuits

One of the plaintiffs’ concerns was that the proposed early discovery process could delay the vision loss litigation and cause it to fall out of sync with a separate GLP-1 multidistrict litigation involving gastrointestinal injuries, which is also being overseen by Judge Marston.

That parallel MDL involves thousands of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits alleging Ozempic, Wegovy and similar GLP-1 medications caused severe gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages and other digestive complications. Although many of the same manufacturers are defendants in both proceedings, the vision loss and gastrointestinal cases remain separate MDLs involving different injuries, scientific evidence and legal issues.

Judge Marston is also preparing the stomach paralysis litigation for its own bellwether process, which will involve a separate group of representative cases selected to test the claims and defenses specific to gastrointestinal injuries. The NAION litigation will proceed through an independent bellwether process focused on the evidence surrounding vision loss.

If either MDL is not resolved through settlement or other pretrial proceedings, cases from that litigation may eventually be returned to their original federal courts for individual trials.

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

Federal and state health officials are investigating a widespread Cyclospora outbreak that is expected to result in lawsuits brought on behalf of individuals nationwide who suffered severe illness, required hospitalization or died from complications of the infection.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide Health Alert Network advisory this week after confirming 1,645 domestically acquired cases of Cyclosporas have been identified in at least 34 different states since May 1. Officials indicate that more than 5,100 illnesses are still under review to determine whether they are linked to the same outbreak, suggesting the total number of cases may be substantially higher.

Investigators believe many of the illnesses are connected to contaminated fresh produce. However, they have not yet identified the specific food item, supplier or distributor responsible. Public health officials are interviewing patients and tracing food distribution chains while working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state agencies to determine the source.

Identifying the contaminated product could lead to cyclospora lawsuits being pursued against companies involved in growing, processing, distributing or selling the food. Similar outbreaks involving E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria have resulted in product liability claims alleging failures to follow adequate food safety practices.

Cyclospora Outbreak Investigation

Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that causes cyclosporiasis, an intestinal illness most commonly spread through fresh fruits, vegetables or water contaminated with human feces. Unlike many other foodborne pathogens, the parasite generally is not transmitted directly from person to person because it must mature in the environment before becoming infectious.

The CDC indicates several separate investigations are underway, and it remains unclear whether all reported illnesses stem from a single contaminated food source or multiple unrelated outbreaks. Early epidemiological evidence has linked cases in at least four states, while investigators continue evaluating other possible sources in additional states.

Because symptoms often do not appear for about a week after exposure, and sometimes as long as two weeks, patients frequently have difficulty recalling everything they ate before becoming ill, making traceback investigations particularly challenging.

Cyclospora Symptoms

Cyclospora infections typically cause prolonged gastrointestinal illness that may last for weeks or even months without treatment.

Common symptoms include:

• Frequent watery diarrhea
• Loss of appetite
• Weight loss
• Stomach cramps and bloating
• Nausea and vomiting
• Fatigue
• Low-grade fever

Some patients experience symptoms that improve before returning days later. Young children, older adults and individuals with weakened immune systems face a greater risk of severe illness and dehydration requiring hospitalization.

Cyclosporiasis is generally treated with prescription antibiotics, and early diagnosis can help reduce the severity and duration of illness.

Federal officials have not advised consumers to avoid any specific produce because the source has not yet been confirmed. Instead, they recommend washing fresh fruits and vegetables thoroughly under running water, practicing good food hygiene and seeking medical attention if symptoms develop.

Food Poisoning Outbreak Lawsuits

Although no lawsuits have yet been filed over the current outbreak, food poisoning claims often follow once public health officials identify the contaminated product and the companies responsible for placing it into the food supply.

The massive Boar’s Head Listeria outbreak provides a recent example. After investigators traced illnesses to deli meats produced at the company’s Virginia facility, Boar’s Head recalled more than seven million pounds of products. The outbreak was linked to dozens of hospitalizations and multiple deaths, leading injured consumers and surviving family members to file Boar’s Head Listeria lawsuits.

Similar claims could be brought against any grower, processor, distributor or retailer ultimately linked to the Cyclospora outbreak. Individuals who suffered confirmed infections may seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and other damages, while families may pursue wrongful death claims when an infection proves fatal.

As the CDC and FDA continue tracing the source, any future product identification, recall or evidence of food-safety failures could become central to determining which companies may be held responsible.

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

A Minnesota woman has filed a lawsuit on behalf of her child who suffered injuries after being exposed to lead and other toxic chemicals inadvertently brought home from a Federal Cartridge ammunition manufacturing plant.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lindsey Robideau on behalf of her child A.R. in Minnesota District Court on June 15, and was recently removed to the U.S. District Court of Minnesota on July 13. The lawsuit names Federal Cartridge Company, The Kinetic Group Inc., CSG Elevate II Inc. and CSE USA Inc. as defendants.

Robideau’s allegations center on take-home exposure to lead and other chemicals used during ammunition manufacturing. Federal Cartridge has produced lead-based ammunition for the federal government and U.S. military for decades, and many of those contracts specifically called for lead bullets.

Childhood Lead Exposure Risks

For decades, medical research has shown that lead exposure can cause serious and lasting harm, particularly in young children whose brains and nervous systems are still developing. Even relatively low levels of exposure have been linked to reduced cognitive function, learning difficulties, behavioral problems and poorer academic performance.

Exposure during pregnancy may also affect a child before birth. Research has associated prenatal lead exposure with impaired memory, delayed development and other neurological problems that can continue into childhood.

Children exposed to lead may also face a greater risk of depression and other emotional or behavioral disorders. The effects are not always temporary, as prolonged exposure has been associated with neurological damage that may contribute to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease later in life.

According to Robideau’s lawsuit, she worked at the Federal Cartridge Company ammunition manufacturing facility in Anoka, Minnesota. She alleges her child was unknowingly exposed to hazardous substances through lead and other contaminants carried home on her clothing, shoes, vehicle, cell phone and other personal belongings, resulting in physical, emotional and mental injuries.

The lawsuit claims Federal Cartridge knew employees were exposed to dangerously high levels of toxic substances but failed to provide adequate protective equipment, shower facilities, dedicated work shoes or other measures to prevent workers from carrying contaminants home. It also alleges the company failed to adequately warn employees about the risks associated with take-home exposure to lead, cadmium, arsenic, dioxins, sulfur dioxide and other hazardous substances.

Her complaint states that workplace testing conducted in 2021 found “alarming levels of lead contamination” in employee break rooms, locker rooms and other areas where workers ate, changed clothes and stored personal belongings. The testing also found eight employees with blood lead levels exceeding 25 μg/dL, including one whose level exceeded 40 μg/dL.

The lawsuit further alleges the Minnesota Department of Health investigated the homes of affected workers and found no significant source of lead contamination other than take-home exposure from the Federal Cartridge facility. In 2023, elevated blood lead levels were reportedly identified in four children of facility employees.

Robideau contends Federal Cartridge failed to implement basic workplace controls that could have prevented employees from leaving the facility with contaminated clothing and footwear, exposing both workers and their families to hazardous substances.

“Plaintiff’s injuries are a direct and proximate result of exposure to excessive levels of lead, lead compounds, cadmium, arsenic, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, and other hazardous substances due otherwise to Defendants’ deliberate and intentional failure to implement an adequate decontamination process to prevent the escape, dissemination and discharge of lead, lead compounds, and other hazardous substances from disseminating, discharging, and escaping the Facility into the community at large.”

— Lindsey Robideau v. Federal Cartridge Company et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence and violations of the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. It seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional suffering and mental injuries.

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

A new analysis indicates the breast reconstruction mesh market is expected to expand substantially over the next several years, potentially exposing more women to products that are already the subject of lawsuits involving painful and disfiguring complications.

Breast mesh products are implanted to reinforce weakened tissue and provide additional support during breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. Surgeons also use the mesh during breast augmentation, implant revision, breast-lift and corrective procedures, where it may function as an “internal bra” that helps maintain the breast’s position and shape.

However, the FDA has repeatedly warned that surgical mesh products have not been approved for breast reconstruction, augmentation or any other form of breast surgery, even as their use in these procedures has become increasingly common. As a result, the agency has not determined that the products are safe and effective when implanted in the breast.

Breast Mesh Complications & Side Effects

Despite the lack of FDA approval, breast mesh, particularly GalaFLEX, has become increasingly popular in recent years, and has been accompanied by a growing number of breast mesh complications and side effects. These reports include chronic pain, inflammation, infections, nerve damage, breast deformity, tissue damage and reconstruction failure.

Many women have reported to the FDA that the mesh contracted, migrated or failed to dissolve as expected, requiring breast mesh explant surgery, along with months of additional treatments for their injuries.

The growing number of adverse events has prompted a series of GalaFLEX lawsuits to be filed against the manufacturer, alleging the products were defectively designed and sold without adequate warnings about the risk that the mesh may fail to absorb properly, cause a prolonged inflammatory response or leave women with permanent injuries requiring revision surgery.

Breast Reconstruction Mesh Market Expected to Reach $840 Million

Against that backdrop, a market analysis released by The Business Research Company on July 6 predicts continued growth in breast reconstruction mesh use through the end of the decade.

The report estimates the global market will reach $840 million by 2030, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 6.6%. Analysts attribute the projected increase to advances in biological and absorbable mesh technologies, greater demand for personalized reconstruction outcomes, the expansion of cancer treatment centers and a growing number of surgeons trained to perform reconstructive procedures.

The market includes synthetic and biological mesh products used during implant-based reconstruction, procedures involving a patient’s own tissue, breast implant revision surgery and correction of asymmetry or deformities. The report also points to wider use of pre-pectoral reconstruction, which places the breast implant above the chest muscle, as well as growing demand for minimally invasive procedures and improved cosmetic results.

The analysis highlights the development of bioabsorbable monofilament mesh, which is made from a single strand of material and designed to gradually dissolve after providing temporary tissue support. Manufacturers believe the design may reduce infection risks while still reinforcing tissue during staged breast reconstruction.

As one example, Integra LifeSciences completed enrollment in a multicenter U.S. study of its DuraSorb Monofilament Mesh in 2023. The study is evaluating the product’s safety and effectiveness during breast reconstruction and is intended to support an application for FDA premarket approval.

Breast Mesh Lawsuits

While the report points to growing interest in biological and absorbable mesh products, it does not indicate that synthetic breast mesh is being phased out.

That is notable as medical device manufacturers continue to face breast mesh lawsuits alleging they sold the products for use in breast procedures without FDA approval or adequate long-term safety data.

Plaintiffs also claim they were not sufficiently warned that the mesh could contract, migrate, fail to dissolve or cause complications requiring additional treatment and surgery, including:

• Infections
• Mesh migration or contraction
• Implant or reconstruction failure
• Chronic pain and inflammation
• Tissue damage or breast deformity
• Breast mesh explant or revision surgery

As use of these products expands, breast mesh injury lawyers are evaluating potential claims for women who were not adequately warned about the lack of FDA approval for cosmetic breast procedures and later suffered mesh failure, serious injuries or the need for revision surgery.

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

More than 500 Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits will be reinstated after a federal appeals court overturned a prior decision that excluded key plaintiffs’ experts from presenting evidence about risks associated with the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy, which essentially brought the federal litigation to an end more than two years ago.

The litigation involves allegations that children developed autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) after their mothers used Tylenol or generic acetaminophen during pregnancy.

In October 2022, the federal claims were consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York, where U.S. District Judge Denise Cote was appointed to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, in August 2024 Judge Cote dismissed the litigation and excluded key expert testimony plaintiffs intended to use to establish that prenatal acetaminophen exposure can cause the developmental disorders.

Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that three of those experts should not have been excluded, sending the cases back to Judge Cote for further proceedings. While the decision does not establish that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD, it allows plaintiffs to continue pursuing their claims and present their supporting scientific evidence.

Tylenol Autism and ADHD Claims

The popular painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug Tylenol (acetaminophen) has been widely used by pregnant women for decades and was long considered to be safe for unborn children. However, recent years have seen several studies reporting associations between prenatal acetaminophen use and an increased risk of developmental disorders like autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Potential links between Tylenol pregnancy use, autism and ADHD have been hotly debated, with some studies supporting the link and others not. In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) stepped in, adding new Tylenol label warnings calling for pregnant women to use the drug with caution and only when necessary.

Tylenol Autism and ADHD Lawsuits Reinstated

Following coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the MDL, Judge Cote excluded all plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying nearly two years ago, determining that the scientific methods used by those witnesses were not reliable enough to link Tylenol pregnancy use with ADHD and autism. With no way remaining to prove causation, the entire MDL was dismissed before any trials took place.

Plaintiffs subsequently appealed that decision to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which released its opinion (PDF) on July 13, reversing Judge Cote’s decision, reinstating the dismissed cases and sending the litigation back to the Southern District of New York for reconsideration.

According to the decision, Judge Cote overstepped her bounds in dismissing the cases, saying three of the five plaintiffs’ expert witnesses should be allowed to testify and be given the opportunity to convince a jury of the potential connection between the drug and developmental disorders. In fact, the data of one of the dismissed expert witnesses was referenced by the FDA in requiring the latest Tylenol label warnings.

“Those concededly qualified experts offered opinions that comport with methodologies applied by other scientists in their fields, and constitute acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree on the ultimate answer to the causal question that they are assessing.”

– U.S. Senior Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, writing for the majority

The ruling does not establish that Tylenol causes ADHD or autism but instead indicates that plaintiffs presented expert witnesses who should have been allowed to proceed with their testimony. The appeals court indicated its ruling was completely based on the admissibility of evidence.

Kenvue, the Johnson & Johnson spinoff that now owns Tylenol, issued a statement on Monday addressing the appellate court ruling, saying they intend to show the court again that the expert witnesses’ testimony would be unreliable. The statement indicates Kenvue is “exploring all options regarding this decision.”

The litigation will now be returned to Judge Cote for further reconsideration, which could result in the reinstatement of a plan to hold a series of bellwether trials for the Tylenol autism lawsuits. These would allow lawyers from both sides to see exactly how juries weigh those expert witnesses testimony and other key evidence that would likely play out in the majority of claims.

Although the outcomes of those trials would not be binding on other cases, Tylenol autism attorneys and defendants will closely watch the results, which could present an avenue for a global settlement agreement.

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

A class action lawsuit claims Conair sold defective Cuisinart grill brushes for years without warning consumers that metal wire bristles could detach, contaminate food and cause serious internal injuries if swallowed.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Matthew Tompkins in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 8, pursuing damages against Conair LLC on behalf of himself and other consumers who purchased the recalled Cuisinart grill brushes.

Tompkins alleges Conair falsely marketed the products as safe and reliable, despite knowing design and manufacturing defects could cause small metal bristles to detach from the brushes and become lodged in food or on grill surfaces.

If swallowed, the metal bristles may become lodged in the throat or digestive tract, potentially resulting in serious injuries that require medical treatment or surgery.

Cuisinart Grill Brush Recall

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a Cuisinart grill brush recall on July 2, impacting nearly 1.7 million products sold nationwide between June 2009 and March 2026.

The recalled products were sold individually for between $8 and $20, as well as in several Cuisinart grill tool sets, including the Premium Grill 10 Piece Set, 13 Piece Wooden Handle Grill Tool Set, 14 Piece Deluxe Stainless Steel Grill Set and 20 Piece Deluxe Grill Set.

According to the recall notice, Conair received at least 54 reports and consumer reviews involving metal wire bristles detaching from the recalled grill brushes. At least three consumers allegedly swallowed the metal bristles and required medical treatment to remove them from their digestive tracts or throats.

Despite those reports, Tompkins claims Conair continued to sell the products without adequately warning consumers about the potential grill brush injury risks.

Cuisinart Grill Brush Class Action Lawsuit

In the lawsuit, Tompkins indicates a Cuisinart 13-Piece Wooden Handle Grill Tools Set containing one of the defective brushes was purchased from Amazon in May 2025, and subsequently acquired by him.

The lawsuit maintains Tompkins considered Cuisinart a reputable brand and believed the grill brush was safe and reliable for its intended use.

However, he claims he and other consumers would not have purchased the products, or would have paid substantially less for them, if Conair had disclosed the risk that metal bristles could detach and cause serious injuries.

Following the recall, Conair offered consumers either a refund or credit for purchases from Cuisinart’s website. However, the lawsuit alleges consumers must discard the recalled brushes and complete a burdensome claims process before receiving compensation.

Tompkins claims the recall remedy does not adequately compensate consumers who purchased products that were allegedly worthless due to the undisclosed safety defects.

“The risk associated with the Product was beyond any reasonable or nominal risk that might be associated with grill brushes generally.”

— Matthew Tompkins v. Conair LLC

The Cuisinart grill brush class action lawsuit seeks to represent consumers nationwide who purchased or acquired the recalled products, as well as a subclass of New York residents.

The complaint presents claims of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violations of New York consumer protection laws, negligence and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages and other relief.

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

Seven California women have filed a class action lawsuit alleging they suffered severe reproductive harms like miscarriages, PCOS, chronic heavy bleeding, pelvic pain and other side effects after using a variety of feminine hygiene and personal care products.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alassandra Franco Lopez and six other women in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 5, and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California on July 9.

It names The Procter & Gamble Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, C.B. Fleet Company Inc., Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc., Essity North America Inc., Edgewell Personal Care Brand LLC, The Honey Pot Company and Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege they faced severe and ongoing pelvic and reproductive side effects as a result of using feminine hygiene products that contain toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, endocrine disruptors, preservatives and other harmful substances.

The feminine care products named in the lawsuit include products like maxi pads, tampons, menstrual cups, feminine washes, wipes, period underwear, deodorizing sprays and women’s incontinence products. They are sold by a number of companies and include brands such as Tampax, Always, Summer’s Eve, Carefree, L. Organic, Honey Pot, Playtex and more.

Feminine Hygiene Products Lawsuit Allegations

The class action lawsuit alleges P&G, Kimberly-Clark and other defendants knowingly designed and sold feminine hygiene products containing PFAS, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, fragrances, preservatives and other substances capable of causing serious reproductive harm.

Lopez indicates she regularly used Always, L. Organic, Carefree, Summer’s Eve, Honey Pot and other products for more than 13 years. The complaint alleges she subsequently suffered:

• Endometriosis, ovarian cysts, PCOS and fibroids;
• Hormonal imbalances and pelvic inflammatory disease;
• Anemia, inflammation and fatigue;
• Painful bowel movements and intercourse;
• Chronic heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cycles;
• Chronic ovarian and uterine pain; and
• Emotional distress and ongoing reproductive complications.

The lawsuit alleges exposure to chemicals in the products also caused or contributed to a devastating miscarriage and more than a decade of debilitating reproductive pain.

Lopez underwent laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis in 2022, and was hospitalized again in May 2026 with severe chronic pain affecting her uterus and ovaries. Doctors allegedly determined the endometriosis had spread throughout her reproductive system, potentially leaving her unable to conceive a child in the future.

According to the complaint, Lopez’s injuries have significantly interfered with her daily life, ability to work and walk, personal relationships and overall quality of life.

The six other plaintiffs allege they suffered similar injuries following repeated exposure to feminine hygiene products, including adenomyosis, blood clots, ovarian cysts, chronic pelvic pain, heavy bleeding, anemia, hormonal problems and other reproductive complications that sometimes required emergency medical care.

The lawsuit claims the products were falsely marketed as safe, clean, natural, gentle, organic and pH-balanced, while manufacturers failed to disclose that repeated intimate use could expose women to potentially harmful substances.

“Defendants failed to adequately test their products for long-term safety, failed to disclose the presence of potentially harmful chemicals, failed to provide adequate warnings regarding health risks, failed to conduct proper safety monitoring, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect consumers from foreseeable harm.”

— Alassandra Franco Lopez et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company et al.

The complaint raises claims of strict product liability, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. It seeks damages for physical pain, medical expenses, emotional distress, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and reproductive injuries.

Tampax Tampon Lawsuits

A number of other lawsuits have been filed in recent years alleging feminine products contain dangerous chemicals that are harmful to human health. A class action lawsuit was filed last August against Procter & Gamble alleging their Tampax Pearl tampons contained unsafe amounts of lead that caused kidney damage, high blood pressure and reproductive problems.

A separate lawsuit, filed in November 2025, alleged Tampax Pearl tampons contain harmful amounts of lead that can enter the bloodstream and reproductive tissue and cause side effects like hypertension, reproductive harm and cognitive side effects.

In addition, a class action lawsuit filed earlier this year raised allegations that some Tampax brand tampons contain unsafe levels of heavy metals, which pose risks of neurological damage, reproductive harm and cardiovascular disease among women.

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

A Chicago woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Olympus Corporation, blaming design problems with the company’s endoscopic devices for causing an infection after a colonoscopy, which left her with permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Denise Hopkins in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 9, naming Olympus and several of its subsidiaries as defendants.

Hopkins alleges that the colonoscope used during a medical procedure she underwent led to a Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection due to a defective design that makes cleaning infectious material between procedures difficult.

Olympus Endoscope Problems

Endoscopes and related medical scopes, such as duodenoscopes and colonoscopes are used during procedures including ERCP, colonoscopy, upper endoscopy and bronchoscopy. The devices contain small cameras, lights, long narrow channels and moving parts, allowing doctors to examine internal organs, make medical diagnoses and perform certain procedures without the need for surgery.

Overall, estimates indicate there are 22 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the U.S. every year. That includes about 15 to 19 million colonoscopies, a significant portion of the world’s 50 million annual colonoscopy procedures.

Because the devices are often used on multiple patients, they must be thoroughly sterilized between each procedure. If not cleaned properly, bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other debris may remain trapped inside the scopes, especially in narrow channels or damaged areas that are difficult to inspect, allowing infections to pass from one patient to another.

Due to these problems, a growing number of Olympus colonoscopy infection lawsuits are now being filed in courts nationwide, each raising similar allegations that the company’s endoscope devices are poorly designed, putting consumers at risk of serious and potentially life-threatening infections.

Colonoscopy Infection Allegations

According to this new complaint, Hopkins underwent a colonoscopy with an Olympus CF-HQ190L colonoscope on August 8, 2024, and began experiencing loose stools after the procedure. By late August, she allegedly developed liquid diarrhea, severe abdominal cramping and bright red blood in her stool.

Hopkins went to the emergency room on August 31 and returned on September 3 after being referred by her primary care physician. She was hospitalized for 10 days and diagnosed with C. diff for the first time.

Doctors initially treated her with vancomycin before switching her to fidaxomicin. However, she was diagnosed with C. diff again in October 2024 and required additional medication.

C. diff is a bacterial infection that can cause severe diarrhea and inflammation of the colon. Although it frequently affects patients following healthcare exposure or antibiotic use, Hopkins alleges her infection was caused by contamination remaining inside the reusable Olympus colonoscope.

She claims she continues to suffer recurring infections, chronic fatigue, medical expenses and fear of undergoing future endoscopic procedures.

“Defendants’ Endoscope Device is defective because, among other defects, medical providers were not able to safely and effectively sanitize and clean the Endoscope Device even if the providers strictly complied with Defendants’ reprocessing instructions contained in the Product Labeling.”

–  Denise Hopkins v. Olympus Corporation et al.

The lawsuit alleges Olympus failed to develop and validate a reprocessing protocol capable of reliably cleaning its colonoscopes. The lawsuit also alleges repeated use and reprocessing may cause internal components to crack or deteriorate, including lenses, channel linings and adhesives. Scratches, channel shredding and other damage may create hidden areas where bacteria and biofilm can accumulate beyond the reach of chemical disinfectants.

She cites an FDA-ordered human-factors study in which healthcare workers failed to successfully complete numerous critical reprocessing steps. The complaint alleges the study ultimately found Olympus’s instructions were not sufficient to consistently ensure compliance with important cleaning, disinfection, rinsing and storage procedures. A separate postmarket study allegedly found no contamination in only 34.8% of sampled endoscopes.

Hopkins presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Olympus Endoscope Lawsuits

Endoscopes by Olympus and other manufacturers, like Fujifilm, have been plagued by sterilization problems for years. In 2014 and 2015, duodenoscopes used during ERCP procedures were linked to an outbreak of an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection known as carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales (CRE).

Data also linked those infections to a failure to properly clean the devices. They contained a movable “elevator” at the tip, which contained cracks and crevices where pathogens, blood and tissue persisted even after the manufacturers’ sterilization and cleaning instructions were followed.

In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a duodenoscope warning, indicating manufacturers had failed to conduct the proper post-marketing surveillance to ensure the devices were as safe in real-world use as they had been during clinical trials.

During the next year, the industry began to move toward disposable elevator tips. However, the latest lawsuits suggest the problems have not yet been resolved.

Contaminated endoscope attorneys are currently investigating potential lawsuits for those who developed infections after undergoing a medical procedure with a reusable surgical scope, including:

To determine whether you or a family member may qualify for a surgical scope product liability lawsuit, submit your information for a free case evaluation. An attorney can review your situation, explain your legal rights and determine whether you may be eligible to pursue compensation.

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

A woman has filed a SmartPort catheter lawsuit alleging defects in an AngioDynamics implantable port-a-cath required doctors to surgically remove the device after she suffered from recurrent bloodstream infections and a severe arm infection.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Dana M. Brasher in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 7, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Brasher claims the AngioDynamics SmartPort CT device was defectively designed and manufactured, allowing bacteria, blood products and other materials to accumulate on the surface of the catheter and increase the risk of serious infections.

SmartPort Catheter Infection Risks

Implantable port catheters are devices placed beneath the skin to provide ongoing access to the bloodstream for chemotherapy, medications, blood products and other intravenous treatments. Systems such as the AngioDynamics SmartPort, Vortex Port and Xcela generally consist of a small reservoir connected to a flexible catheter that delivers fluids directly into a vein.

However, AngioDynamics and other port catheter manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, have faced mounting product liability claims in recent years involving infections, blood clots, catheter fractures and other serious complications. Plaintiffs allege defects in the materials and design of certain devices can cause catheter surfaces to deteriorate, allowing bacteria and blood products to accumulate and increasing the risk of dangerous medical problems.

As a result, patients nationwide have filed a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits, alleging the company knew its devices were prone to failure but continued selling them without adequately warning patients or the medical community about the risks.

SmartPort Catheter Lawsuit

According to Brasher’s lawsuit, doctors implanted her with an AngioDynamics SmartPort CT in February 2023 to provide long-term vascular access for medical treatment.

In the months that followed, Brasher allegedly developed recurrent bloodstream infections, as well as a severe infection and abscess in her arm.

The complications ultimately required hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics and additional medical treatment. Doctors surgically removed the SmartPort in September 2023, about seven months after it was implanted.

Brasher claims defects in the SmartPort catheter allowed bacteria and biofilm to accumulate on the device, causing the infections and other complications.

The lawsuit alleges AngioDynamics used barium sulfate in the catheter material to make the device visible on medical imaging. However, Brasher maintains the material can degrade over time and create microscopic cracks, fissures and other surface irregularities that provide locations for bacteria and biofilm to collect.

The complaint indicates the manufacturers knew or should have known the SmartPort posed an increased risk of infections and other complications but failed to adequately warn patients and doctors.

Brasher also alleges safer alternative designs and materials were available that could have reduced the risk of catheter degradation, bacterial accumulation and infection.

“At all times relevant to this action, Defendants knew and had reason to know, that the SmartPort was not safe for the patients for whom they were prescribed and implanted, because once implanted the device was prone to fracturing, migrating, perforating internal vasculature and otherwise malfunctioning.”

— Dana M. Brasher v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of negligence, strict liability—failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violation of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act. It seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost income and other losses.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

The case is among hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits consolidated before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where the parties are conducting coordinated discovery and addressing common pretrial issues involving allegations that the company sold defectively designed implantable ports.

As the litigation moves forward, a limited number of representative claims are expected to be selected for bellwether trials. Although the verdicts will not determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they may provide insight into how juries view recurring evidence and allegations, potentially influencing future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations.

Thousands of similar Bard PowerPort lawsuits are also pending in a separate multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those claims allege design and manufacturing problems make the devices prone to fractures, blood clots, infections and other potentially serious complications.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended in May with mixed results. Jurors rejected the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn and consumer fraud allegations but failed to reach a unanimous decision on design defect claims. The plaintiff later requested a new trial, maintaining that improper jury instructions affected the outcome.

Additional bellwether trials are scheduled through early 2027. If the proceedings do not lead to settlements or another resolution, individual claims could eventually be sent back to federal courts throughout the country for separate trials.

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

An Alabama woman has filled a lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burns when an Instant Pot pressure cooker opened while still pressurized, ejecting scalding contents at her.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Alexis Williams in the U.S. District Court of Illinois on July 9, naming IB Appliances US Holdings LLC, doing business as Instant Pot Brands, Instant Brands LLC, Corelle Brands LLC and Instant Brands Inc. as defendants.

Williams alleges Instant Pot Brands knew about the defect in its products’ safety features, yet failed to issue a recall and continued to sell the devices. She claims the company chose to put profits over customer safety.

Instant Pot Safety Risks

The Instant Pot Duo Nova 60 used by Williams is one of many electric pressure cookers designed to cook food rapidly by trapping steam and building pressure inside a sealed cooking chamber. Because the contents may reach extremely high temperatures, these appliances rely on multiple safety mechanisms intended to prevent the lid from being opened until the internal pressure has been safely released.

Instant Pot advertised the Duo Nova as having 11 built-in safety features, including protections designed to regulate pressure, control temperature and keep the lid locked while the cooker remains pressurized. However, lawsuits involving electric pressure cookers increasingly allege that these safeguards may malfunction, allowing consumers to rotate or remove the lid while dangerous pressure remains inside.

When a pressurized lid opens unexpectedly, superheated steam, liquid and food may erupt from the appliance with substantial force. Consumers have reported suffering severe burns to the face, chest, arms and hands, sometimes requiring hospitalization, skin grafts or other extensive medical treatment.

Reports of pressure cooker safety failures have also led to recalls and warnings involving various models sold in the United States. As a result, pressure cooker defect lawsuits have been filed against a number of major manufacturers and brands, including Instant Pot, Ninja Foodi, Crock-Pot and others. These claims commonly allege that defective lid-locking systems, pressure-release components or inadequate warnings exposed consumers to preventable burn injuries.

Instant Pot Defect Allegations

Williams’ lawsuit alleges the Instant Pot Duo Nova 60 suffers a defect in the safety features that allows for the lid to open during pressurization, when it should not.

On August 3, 2023, Williams was using the Instant Pot when the lid suddenly and unexpectedly blew off the pot. When this occurred, the pot appeared as if the pressure had already been released, but it had not. The scalding contents caused Williams to suffer severe burns.

Williams alleges Instant Pot made representations about the safety of the devices that were misleading and put consumers at risk. The company advertises ”11 safety mechanisms” of the pressure cookers, emphasizing the devices cannot be opened while pressurized.

The lawsuit argues that Instant Pot knew or should have known about the problem but chose to ignore it and concealed knowledge of the defects. She claims the company’s advertising misleads customers into believing the device is reasonably safe when used normally, but that is not the case. As a result, Williams alleges the company is putting profits over human life.

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

— Alexis Williams v. IB Appliances US Holdings LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Williams is seeking compensation for damages for bodily injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life.

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

Boston Scientific faces a product liability lawsuit filed by a Louisiana woman who says that, instead of alleviating her pain, the manufacturer’s WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator caused her to suffer burning sensations and electric shocks, resulting in neurological injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Bridgette Venturi in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 10. In addition to Boston Scientific, the lawsuit notes that other individuals and corporations may be added in the future as more information about the manufacturing process becomes available.

Venturi’s complaint joins a growing number of lawsuits, each alleging spinal cord stimulator sales representatives adjusted device settings without a doctor present, while manufacturers relied on aggressive sales personnel to perform programming or treatment-related tasks that should have been handled by licensed medical professionals.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are surgical implants placed along the spine to treat chronic pain. The devices use implanted electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator, known as an IPG, to deliver electrical stimulation intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. Patients typically use an external remote control to adjust the level of stimulation.

In recent years, spinal cord stimulators made by several manufacturers have drawn concern following reports of device failures and serious complications, sometimes requiring additional surgery only months after implantation. Reported problems include battery failures, unexpected shutdowns, electric shocks, burning sensations, worsening pain, neurological injuries and leads that migrate out of position or push through the skin.

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits allege manufacturers sold defective devices and failed to adequately warn patients and doctors about the potential risks. The claims seek compensation for medical expenses, revision or removal surgery, lost income, pain and suffering, permanent injuries and other damages caused by spinal cord stimulator complications.

WaveWriter Alpha Injury Allegations

Following a posterior fusion surgery, Venturi began suffering chronic pain that did not resolve, resulting in her receiving a WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator in October 2024. The procedure followed a trial period with a temporary device. She received the device just months after Boston Scientific issued an urgent medical advisory about problems with the spinal cord stimulator.

About seven months after implantation, Venturi indicates she began suffering severe burning and sharp electric shocks, which she could feel radiating from the pulse generator battery through her lower extremities. She also began experiencing dizziness and fainting several times per week, requiring her to avoid driving or other strenuous activities.

Additionally, she indicates that the WaveWriter Alpha did all of that without alleviating the very pain it was designed to treat. The lawsuit notes that the device often reset or experienced unexpected surges during routine system checks.

“These symptoms are consistent with moisture ingress into the sealed IPG enclosure, causing electrical shorts and unintended stimulation, as described herein and in Boston Scientific’s July 2024 urgent medical advisory.”

– Bridgette Venturi v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

Furthermore, Venturi’s complaint alleges Boston Scientific representatives were involved before, during and after implantation, including programming and adjusting the WaveWriter Alpha during follow-up visits. The lawsuit maintains that the company’s representatives went beyond providing technical support by supervising the device, influencing treatment decisions and making programming changes without adequate medical oversight.

More broadly, the complaint claims Boston Scientific failed to properly train and supervise its representatives or ensure that medical decisions remained with licensed healthcare providers. Venturi alleges this unauthorized involvement allowed representatives to continue recommending device adjustments while her symptoms persisted, delaying consideration of removal or other medical treatment.

Her lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict product liability, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violations of Massachusetts Business Practices for Consumers Protection Act, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Venturi’s complaint will be consolidated with other Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which have been centralized in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Staton is expected to order the parties to prepare several representative cases for eventual early test trials. These “bellwether” trials are designed to give attorneys for both sides a preview of how juries are likely to process evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout most of the litigation.

The Boston Scientific bellwether trials could also be a guide for future spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which several other manufacturers also face, including Abbott Laboratories and Nevro.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers are currently investigating claims for individuals who received an Abbott, Boston Scientific, Nevro or Medtronic SCS and suffered any of the following injuries:

To find out whether you or a loved one may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information to receive a free case review by a lawyer. All 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 new study adds to the evidence linking Depo-Provera to brain tumor growth, while raising concerns that similar risks may be associated with other hormonal birth control methods, including the Mirena IUD.

Researchers from Denmark published a study in JAMA Network Open on July 2, indicating they found evidence of increased risk of intracranial meningiomas associated with numerous kinds of birth control methods, including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs) and Depo-Provera shots. They also found similar risks with some hormone therapy products.

The common thread between all of the products was the hormone progesterone, which increased the risk of intracranial meningioma by 60% across the board.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Risks

Depo-Provera is a birth control injection that contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, which is a synthetic form of progesterone. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992, and is marketed as a long-term and safe birth control method that only requires an injection every three months. It has been used by tens of millions of women worldwide.

Findings from the latest study appear to support allegations raised in a growing number of Depo-Provera lawsuits filed by women who developed meningioma brain tumors. The complaints maintain that meningioma cells are particularly sensitive to progesterone because they contain numerous hormone receptors that may promote tumor growth.

The first wave of claims followed a 2024 study published in The BMJ, which found that prolonged Depo-Provera use was associated with a more than five-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma. Those lawsuits, along with the thousands filed since, allege the tumors may require complex brain surgery and lifelong medical monitoring because they can recur after removal or continue growing when they cannot be safely removed.

Birth Control Brain Tumor Study

In the new study, researchers with the Danish Medicines Agency conducted a 25-year nationwide case-control study across the country of Denmark from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2024, using data from the national registry. The researchers identified cases of meningioma and matched them with control cases with a similar age, birthplace and marital status, looking to see who used progesterone products and who did not.

The researchers found a total of 1,473 incidents of women diagnosed with intracranial meningioma, and matched them against 14,717 controls. According to their findings, the odds of a brain tumor increased 61% when the woman used any progesterone.

The data indicated that Depo-Provera injections increased the risk of brain tumors by four and a half times, which was easily the highest odds ratio found. However, smaller increases were seen with birth control pills containing drospirenone, like Yaz and Yasmin, progesterone-only pills like Slynd, and the Mirena IUD, the latter of which was linked to a 58% increased brain tumor risk.

“Medroxyprogesterone showed the highest risk with relatively low numbers needed to harm, whereas all combined oral contraceptives, oral progestogen-only contraceptives, and IUDs had relatively high numbers needed to harm, especially among the youngest women. However, the present study suggests an increased risk of meningioma for several progestogens not previously associated with meningioma.”

– Dr. Charlotte Wessel Skovlund, Data Analytics, Danish Medicines Agency

In addition, the researchers also found a 66% increased risk with cyproterone, which is a hormone therapy drug and not a contraceptive. They noted that there has been very little data collected on hormone therapy drugs and brain tumor risks.

According to the data, those risks generally disappeared after five years of discontinuation across progesterone products.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Settlement

The findings emerged just after Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC and representatives of about 5,500 women announced they had reached a global Depo-Provera lawsuit settlement agreement last month.

The terms of the settlement have not yet been released, and the parties indicate not all of those details have yet been finalized. However, U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who is overseeing the consolidated Depo-Provera Lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida, has vacated all trial and pretrial deadlines for the first of five representative cases that were being prepared for bellwether trials.

Those trials, which were meant to give the parties an opportunity to see how juries responded to evidence and testimony common throughout the litigation, do not appear to be necessary at this point.

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

The son of an Ohio woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a hospital that allegedly gave his mother high doses of an antibiotic that they should have known was toxic for her, resulting in a fatal cardiac arrest.

The complaint (PDF) was brought on July 6 in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio, by Brad Howington, representing himself and the estate of his mother, Dixie McDonald. The lawsuit names Mercy Health – West Hospital LLC, as the defendant.

Howington claims his mother was repeatedly given doses of cefepime that exceeded recommendations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He argues this medical malpractice contributed to McDonald’s death at the hospital on July 6, 2024.

Cefepime Health Concerns

Cefepime, also known by the brand name Maxipime, is a cephalosporin antibiotic given intravenously for the treatment of severe infections, including infections of the skin, lungs, stomach and blood. First approved in 1996, the brand name version has been discontinued in the U.S. However, the drug is still regularly used in its generic cefepime form.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that Maxipime poses an increased risk of seizures. This risk was linked to a particular type of seizure known as nonconvulsive status epilepticus.

A 2023 study also linked the antibiotic to an increased risk of neurological disruption, including convulsions, agitation and delirium. Researchers suggested the neurological dysfunction risks may be a result of Maxipime crossing the blood-brain barrier, which could lead to neurotoxicity and increase the risk of outcomes such as delirium, coma and seizures.

Cefepime Death Allegations

According to Howington’s lawsuit, McDonald was first admitted to Mercy West on June 11, 2024, where she was diagnosed with bilateral pulmonary emboli. Doctors performed a thrombectomy and discharged her on June 14.

Three days later she was back in the hospital due to shortness of breath. She was diagnosed with a heart attack and multifocal pneumonia and was given 2,000 mg of cefepime every 12 hours.

The medical malpractice lawsuit argues that this was a mistake. McDonald’s medical chart indicated that she has stage 3b chronic kidney disease. According to the drug’s label, her kidney function levels required a reduced dose of 1,000 mg every 24 hours, meaning McDonald was being given eight times the FDA-recommended dose.

Howington indicates that multiple safeguards were triggered which the healthcare providers ignored. This included warnings from the hospital’s electronic records system, which issued a Best Practice Advisory, specifically warning that the dose was inappropriate for McDonald’s liver function. The lawsuit alleges a healthcare provider, whose identity is currently unknown, overrode the advisory.

On June 21, healthcare providers were given three separate warnings about the potential for a cefepime overdose, including a nurse, a pharmacist and a nephrologist.

“The nephrology consulting service documented that Decedent was exhibiting myoclonus (involuntary muscle jerking), a known sign of cefepime neurotoxicity, and recommended switching to a different antibiotic.”

– Brad Howington v. Mercy Health – West Hospital LLC

Hospital staff continued to give McDonald high doses of cefepime for three more days, which the lawsuit indicates led to progressive encephalopathy, a sign of cefepime neurotoxicity. McDonald was unable to follow commands or speak, showed signs of rigidity, dorsiflexion of the feet, moaning and crying. This led to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure being canceled due to her inability to communicate.

By June 24, the consulting service identified cefepime as the cause of McDonald’s encephalopathy and she was discontinued from the drug. The lawsuit states that her mental status then improved.

Infectious disease experts indicated that McDonald had completed her antibiotic course by July 5. However, that afternoon an unidentified worker gave her a 2,000 mg dose of cefepime, followed by 1,000 mg every 12 hours.

On July 6, McDonald was found unresponsive, having died of cardiac arrest. The lawsuit notes that the drug was infusing into her at the time of death.

Howington presents claims of wrongful death, fraudulent concealment and survival action. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his mother’s death.

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

On Monday, a Massachusetts jury will hear opening arguments in the first bellwether trial over claims that Covidien hernia mesh products are defectively designed, putting patients at risk of severe complications and the need for revision surgery.

The Medtronic subsidiary currently faces more than 2,400 hernia mesh lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide, each alleging the various hernia mesh products resulted in chronic pain, infections, adhesions, recurring hernias and the need for revision surgery.

All federal claims have been consolidated in the District of Massachusetts since June 2022, where they are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, who has guided the litigation through pretrial proceedings and coordinated discovery.

Judge Saris has implemented a “bellwether” trial plan, directing lawyers from both sides to prepare a series of cases that are representative of the litigation as a whole for early test trials. This will give attorneys a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony expected to be common throughout the litigation.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Bellwether Trial

On July 13, claims brought by Larry Patterson of Alabama will be presented to a jury in the first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial. According to his lawsuit, Patterson was implanted with a Covidien Symbotex hernia mesh in 2017 and alleges that the mesh’s defective design was responsible for him suffering adhesions, bowel obstruction and a recurrent hernia.

The Symbotex mesh is constructed from a non-absorbable polyester textile with an absorbable porcine collagen coating, which is intended to reduce tissue attachment if the mesh contacts organs or tissue in the abdomen. The lawsuit claims that the collagen coating failed, degrading too quickly after surgery, exposing his bowels to the polyester mesh underneath.

Patterson required additional surgery in July 2020, at which time doctors surgically removed the mesh. They also had to correct the recurring hernia the mesh was supposed to fix and resectioned part of his bowels.

Known as a cross-linked mesh due to its mixture of pig collagen and polyester, the Symbotex is designed to chemically link the proteins in the tissues together. However, many plaintiffs argue that meshes using crosslink designs have been linked to an increased risk of foreign body responses.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

While the Patterson trial’s outcome will not be binding on other hernia mesh lawsuits, the results will be closely watched to see how the jury weighs the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s evidence and arguments. It will also be watched to see whether the jury finds the manufacturer liable and what kind of damages awards, if any, are given to plaintiffs.

The results could influence future settlement negotiations between Covidien and plaintiffs’ lawyers, potentially leading to an agreement that resolves large numbers of hernia mesh lawsuits without requiring thousands of costly and time-consuming trials.

However, if the bellwether trials end without any settlement or other resolution, Judge Saris is expected to begin remanding the cases back to the U.S. District Courts where they were originally filed to be prepared for individual trial dates.

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

A mother has filed a product liability lawsuit seeking damages for severe burn injuries her child suffered when the family was using a tabletop fire pit that erupted in flames while being refueled.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Nancy Ortega on behalf of her minor child, L.C., in Florida Circuit Court on April 17, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC as the defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 7.

Ortega claims Amazon and the manufacturers and sellers of the fire pit placed an unreasonably dangerous product on the market without adequate warnings about the risk of serious burn injuries.

Defective Fire Pit Burn Risks

Tabletop fire pits have become increasingly popular in recent years as decorative products for indoor and outdoor use. The devices generally burn liquid or gel fuels, often containing alcohol, to produce an open flame.

However, design problems or inadequate safety features can allow flammable vapors to accumulate and ignite unexpectedly, causing flash fires, flame jetting or explosions that may result in severe or even fatal tabletop fire pit burn injuries.

As safety concerns have grown, a number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits have been filed alleging certain products contain dangerous design defects, fail to comply with applicable safety standards and lack adequate warnings about the risk of serious burn injuries.

Tabletop Fire Pit Burn Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, L.C. was seriously burned on April 23, 2023, when a Takekit tabletop fire pit purchased through Amazon was being used in an ordinary and foreseeable manner.

The filing indicates that while the fire pit was being refilled with liquid fuel, it allegedly malfunctioned and erupted in a flame-jetting event, which engulfed L.C. in the fire.

As a result, the child suffered severe and permanent injuries, including scarring, disability, mental anguish and loss of the ability to enjoy life. The injuries have also required hospitalization, medical treatment and nursing care that may continue in the future.

Ortega alleges the fire pit was especially hazardous around children because it exposed users to an open flame at table height and lacked adequate safeguards against spills, instability and flame jetting.

The complaint claims safer alternative designs were available, including systems that avoided pooled liquid fuel, provided greater shielding and separation from the flame, and reduced the risk of tipping or accidental contact.

“Since this incident, the minor Plaintiff L.C. has continued to suffer from injuries caused by the subject Fire Pit, including but not limited to significant and permanent scarring, disfigurement, pain, and mobility impairments.”

— Nancy Ortega v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

Ortega raises allegations of strict liability—design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn and negligent sale and distribution of a defective product. She seeks damages for her child’s injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering and other losses.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

As incidents like the one affecting L.C. continue to be reported nationwide, lawyers are reviewing potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits for individuals who suffered injuries from sudden flare-ups, flashback flames and dangerous “flame jetting” events linked to these devices.

Potential injuries may include:

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

Individuals injured by a tabletop fire pit may request a free case evaluation with a tabletop fire pit burn injury lawyer, who can investigate the product involved, determine whether defects or recalls may have contributed to the incident and explain the legal options that may be available.

Attorneys pursuing these claims work on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront legal costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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

Meta has asked a federal judge to reject a calculation proposed by several states, which could expose the company to $1.4 trillion in civil penalties for allegedly designing its social media platforms to foster addiction among children, resulting in serious mental health side effects.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is among several major social media companies facing about 3,000 lawsuits over the alleged impact of their platforms on teens and young adults. The claims have been filed by young users and their families, school districts seeking to recover costs associated with student mental health and behavioral problems, and state attorneys general alleging the companies violated consumer protection laws.

The social media addiction lawsuits allege Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat and other companies intentionally incorporated algorithms, notifications, endless scrolling and other features designed to keep young users repeatedly returning to their apps.

Plaintiffs claim these addictive design features contributed to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, declining academic performance, behavioral problems, self-harm and suicide, while the companies failed to adequately warn parents and users about the risks.

All federal social media addiction lawsuits are consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, where U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is shepherding the cases through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rogers has initiated a plan to hold early “bellwether” trials designed to give the parties a chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. However, because there are primarily three types of plaintiffs, including individuals, school districts and states, there are various laws and factors that may apply to one type of social media addiction lawsuit and not the others.

States Seek $1.4 Trillion in Fines

The state lawsuits allege social media companies’ addictive designs and algorithms cost them millions in additional school funding and other expenses to address the mental health effects on their citizens.

On July 6, Meta submitted a request (PDF) to Judge Rogers, indicating that the states of California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Mexico have asked the company to pay $1.4 trillion in civil fines due to harms caused to youth by its Instagram and Facebook sites. The company’s submission to the court calls for Judge Rogers to reject the premise for the fines, arguing that they must be based on “wrongful conduct,” which Meta says is not what the states are asserting.

“They instead seek over one trillion dollars in penalties and disgorgement based on calculations that sweep in, and double count, every single teen who uses Meta’s platforms, and every single month in which a teen uses Meta’s platforms for more than a half-hour.”

– Meta Platforms Inc.

Meta argues that the proposed amount has no basis in fact or law, and is asking Judge Rogers to strike the states’ penalty calculations from the case. The company called for the Court to “exclusively hear and decide issues relating to the award of monetary relief in this case.”

Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Trials

Meta’s request comes ahead of an August 12 trial involving claims brought by four states. However, the proceeding will differ from the traditional jury trials expected in other social media addiction lawsuits.

Judge Rogers has ruled that the states are not entitled to have a jury issue a binding verdict on their claims. Instead, an advisory jury will hear the evidence and recommend how the case should be decided. The judge may consider that recommendation but will ultimately determine the outcome based on the applicable law.

Other cases in the federal litigation are being prepared as traditional bellwether trials, where juries will decide whether the social media companies are liable and, if so, how much compensation should be awarded. The first of those trials was expected to begin last month but was canceled after Meta reached a settlement with the Breathitt County School District. The terms of that agreement have not been disclosed.

The next federal bellwether trial involving a traditional jury is scheduled to begin February 8.

Social media addiction cases are also advancing in state courts, where some juries have already returned substantial verdicts. In March, a California jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million to a woman who alleged she developed anxiety and depression after becoming addicted to social media as a minor. Days earlier, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay the state $375 million after finding the company liable for contributing to teen social media addiction and related mental health problems.

The outcomes of these early trials do not determine how other lawsuits will be resolved. However, they may provide both sides with important insight into how judges and juries respond to the evidence, legal arguments and alleged harms, potentially influencing future trial strategies and settlement negotiations.

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

Two California residents have filed a class action lawsuit alleging Crest Pro-Health toothpaste caused pain and discomfort to their teeth and mouth because it contains sodium laurel sulfate, an ingredient they argue is not safe for human health.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Sherrie Oliver and Michael Testone in the U.S. Southern District Court of California on July 2, naming Crest’s manufacturer, Procter & Gamble Co., as the defendant.

Sodium laurel sulfate (SLS) is a detergent and irritant often used in consumer cosmetic products. Research has shown it can damage the cells of the mouth, cause epithelial sloughing, disrupt the oral microbiome, cause allergic reactions, trigger inflammation and inhibit wound healing, even in low concentrations.

The lawsuit alleges SLS is a key ingredient of P&G’s Crest Pro-Health toothpaste and causes harm to oral health, which goes directly against marketing claims made by P&G about the product.

Crest Pro-Health Toothpaste Allegations

The lawsuit indicates Oliver began regularly purchasing Crest Pro-Health Gum Detoxify Plus in 2023 and continued to use it through 2025. She experienced pain, discomfort and sensitivity in her teeth and gums for an extended period of time.

Testone states he began purchasing Crest Pro-Health in 2018 and used it until February 2026. The lawsuit claims neither he nor Oliver were familiar with the SLS ingredient and would have purchased a different product if they had known about the side effects. As a result, the plaintiffs and members of the class encompassed by the lawsuit allegedly lost money because of P&G’s deceptive claims about the product.

P&G claims the Crest Pro-Health brand products deliver improved gum health and treat gingivitis. Marketing and product packaging includes claims like: “Gum protection” and “Promotes healing and helps gums return to a healthier condition fast.”

Although marketing represents the products as healthy for the mouth and teeth, the complaint alleges P&G concealed facts about their products and deceptively omitted information about harm to human health. Oliver and Testone argue the company was in a position to know the truth about the dangers of SLS use in Crest. However, it failed to disclose that to consumers.

The complaint notes there were other viable toothpaste alternatives that did not contain SLS or other irritating properties. Instead, research indicates the more SLS used, the more damage can occur to mouth cells, which could lead to more canker sores and inhibit the healing process.

Plaintiffs argue that consumers reasonably expected the toothpaste to not contain ingredients that scientific research shows can be harmful, injure mouth cells and impair wound healing.

“P&G is under a duty to disclose this information to consumers because (a) P&G is revealing some information about its products—enough to suggest they promote oral and gum health—without revealing additional material information, (b) P&G’s deceptive omissions concern human health, and specifically the detrimental health consequences of regularly using the Products, (c) P&G was in a superior position to know of the dangers presented by the SLS in its Products, and (d) P&G actively concealed material facts not known to Plaintiffs and other Class Members.”

— Sherrie Oliver et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of the Unfair Competition law, violations of the False Advertising Law, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranties and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Oliver and Testone are asking for the court to certify the class action, order P&G to bear the cost of the class notice, destroy misleading and deceptive advertising materials and product labels, recall all offending products, disgorge revenue and profits linked to unlawful practices and pay restitution and compensation for pain and suffering, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

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

The makers of the opioid addiction treatment Suboxone face 17,911 lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide who say the film strips have caused severe dental damage, as attorneys continue to parse through a pool of potential test cases that will be prepared for early trial dates to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Each of the lawsuits involve similar claims that users were not adequately warned about the risk of dental decay from Suboxone film strips, which have been widely prescribed to reduce cravings and ease withdrawal symptoms among opioid addicts. The drug was first approved in tablet form in 2002, before later being reformulated as a dissolvable film strip placed under the tongue.

Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, began facing a growing number of dental erosion lawsuits after reports linked the sublingual film strips to severe tooth decay, tooth loss, disfigurement and extensive dental work. By June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Suboxone tooth decay warning after receiving hundreds of reports involving dental problems and required updated label warnings.

Plaintiffs allege those warnings should have appeared on Suboxone packaging from the start, with lawsuits claiming Indivior knew, or should have known, about the risk of serious dental damage, but withheld the information from users and the medical community.

Common questions of fact and law run through all of the federal Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits, which led to their centralization as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Calabrese previously directed the parties to prepare a group of representative cases for a series of bellwether trials, which are designed to give them an opportunity to observe how juries respond and evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of their claims, potentially promoting settlement negotiations.

On June 26, the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Committee (PLC), a group of attorneys appointed to represent the common interests of individuals pursuing Suboxone tooth damage claims, submitted a census report (PDF) to update Judge Calabrese on the size of the litigation. According to the report, 17,911 federal Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits had been served against Indivior and consolidated in the MDL as of the close of business on June 25.

However, that figure does not necessarily reflect the total number of individual plaintiffs pursuing claims. A number of the lawsuits have been filed as multi-plaintiff complaints, with some naming dozens of individuals, and in some cases up to 100 plaintiffs, in a single filing. While those complaints may appear on the docket as one lawsuit, each named plaintiff is pursuing an individual claim based on their own Suboxone use and dental injuries.

The total also includes a group of claims known as the “Schedule A” list, which consists of thousands of abbreviated complaints allowed by Judge Calabrese before the two-year anniversary of the FDA’s warning label requirement in June 2024, which may have served as the statute of limitations deadline in many states.

Those abbreviated filings lacked key details, such as injury data, medical records and product use history. However, the Schedule A process allowed claims to be filed before state deadlines while lawyers continued working to secure supporting documentation.

Last month, Judge Calabrese called for those claims to be quickly incorporated into the main body of lawsuits. Originally including more than 9,600 Suboxone claims, the latest census report indicates that only 4,854 remain on the Schedule A list.

Suboxone Dental Erosion Bellwether Lawsuits

Judge Calabrese has been directing the parties to prepare a group of representative Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits to serve as potential bellwether trials.

He originally designated 500 Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits as part of a Records Collection Pool in May 2025. That pool has been slowly whittled down over the last year. For the next stage, the parties have been ordered to select 15 claims by July 13, 2026.

That group will be cut down to four final bellwether selections by June 11, 2027. However, the first Suboxone bellwether trial is not expected to go before a jury until March 2028.

While the outcomes of these early test trials are not binding on other cases, they are usually watched closely, as the results could factor into any Suboxone dental erosion lawsuit settlement agreement. If the bellwether trials end without such a settlement or other resolution to the litigation, Judge Calabrese would likely begin remanding them back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Kansas man has filed a lawsuit against Medtronic, alleging his CapSureFix pacemaker lead failed after nearly 13 years, and had become so embedded in scar tissue that doctors determined it could not be safely removed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Caleb Boone in Missouri Circuit Court on May 4, naming Medtronic Inc. as the sole defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 2.

Boone claims Medtronic knew its CapSureFix leads could prematurely fail and become permanently trapped inside patients’ bodies, yet failed to adequately warn doctors and consumers about the potential risks.

This problem can allegedly leave patients with malfunctioning pacemaker leads that cannot be removed without creating a substantial risk of catastrophic bleeding, cardiac injuries or death.

CapSureFix Pacemaker Lead Problems

Pacemaker leads are thin, insulated wires that connect an implanted cardiac device to the heart, allowing electrical impulses to help regulate a patient’s heartbeat.

Boone indicates he received a Medtronic pacemaker and two CapSureFix MRI leads during surgery at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 2, 2011.

The leads remained implanted when Boone’s original pacemaker was replaced with another Medtronic device in June 2022, at which time they were disconnected from the old device and connected to the replacement pacemaker.

However, Boone claims one of the CapSureFix leads was discovered to be defective and malfunctioning on April 1, 2024.

CapSureFix Lead Failure Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, doctors evaluated whether the failed lead could be removed during surgery on August 22, 2024. However, they determined it had become trapped by scar tissue and that attempting to extract it created an unacceptably high risk of catastrophic and potentially fatal bleeding.

As a result, the failed lead and existing pacemaker were left in place on the left side of Boone’s chest. The following day, doctors implanted another pacemaker and new leads on the right side of his chest.

Boone claims scar tissue can form around the leads over time, potentially requiring doctors to use specialized extraction equipment that carries a risk of coronary sinus tears, cardiac tamponade, catastrophic bleeding and emergency surgery.

Despite those risks, the lawsuit alleges Medtronic continued to market the CapSureFix leads without adequately warning doctors or patients about the potential for premature failure and serious extraction complications.

“Following implantation, the Capsurefix Lead remained in the Petitioner’s body for twelve years and eleven months, functioning as part of his CRT system. During this time, scar tissue formed around the lead—a natural biological response that Medtronic knew or should have known would make safe extraction increasingly difficult or impossible.”

— Caleb Boone v. Medtronic Inc.

Boone also claims Medtronic failed to adequately test the devices, properly investigate reports of extraction problems and update the product warnings as new safety information became available.

The filing maintains the problems with the Medtronic CapSureFix lead forced Boone to undergo unnecessary surgeries on both sides of his chest, resulting in physical injuries, pain, mental anguish and financial losses.

Several weeks after the procedures, Boone claims he fell while getting into a car and fractured his right hip.

The lawsuit alleges the fall was caused by muscle damage, reduced dexterity and impaired reflexes resulting from the additional surgeries required after the CapSureFix lead failed and could not be removed.

The complaint raises allegations of negligent manufacture, design and engineering, in addition to fraud. It seeks relief for pain, suffering, mental anguish and disfigurement in the amount of $50 million, as well as compensation for economic losses and other damages.

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

The findings of a new study warn that sports betting has become the primary gambling mechanism among young adults, with college-aged gamblers more likely to experience higher levels of stress, anxiety and depression than their peers.

Published in the July issue of the Custech International Journal of Education, the research surveyed 150 students at the University of Benin and found that nearly 40% reported gambling, with those students showing higher rates of mental health concerns.

These findings come amid increasing concerns over the impacts of sports betting worldwide, as online sportsbooks and polymarkets have exploded in popularity in recent years.

Sports Betting Addiction Concerns

In the U.S., sports betting became legal in 2019, following a Supreme Court opinion that allowed each state to decide for itself whether gambling on sports would be legal. As of this year, 39 states, plus Washington, D.C., allow legal sports betting, with 30 of those, and D.C., legalizing online sportsbooks. The remaining nine states only allow in-person wagering.

With the rise in legalization, online sports betting sites like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM have substantially grown in popularity. However, their expansion has been accompanied by mounting reports of gambling addiction, particularly among young, college-aged men.

Critics claim that the sites use 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. Instead of flagging potential problem gamblers and warning them of their pattern of activity, the sites are accused of using the data to exploit compulsive behavior, urging clearly addicted gamblers into making more frequent, and higher, wagers.

Research has consistently shown that young men are disproportionately affected by sports betting addiction, with losses often escalating quickly before parents, schools or others realize there is a problem. Many are away from home and learning to manage their finances for the first time. Additionally, they tend to be more comfortable making quick online transactions after growing up with mobile apps and digital payments.

A growing number of these young men, and other consumers, are now filing sports betting addiction lawsuits, claiming that the online sportsbooks are intentionally leading them into gambling addiction, causing self-destructive habits and social and financial harm for the sake of profits.

College Sports Betting Study

In the new study, Drs. Edith Omorionmwen Omogbai and Gloria Esiekpe Osagie-Obazee, of the University of Benin in Nigeria, conducted a survey of 150 randomly selected full-time undergraduate students.

According to the findings, the aggregate prevalence of gambling among the students was 39.33%, which researchers said was “moderately high.” Of those, 44% participated in sports betting, 25% participated in card games and 22% in dice games, in addition 16% played the lottery and 14% wagered on casino games.

The researchers noted that the findings mirror those of other recent studies which found similar sports betting rates. They note that many university students participate in sports and feel familiar enough with how certain sports work that they think it gives them an advantage in selecting wagers.

For those students who showed signs of gambling addiction, researchers found they suffered a significantly higher rate of mental health problems, including stress, emotional instability, depression-like symptoms and poor academic outcomes.

“(T)he study found a significant difference in the mental health outcomes between students who gamble and those who do not. This implies that gambling has a real effect on students’ psychological health, possibly making problems with stress, anxiety, and general mental health worse.”

– Drs. Edith Omorionmwen Omogbai and Gloria Esiekpe Osagie-Obazee, University of Benin

The researchers recommended educational institutions, particularly universities, add gambling awareness programs to their orientation programs. Additionally, they urged counselors to be given specialized training in identifying and addressing gambling addiction.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

The findings come as a growing number of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits are being filed in courts nationwide, highlighting how college sports betting addiction problems are causing devastating losses among young adults.

Each involves allegations that 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.

Sports betting addiction lawyers are currently reviewing claims for individuals across the U.S. who suffered 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.

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

A Nevada man has filed a lawsuit claiming a defective step ladder sold on Amazon failed, causing him to fall and suffer serious injuries that required hospitalization.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Robert Wright in Nevada District Court on May 23, naming Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on June 26.

Wright claims that a Rengue 6 Step Aluminum Folding Step Ladder sold on Amazon buckled, broke, bent or otherwise failed, resulting in injuries, hospitalization and surgery to place a rod in his femur and screws in his arm.

Amazon Ladder Collapse Risks

The lawsuit is one of several recent claims raising concerns about the safety of ladders sold through Amazon, with plaintiffs alleging that unstable or defectively designed products collapsed during normal use and caused serious injuries.

In May, a New York man filed a similar Amazon ladder collapse lawsuit, claiming that a LEVELEVE ladder sold through the website collapsed while he was using it, causing him to fall from a height of more than 18 feet.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Amazon sold defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous products and failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks.

Amazon Step Ladder Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Wright purchased a Rengue 6 Step Aluminum Folding Step Ladder through Amazon.com in May 2024. The ladder was allegedly marketed as being made with high-strength, high-quality materials and capable of supporting more than 330 pounds.

Wright, who weighed less than 300 pounds, claims he was using the ladder later that month when it failed as he was climbing down, causing him to fall and suffer serious injuries.

The lawsuit indicates Wright required surgery to place a rod in his femur and screws in his arm, was hospitalized for several days, and continues to experience pain and suffering. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $15,000.

Wright alleges Amazon continued selling Rengue products, including ladders, despite publicly representing that it monitors product safety on its platform and uses customer feedback to identify and address potentially dangerous items.

The complaint claims the ladder was defectively designed, manufactured and/or marketed, making it unsafe and unreasonably dangerous. It also alleges the product was sold with false, inadequate or misleading warnings, advertising and representations.

“Defendants, and each of them, had knowledge that people like Plaintiff would get seriously injured from falling during use, yet willfully and deliberately failed to engage in acts to avoid those consequences.“

— Robert Wright v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability, breach of warranty, negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention. 

It seeks general, special, compensatory and punitive damages, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

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

A group of plaintiffs who say they suffered injuries due to the defective design of Nevro spinal cord stimulators have asked a panel of judges to consolidate the litigation in one federal district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Nevro is just one of several manufacturers who make and distribute spinal cord stimulators, which are implantable devices used to treat chronic pain. They are composed of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin near the spinal cord. A remote control is used to adjust the stimulation settings. These implants are designed to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain in patients for whom other pain treatments have failed.

However, recent months have seen numerous lawsuits filed against manufacturers like Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, with recipients telling similar stories of electric shocks, burning sensations, pieces of the device migrating and protruding from the skin and total device failures.

Nevro is one of the four major manufacturers of the chronic pain treatment implants facing a steady stream of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. Those involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators have already been consolidated, and a request to do the same with lawsuits involving Abbott Laboratories devices is pending.

Each of the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed against the companies raise allegations that the devices are defectively designed and caused more injury and pain than they alleviated. Many of the claims also include allegations that company sales representatives participated in unlicensed medical procedures and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to adequately enforce medical device safety laws.

Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

The petition (PDF) was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on June 26, by a group of eight plaintiffs with pending Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. They argue that all of the cases involve common questions of fact and law that would benefit from centralization before one federal judge during the pretrial proceedings.

Such consolidation is common when there are multiple similar claims involving a specific product or class of very similar products. Plaintiffs indicate that, in this case, such consolidation will prevent duplication of discovery efforts and contradictory rulings by different judges.

According to the petition, there are 17 similar Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in six different jurisdictions, nine of which also include the FDA as a defendant. The motion calls for all of the lawsuits to be transferred to the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs also ask that the Nevro cases be assigned to U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, who is already overseeing the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL in the Central District of California. The motion argues that, although the JPML declined to create one industry-wide SCS MDL, a separate Nevro MDL before the same judge would promote efficiency because the cases involve overlapping expert issues, regulatory questions, preemption defenses, device-risk evidence and sales-and-marketing allegations. 

If the panel agrees to form a Nevro SCS lawsuit MDL, all cases would remain individual claims despite going through the pretrial procedures together. Unlike a Nevro spinal cord stimulator class action, each plaintiff is still required to prove that their injuries were caused by the spine implant.

Following consolidation, if the panel approves, it is likely that the judge appointed to oversee the litigation would set the cases on a path toward bellwether trials that would give the parties the chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

With the JPML already having consolidated Boston Scientific claims, it improves the chances of similar consolidation for other manufacturers. Spinal cord stimulator lawyers anticipate the litigation will continue to grow as they continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of complications including:

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

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

An insurance company has filed an Amazon heated socks lawsuit alleging a defective battery sold with electric heated clothing spontaneously combusted, causing a house fire that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by American Family Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on July 7, naming Amazon.com Inc. as the sole defendant.

The filing seeks to recover money American Family paid to a Wisconsin homeowner for fire damage allegedly caused by a defective battery pouch included with HokyoGin electric heated socks and gloves purchased through Amazon.

Heated Socks Battery Fire Risks

Heated socks, gloves, blankets and insoles are battery-powered products designed to provide warmth in cold weather or during outdoor activities. Many use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries connected to heating elements embedded in fabric or cushioning materials.

However, lithium-ion batteries can pose serious fire risks if they are defectively designed, improperly manufactured, damaged or sold without adequate safeguards. Problems involving the battery cells, wiring, charging components or temperature controls may cause the products to overheat, ignite or spontaneously combust, potentially resulting in house fires, property damage or severe burn injuries.

Lawsuits filed over heated products sold on Amazon have raised similar concerns involving battery-powered warming devices, including heated socks, heated blankets and heated insoles. The claims generally allege that consumers were exposed to fire and burn risks because the products were sold without adequate testing, quality controls or warnings.

When battery failures cause fires or direct contact with overheated products, consumers may suffer second- and third-degree burns, requiring surgical debridement or other treatment. As reports continue to emerge, heated insole lawsuits and other Amazon product liability claims are being pursued over allegations that dangerous warming devices were sold despite the risk of severe injuries and property damage.

Amazon Heated Socks Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Gordon Totten purchased HokyoGin electric heated socks and electric heated gloves through Amazon on October 24, 2021. Nearly two years later, on June 25, 2023, a battery pouch included with the products allegedly spontaneously combusted inside Totten’s West Bend, Wisconsin, home, starting a fire.

The lawsuit indicates the blaze caused extensive damage to the house and personal property. At the time of the fire, Totten’s home was insured by American Family, which paid for the losses under his homeowners insurance policy.

As a result, the insurer is pursuing the product liability lawsuit against Amazon through a process known as subrogation, which allows an insurance company to seek reimbursement from a party allegedly responsible for losses it paid on behalf of a policyholder.

The lawsuit alleges the battery contained a manufacturing defect that caused it to depart from its intended design and rendered the product unreasonably dangerous when used as expected.

American Family maintains the defect existed before the battery left the manufacturer’s control and that the product reached Totten without any substantial changes to its condition.

The complaint also seeks to hold Amazon responsible for the fire, alleging the online retailer was part of the battery’s chain of distribution because it sold and transferred the product to Totten in the ordinary course of business.

According to the lawsuit, the battery manufacturer is located outside the United States and has no domestic presence, making it unlikely that American Family could enforce a judgment against the company or its insurer.

“The battery pouch was, at the time Amazon sold it to Totten, in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use. Specifically, it contained a manufacturing defect. It departed from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the manufacture of the product.”

— American Family Insurance Company v. Amazon.com Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of product liability against Amazon and seeks more than $300,000 in damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief.

Heated Insole Injury Lawsuits

With reports of fires and burn injuries involving electric socks, heated insoles and other heated clothing devices continuing to increase, heated insole injury attorneys are investigating potential claims for consumers nationwide. The investigations involve allegations that battery-powered products overheated, caught fire or otherwise failed during normal use, resulting in serious injuries such as:

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

Heated footwear lawsuits seek to hold manufacturers and retailers, including online marketplaces like Amazon, responsible for allegedly selling dangerous products without adequate testing, safety features or warnings about the risk of serious injuries.

All claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs or attorney fees unless compensation is recovered.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over nearly 150 Taxotere watery eyes lawsuits has allowed the litigation to move closer to trial, rejecting Sanofi’s bid to have the claims dismissed.

Taxotere (docetaxel) is a Sanofi-Aventis medication approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In recent years, however, the manufacturer has been hit with dozens of product liability lawsuits alleging that side effects of the cancer drug can cause tear ducts to become blocked, causing debilitating and chronic watery eyes.

Taxotere Watery Eyes

The litigation emerged after a study was published in 2022, warning that Taxotere side effects can increase the risk of epiphora by a factor of seven, and can increase the risk of optic nerve damage.

Epiphora is a condition that causes excessive tears and watery eyes, often the result of a lacrimal obstruction. It can cause one to look like they are constantly crying or on the verge of tears. The condition is usually treated through medications or prescription eye drops. Other side effects can include eye pain, itchiness, red eyes, cloudy vision and sinus headaches.

That same year, Sanofi began to be hit by Taxotere lawsuits filed by users nationwide who say the manufacturer knew, or should have known, about the epiphora risks, but failed to warn patients or the medical community.

In March 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all federal Taxotere watery eyes lawsuits into an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, in the Eastern District of Louisiana before U.S. District Judge Triche Milazzo for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge is also expected to preside over a series of “bellwether” early test trials, which will put representative claims before juries to see how they process evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, Sanofi has tried more than once to have the cases dismissed. The manufacturer has argued that there were adequate label warnings on Taxotere, but Judge Milazzo has not found their arguments compelling.

Judge Milazzo rejected a motion to dismiss Taxotere epiphora lawsuits in 2022, which claimed the cases were preempted by federal law. In response to a more recent February 2025 motion to dismiss the claims, the judge issued an order (PDF) on June 25, again rejecting the manufacturer’s efforts to have the cases thrown out.

Sanofi’s motion for summary judgment claimed plaintiffs lack admissible expert evidence on the adequacy of the Taxotere label warnings. They also claim the labels should be considered adequate as a matter of law.

The judge rejected those arguments and denied the motion to dismiss, indicating these issues should be hashed out in front of a jury.

“Significant disputes remain regarding whether the Taxotere label adequately conveyed the nature and severity of the condition, as well as whether aspects of the warning were misleading. Those disputes are for the jury to resolve.”

– U.S. District Judge Triche Milazzo

The decision means that the cases can continue to move forward toward bellwether trials. While the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on other claims, they will be closely watched, as the results could have a significant impact on any Taxotere watery eyes lawsuit settlement negotiations.

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

A Pennsylvania couple has filed a lawsuit alleging their infant was hospitalized with botulism after drinking tainted Nara Organics infant formula, which has been linked to several similar illnesses.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Erica and Micky Goldfin, on behalf of their child W.G., in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania on June 22. It names Nara Organics Inc., Target Corporation and multiple John Does as whole powdered milk suppliers and/or manufacturers as defendants.

The Goldfins allege Nara Organics and Target should have known of the potential for the whole milk infant formula to become tainted with Clostridium botulinum toxin and should have taken better steps to prevent putting infants at risk.

Infant Botulism Outbreak

In June, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced an investigation into a botulism outbreak linked to Nara Organics whole milk infant formula. The multistate outbreak involves four cases, three of which led to infants being hospitalized. Confirmed infections have occurred in California, Pennsylvania and Washington beginning in April 2026, with the most recent case reported May 31.

Infant botulism is a rare illness linked to products tainted with spores of Clostridium botulinum bacteria. It naturally occurs in the soil and can enter food-manufacturing facilities and homes. However, it can form protective spores allowing it to survive pasteurization for long periods.

When C. botulinum is ingested, the spores can germinate in a child’s immature gastrointestinal tract and produce a neurotoxin. The illness is life threatening and among the many symptoms and side effects, it can cause paralysis, respiratory failure and death.

The CDC is currently investigating the outbreak with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the California Department of Health and the Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program (IBTPP). They have confirmed all four infants were fed Nara Organic Whole Milk Powdered Infant Formula.

Federal health officials are currently testing samples from the lots to confirm the presence of the bacterial contamination.

The outbreak comes after another batch of infant botulism cases were linked to ByHeart infant formula in late 2025. That outbreak infected more than 50 children across 17 states and resulted in a ByHeart formula recall. The injuries and resulting recall prompted a series of ByHeart infant formula lawsuits similar to what the Goldfins have filed against Nara, indicating manufacturers failed to ensure their products were safe for infants.

Nara Organics Botulism Allegations

In their lawsuit, the Goldfins allege Nara Organics is the source of the botulism infection that hospitalized their infant, W.G., and that Nara knew, or should have known, about the potential for the infant formula to become tainted.

In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to manufacturers that infant formula can easily become tainted with spores of C. Botulinum, and by late 2025 the ByHeart illnesses occurred, alerting authorities and the industry of the potential for outbreaks.

The complaint argues that Nara had a duty to exercise reasonable care when manufacturing the formula. However, Nara allegedly did not test the finished formula for the presence of the bacteria and only screened batches for sulphate-reducing clostridia.

The filing claims that W.G., who was born in early March, began eating the formula purchased from Target around March 5. Nearly two months later, the infant began exhibiting symptoms of botulism, including constipation, poor feeding, loss of head control and difficulty swallowing.

On June 1, W.G. was admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He was treated in the intensive care unit for two nights, then treated in the general pediatric unit until June 6. As a result of the illness, W.G. requires continued physical therapy due to poor ability to lift the head and issues with gross and fine motor skills.

Nara allegedly marketed its infant formula as having received a special FDA designation allowing it to contain an elevated level of milk fat, purportedly higher than any other infant formula sold in the United States. However, the complaint argues that claim is misleading because the FDA does not approve infant formulas or conduct premarket approval before they are sold.

According to the lawsuit, the advertising falsely suggested the product had received a unique FDA endorsement, which was intended to reassure parents and influence them to buy a formula the plaintiffs claim was dangerous.

“By the time Nara manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed, and sold the Formula—and certainly during the outbreak’s April through May 2026 illness-onset window and Nara’s July 2025 through June 2026 distribution window—the powdered-infant-formula industry generally, and Nara in particular, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that whole milk powder used to manufacture powdered infant formula could harbor C. botulinum and cause infant botulism.”

— Erica and Micky Goldfin v. Nara Organics Inc. et al.

The complaint presents claims of strict product liability, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, negligence per se and punitive damages. The Goldfins are seeking compensation for past and future medical attention, pain and suffering, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past and future physical impairment and disability, mental anguish, emotional distress and disfigurement.

Nara Organics Recall

At the recommendation of the FDA, the manufacturer agreed to issue a Nara Organics infant formula recall on June 13. The recall includes Nara Organics Whole Milk Infant Formula, 700g, with UPC 860013251901 and Nara Organics Whole Milk Infant Formula, 400g, with UPC 860013251918.

The tainted Nara Organics formula was distributed nationally via Target retail stores and online, as well as Nara.com from July 2025 to June 2026. The formula is manufactured in Germany, but was not sold outside of the U.S.

Consumers are urged to stop using the affected products immediately. If they have fed the recalled products to their infants, they should contact their healthcare provider for immediate care should their children present symptoms of:

• Vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Constipation
• Poor feeding
• Drooping eyelids
• Weak crying

Nara indicates it will automatically refund any purchases made of the affected products through its website in May and June 2026. Other customers with affected products can take a photo of the bottom of each can and fill out a refund form or follow Target’s in-store and online return instructions.

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

A South Carolina woman has filed a Vortex port lawsuit alleging the implantable AngioDynamics device caused her to suffer pulmonary embolisms and a serious infection that ultimately required surgical removal of the port catheter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Randell S. Dixon in the U.S. District for the Southern District of California on June 24, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as the defendants.

Dixon claims the companies sold a defective Vortex port catheter despite knowing it posed an increased risk of infection, catheter failure and other life-threatening complications.

Port Catheter Risks

Implantable port catheters are medical devices placed beneath the skin to provide long-term access to a patient’s bloodstream for medications, chemotherapy, blood products and other intravenous treatments. The systems, which include the AngioDynamics Vortex Port, SmartPort and Xcela, consist of a small implanted port connected to a flexible catheter that delivers medication directly into a vein.

In recent years, AngioDynamics and other manufacturers of implantable port catheters, including C.R. Bard, have faced increasing product liability claims alleging their devices are susceptible to infections, blood clots, catheter fractures and other serious failures. Plaintiffs contend the catheter materials and design can deteriorate over time, creating surfaces that promote the buildup of bacteria and blood products, which may increase the risk of severe complications.

Those allegations have led to a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed by patients across the country. The complaints claim the company was aware its devices presented an increased risk of failure but continued to market and sell them without providing adequate safety warnings.

Vortex Port Lawsuit Allegations

In the lawsuit, Dixon says she received an AngioDynamics Vortex port in October 2017 to provide vascular access for treatment of sickle cell disease.

She alleges she was later diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism in May 2020, and then suffered another pulmonary embolism in June 2023. At that time, physicians also determined the implanted port had become infected, recommended removal, and surgically explanted the device days later.

Dixon contends the Vortex catheter was defectively designed because it incorporated excessive amounts of barium sulfate into the catheter material, allegedly weakening the device over time and creating microscopic surface defects that promote the buildup of blood products and bacteria. The complaint claims those defects substantially increase the risk of infection, blood clots, catheter fracture and other serious complications.

The complaint alleges AngioDynamics knew for years that the Vortex and other implantable port catheters were associated with reports of fractures, infections, blood clots, perforations and other severe injuries, yet continued marketing the devices without adequately warning physicians or patients.

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

— Randell S. Dixon v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

According to Dixon’s Vortex port lawsuit, the manufacturers also concealed numerous adverse event reports by submitting them through the FDA’s former Alternative Summary Reporting program, which prevented many reports from becoming publicly available for years. She contends AngioDynamics continued marketing the devices as safe instead of redesigning the catheter or recalling the product.

The filing raises allegations of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of implied and express warranties, fraudulent concealment and violations of South Carolina consumer protection laws. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Dixon’s injuries and other losses.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

The lawsuit joins hundreds of other AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits pending in a federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California, where coordinated pretrial proceedings are underway for claims alleging the company’s implantable port catheters were defectively designed.

As the litigation progresses, the parties are expected to prepare a small group of representative cases for bellwether trials, which could help shape future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations by showing how juries respond to common evidence and legal arguments.

Similar claims are also being pursued in thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits pending before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those cases likewise allege defects in implantable port catheters increased the risk of fractures, thrombosis, infections and other serious complications.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial concluded in May with a split outcome, as jurors rejected failure-to-warn and consumer fraud claims but were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the design defect allegations. The plaintiff has since asked for a new trial, arguing the jury was given improper instructions that led to the verdict.

Several additional bellwether trials are scheduled through early 2027, and if the litigation is not resolved through settlements or other means, individual cases may ultimately be returned to federal courts nationwide for separate trials.

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

An Omnipod class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who allege Insulet Corporation made false and misleading statements before issuing recalls involving it’s widely used insulin delivery pods, which are prone to fail due to manufacturing defects that could result in users not being provided enough insulin.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Zhenjun Hu in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 2, seeking class action status on behalf of investors who acquired Insulet securities between February 21, 2025, and May 26, 2026. The lawsuit names Insulet Corporation and several current and former executives as defendants, including CEO Ashley A. McEvoy and former CEO James R. Hollingshead.

Unlike product liability claims filed by patients who suffered injuries from defective insulin delivery devices, the lawsuit seeks compensation for investors who allegedly suffered financial losses after Insulet’s prior statements about its manufacturing controls and product quality were called into question by later corrective actions involving millions of Omnipod products.

Omnipod Insulin Delivery Problems

Insulet manufactures several wearable insulin delivery systems for individuals with diabetes, including Omnipod 5 and Omnipod DASH. The company also previously sold the original Omnipod Insulin Management System, commonly referred to as Omnipod Eros.

The devices use small wearable pods to deliver insulin without the need for traditional exterior tubing techniques. However, manufacturing defects can potentially interfere with insulin delivery, placing users at risk of dangerously high blood sugar levels and diabetic ketoacidosis.

In March 2026, Insulet announced a medical device correction involving certain lots of Omnipod 5 pods after discovering small tears could develop in internal tubing used to deliver insulin. The defect could allow insulin to leak inside the pod instead of entering the user’s body, potentially resulting in insulin under-delivery.

Hu indicates Insulet’s stock price fell $16.23 per share, or 6.88%, following the announcement, closing at $219.84 on March 13.

However, the complaint alleges Insulet continued to downplay the scope of the manufacturing problems, assuring customers and investors that other Omnipod products remained safe to use and indicating the defect affected only a small percentage of pods.

Omnipod Class Action Lawsuit Allegations

According to the Omnipod class action lawsuit, Insulet executives repeatedly assured investors before and after the March corrective action that the company maintained strong manufacturing processes, quality controls and product safety standards.

The complaint points to public statements made during earnings calls, regulatory filings and investor conferences that highlighted Insulet’s investments in automated manufacturing, product inspections and quality assurance systems.

However, Hu alleges those statements were false or misleading because Insulet failed to disclose deficiencies in its manufacturing controls that increased the risk of product defects, safety problems and regulatory actions.

The lawsuit claims Insulet continued making misleading statements following the March corrective action, including assurances that the manufacturing problem was limited in scope and that corrective measures had addressed the defect.

The complaint alleges the extent of the manufacturing problems became clearer on May 26, when Insulet announced another medical device correction involving specific lots of Omnipod 5, Omnipod DASH and Omnipod Eros pods.

Like the earlier action, the second Omnipod recall involved small tears in tubing that could allow insulin to leak instead of being delivered into the body.

However, the May corrective action involved about 7 million pods distributed in the United States and international markets, representing approximately 8.5% of Insulet’s global pod production during 2025.

Hu indicates Insulet subsequently acknowledged the March and May corrective actions both involved cannula tears associated with manufacturing processes at the company’s Acton, Massachusetts facility.

Following the second announcement, Insulet’s stock price declined another $7.79 per share, or 5.07%, closing at $146.01 on May 27.

The lawsuit alleges Insulet and its executives knew or recklessly disregarded information about the company’s manufacturing problems while making statements that artificially inflated the value of its securities. Hu also claims several company executives sold more than 21,000 shares of Insulet stock during the proposed class period, receiving more than $5.9 million in proceeds.

“Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies.”

— Zhenjun Hu v. Insulet Corporation et al.

The Omnipod class action lawsuit seeks to represent investors who acquired Insulet securities during the proposed class period and suffered financial losses after information about the manufacturing problems became public.

The complaint raises claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. It seeks damages for affected investors, as well as interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

Omnipod Recall Lawsuits

Following the expanded Omnipod recall, attorneys across the country are investigating potential Omnipod 5 lawsuits on behalf of diabetes patients who experienced serious injuries allegedly linked to insulin under-delivery.

Individuals who suffered complications after using an Omnipod 5 or other kind of Insulet pod may be eligible to seek compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering and other losses. Potential claims may involve injuries such as:

• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS)
• Hospitalization
• Diabetic coma
• Other severe health problems

Consumers who believe they may qualify for an Omnipod 5 lawsuit can request a free case evaluation to have an attorney review their injury, explain available legal options and determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a claim.

Lawyers handling Omnipod cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and attorney fees are paid only if compensation is recovered.

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

An Oregon teen has filed a lawsuit against the developers of Roblox, alleging that the gaming app’s design helped the company profit by setting up children to be preyed upon by online sexual predators.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, by a woman identified only as AW-0014. Courts frequently allow anonymity in situations involving sexual abuse. The case names Roblox Corporation as the sole defendant.

The now-18-year-old says she was only 8 when a sexual predator began targeting her online, allegedly posing as another minor, exchanging explicit messages with her and trying to convince her to run away with him. She argues that Roblox Corporation could have prevented the abuse, or reduced the risk of it occurring, by using basic age-verification and child-safety restrictions, and that the company’s failures left her with severe psychological trauma that may affect her for the rest of her life.

Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation Concerns

The Roblox gaming app and platform was launched in 2006 and has grown to roughly 150 million daily active users worldwide, mostly consisting of children and teens. It allows users to create their own games, play games designed by others and visit entire virtual worlds.

However, Roblox also includes a chat system that allows players to communicate and gives creators the ability to take control of others’ avatars in certain circumstances. For years, critics have warned that these features and the app’s lack of age verification, account authentication procedures, content-monitoring tools and other child safety features were a problem that could put children in the sights of sexual predators.

Over the last year, a growing number of Roblox child exploitation lawsuits have been filed by parents, or former child players, who say children were stalked, groomed, coerced into sending explicit sexual material and, in some cases, sexually assaulted, kidnapped or trafficked. In many instances, the children report having been approached by an adult who was able to pretend to be another child due to the lack of safety features.

Facing public outrage, last year Roblox Corporation began deploying facial recognition software it says will help identify the age of users and prevent adults from contacting minors without their parents’ permission. However, critics argue that the changes come too late and fall short of what is needed.

Roblox Sexual Predator Allegations

According to the lawsuit, AW-0014 began using Roblox in 2016, and almost immediately was targeted by an adult sexual predator while playing a “dress-up style” game. Pretending to be a child of about the plaintiff’s own age, he gained her trust and began grooming her for a potential relationship.

“Over time, the predator communicated regularly with Plaintiff through Roblox. During this period, the predator asked Plaintiff what city she lived in and what school she attended, information which Plaintiff provided. The predator escalated the relationship by telling Plaintiff that they were in a romantic relationship, that he loved her, and that he wanted to be with her.”

– AW-0014 v. Roblox Corporation

When her mother discovered the messages, the man was attempting to convince the 8-year-old child to run away with him and shower together, in addition to other highly inappropriate communications. Plaintiff’s mother informed the police, but after a long investigation they determined that the man could not be identified and likely lived outside of the United States.

The lawsuit indicates the plaintiff suffered “profound harm” from being groomed by a sexual predator, leaving her with significant emotional and psychological injuries such as depression, anxiety and difficulty with relationships. She also has a fear of being alone.

The filing presents claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, negligence- unreasonable design, negligent undertaking and design defect. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Roblox Child Exploitation Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with more than 160 similar Roblox child exploitation lawsuits in the Northern District of California, where U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg is leading the claims through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As the litigation progresses, Judge Seeborg is expected to establish a bellwether process where the parties will select a group of cases most representative of the litigation as a whole. These would then be prepared for early test trials, giving the parties an opportunity to see how juries will react to evidence and testimony that would be employed throughout the litigation.

Additionally, the Court appointed a special master to oversee preliminary settlement negotiations earlier this year. If successful, a global settlement could eliminate the need for trials, saving all parties and the court time and expense.

However, if the bellwether trials end with no settlement agreement or other resolution, Judge Seeborg would likely begin remanding cases back to their originating District Court for individual trial dates.

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

A California couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that side effects of Prevagen, a supplement advertised to have brain benefits, caused them to suffer severe neurological injuries, including strokes and seizures.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Juanita Hopson and Stevenson Hopson in Riverside County Superior Court on December 18, 2025, and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California on June 29. It names Prevagen Inc., Amazon.com Sales Inc. and GNC Holdings LLC as defendants.

The Hopsons allege in the Prevagen lawsuit that the supplement is dangerous, defective and harmful to consumers, which the makers should have known from their own clinical testing.

Prevagen Health Claims Questioned

Prevagen is a dietary supplement marketed to improve cognitive function and improve brain health. It claims to include a protein derived from jellyfish to improve memory and other cognitive symptoms.

In recent years it has come under fire by the Federal Trade Commission for making advertising claims that cannot be proven by medical or scientific research. These include claims that it improves memory and prevents conditions like Alzheimer’s disease.

Despite these advertised health benefit claims, the Hopsons’ complaint is one of several Prevagen lawsuits filed over the past decade, accusing the manufacturer of deceptive marketing and profiting from misleading health claims. In addition, the manufacturer faces a class action Prevagen lawsuit filed last year over allegations the supplement does not protect the brain against Alzheimer’s, dementia or other forms of memory loss, despite advertising claims.

Prevagen Neurological Injury Allegations

The Hopsons’ lawsuit indicates they purchased Prevagen through the product’s official online store, as well as from Amazon and GNC, on December 25, 2023. After Stevenson began taking the supplement as directed and using it regularly, he allegedly developed neurological symptoms, including confusion, blurred vision, garbled speech and a temporary inability to speak.

The 87 year old then suffered a transient cerebral ischemic stroke on May 6, 2024. He suffered three more strokes and partial seizures on May 7, 9, and 10 of that year.

According to the complaint, Stevenson lost consciousness several times, suffered expressive aphasia, left arm weakness, confusion, and required multiple emergency hospitalizations. He eventually suffered permanent neurological injury, permanent partial epilepsy, left temporal lobe abnormalities in the brain, and now requires anti-seizure medication and ongoing neurological monitoring.

Juanita also began experiencing Prevagen neurological side effects after taking the supplement. She experienced confusion, brain fog, severe headaches, irritation, memory loss, dizziness, cognitive dysregulation and neurological abnormalities.

The complaint alleges the supplement was not adequately tested to determine the full side effects. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn consumers of neurological risks and did not disclose safety concerns of stroke, seizures and brain injury.

“Defendants knew, or by means of available scientific knowledge should have known, of the numerous other earlier deaths, injuries, consumer complaints, warranty claims and lawsuits caused by the defective Prevagen, including earlier versions and similar products, due to the inadequate and improper design, defective manufacturing and lack of proper warnings.”

— Juanita Hopson et al. v. Prevagen Inc. et. al.

The lawsuit raises claims of negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn / negligent recall and violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Hopsons are seeking damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, neurological injuries, cognitive impairment, loss of consciousness, hospitalization, ongoing medical treatment, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

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

A product liability lawsuit alleges that design defects associated with an Abbott Proclaim XR5 spinal cord stimulator resulted in the battery migrating out of position in a Texas man’s back, resulting in a painful and life-threatening infection.

Daymond Williams filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 25, naming both Abbott Laboratories and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Abbott was able to sneak a defective design past the FDA by using a fast-track approval program that did not require clinical trials or any evidence the devices were actually safe and effective. The lack of enforcement then allowed the manufacturer to avoid adding label warnings that may have led some doctors and patients to reconsider the aggressively marketed devices.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Failure Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are surgically implanted devices used to treat chronic pain by disrupting pain signals before they reach the brain. The systems typically include electrodes placed near the spine, a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, and an external remote used to adjust stimulation levels. Although they may be removed or replaced, spinal cord stimulators are generally intended to function as long-term implants.

However, despite marketing heralding the devices as effective at controlling pain for those who have not benefited from other treatments, a growing number of consumers are reporting problems with spinal cord stimulators sold in recent years, with many requiring additional surgery to remove the device just months after implantation. These reports include battery problems, electric shocks, burning sensations, increases in chronic pain, unexpected shutdowns and leads migrating out of position or poking through the skin.

As reports continue to pour in, they have been accompanied by a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, each involving similar claims that both the manufacturers and the FDA failed to adequately test the devices before they were placed on the market, resulting in a defective design that can cause severe, life-altering injuries.

Williams’ complaint indicates that he was surgically implanted with an Abbott Proclaim XR5 SCS in August 2021. The decision to have the device placed near his spine came after he had undergone a trial period with a temporary spinal cord stimulator, which was supposed to ensure the therapy would be effective.

The lawsuit states that Williams had questions about the device’s effectiveness, but he was reassured by Abbott sales representatives that the permanent implant would be more effective, and that he needed to say the device gave him at least 50% relief or his insurance would not cover the cost.

Feeling pressured, Williams states that he complained to the sales representative. He met with the representative and was advised that the permanent version of the Proclaim XR5 would safely provide him with the pain relief he desired.

Succumbing to the aggressive marketing tactics and allegedly misleading promotions, Williams agreed to have the procedure.

In June 2024 is when problems began, according to the complaint. It began with increasing discomfort and Williams’ back beginning to bleed and ooze profusely. He claims the bleeding was heavy enough to soak through any bandage and ruined two separate mattresses.

Williams went to a nearby emergency room, where doctors determined that Williams had developed some type of cyst near the implant site. His own doctor thought it might be cancer. After the two medical misdiagnoses, a dermatologist and neurosurgeon linked the injury back to the Proclaim spinal cord stimulator.

In October 2024, Williams had to undergo immediate revision surgery to have the spinal cord stimulator removed.

“This removal was necessitated due to an infection caused by the spinal stimulator’s leads and battery migrating from their original position and attempting to exit Plaintiff’s back. This infection threatened meningitis and was killing the tissue in his back.”

– Daymond Williams v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

Williams presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unauthorized practice of medicine, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The complaint joins a series of Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator lawsuits that are proceeding separately in federal courts nationwide. Plaintiffs previously sought to centralize the cases before one judge to coordinate discovery, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings and make the litigation more efficient. However, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled earlier this month that the Abbott claims do not need to be consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The panel reached a different conclusion for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which have been centralized in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Despite the different tracks of litigation, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to investigate claims for individuals who received an Abbott, Boston Scientific, Nevro or Medtronic SCS that suffered any of the following injuries:

To find out whether you or a loved one may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information to receive a free case review by a lawyer. All 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.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federal youth social media addiction lawsuits has rejected Meta’s bid to dismiss claims filed by state attorneys general, allowing those cases to move forward as the parties prepare for the next bellwether trial.

Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat and other major social media platforms face nearly 3,000 product liability lawsuits filed by parents, young adults, school districts and states nationwide, each claiming the companies use sophisticated algorithms and platform designs to fuel compulsive social media use and keep users scrolling, regardless of the harm.

The claims focus on individuals who used social media as children, when they were allegedly more vulnerable to addictive platform features and design choices. Plaintiffs say those features contributed to serious mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, behavioral issues, self-harm and suicide.

According to the lawsuits, this was not accidental. Plaintiffs allege companies behind sites like Instagram and TikTok knew their platforms could foster harmful use among children, but continued prioritizing engagement and profits over youth mental health.

All federally-filed youth social media addiction lawsuits are currently consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is guiding the claims through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and early “bellwether” trials designed to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony common throughout the litigation.

However, Meta attempted to exclude at least the state lawsuits from those trials, filing a motion for summary judgment that called for the court to reject states’ attorneys general claims that the social media platforms engaged in deceptive and unfair practices, and violated the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA).

In a court order (PDF) issued on June 29, the judge rejected Meta’s arguments and dismissed the motion, allowing the state lawsuits to move forward. She also granted a partial summary judgment to the attorneys general, declaring that Meta was the party in violation of COPPA.

“Evidence exists that Meta employees have authored internal documents indicating that the platforms are addictive and that teens interact with them in an addictive manner. Internal Meta documents also show that at least some employees believed the platforms cultivated compulsive use to maximize engagement.”

– U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Northern District of California

Social Media Addiction Trials

Originally, the first social media bellwether trial was scheduled to begin on June 15, involving the Breathitt County school district’s claims against Meta, YouTube and TikTok. That trial was cancelled after the district and Meta announced they had reached a settlement in late May. YouTube and TikTok had settled with the district earlier.

No terms of the social media addiction settlement were released. However, the school district had been seeking more than $60 million in damages.

The next bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on February 8. It will involve claims by the Tucson Unified School District or the Charleston County School District, but no definitive choice has yet been announced.

A separate track of youth social media addiction claims is also moving forward in state courts, where some cases have already reached trial. In March, a Los Angeles jury in California state court determined Meta and Google should pay $6 million in damages to a woman who said she suffered anxiety and depression due to social media addiction fostered by apps like Facebook and YouTube when she was a minor. 

Just before that verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million to the state after finding the company liable for causing teen social media addiction and the resulting mental health problems.

These trials, while not binding on other cases, are all being closely observed for trends among juries that will give either party leverage at the negotiating table and thus could be key in the parties reaching a youth social media addiction lawsuit settlement. 

Federal safety officials have announced a recall impacting more than 1.7 million Cuisinart wire grill brushes, following reports of several incidents where consumers swallowed sharp metal bristles and required medical treatment.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Cuisinart grill brush recall on July 2, warning consumers that small metal wires may separate from the brushes and become stuck to grills or food. If swallowed, the bristles may cause serious internal injuries that require surgery.

Cuisinart’s manufacturer, Conair, has received at least 54 complaints and consumer reviews involving metal bristles detaching from the recalled grill brushes. Those incidents include three reports of consumers swallowing bristles that required treatment to have them removed from their throats or digestive tracts.

Wire Grill Brush Injury Risks

Wire grill brushes are commonly used to remove grease, food residue and other debris from cooking surfaces. However, if the thin metal bristles become loose during cleaning, they can remain stuck to the grill and later become embedded in food without consumers realizing it.

Swallowed grill brush bristles can become lodged in the throat or puncture the digestive tract, potentially resulting in severe pain, infections and other complications that require emergency medical treatment or surgery.

This new Conair recall follows several recent safety concerns involving wire grill brushes. Earlier this year, an Oregon man filed a Nexgrill class action lawsuit alleging the company implemented an inadequate recall program of more than 10 million grill brushes, which failed to fully compensate consumers for millions of defective products with a similar wire bristle detachment risk.

A prior Weber wire bristle grill brush recall was issued for 3.2 million units in February, after federal safety officials received nearly 40 reports of injuries associated with those products.

Since that recall was announced, multiple Weber grill brush lawsuits have been filed nationwide. Many of these claims allege the manufacturer was aware that metal bristles could detach during use, yet failed to adequately warn consumers or remove the products from the market before injuries occurred.

Cuisinart Grill Brush Recall

The Cuisinart grill brush recall affects about 1.7 million wire bristle brushes with black plastic, stainless steel or wood handles. The Cuisinart name is stamped on the handle of the recalled products.

The following grill brush models are included in the recall:

• CCB-100 Triple Bristle Grill Cleaning Brush
• CCB-4125 4-in-1 Grill Cleaning Brush with Stainless Steel Wire Bristles
• CCB-5014 BBQ Grill Cleaning Brush and Scraper
• CCB-6450 Triple Bristle Grill Brush SS Bristles
• CCB-8012 2-In-1 Grill Brush Bristle/Coil
• CCB-4114 Pizza Stone Cleaning Brush
• CCB-W2 Wood Grill Cleaning Brush
• CSBS-777 Steam Clean Grill Brush

Some of the recalled brushes were also included in several Cuisinart grill tool sets, including the Premium Grill 10 Piece Set, 13 Piece Wooden Handle Grill Tool Set, 14 Piece Deluxe Stainless Steel Grill Set and 20 Piece Deluxe Grill Set.

The products were sold at Burlington, TJ Maxx and Ross stores, as well as online through Amazon and Cuisinart, from June 2009 through March 2026 for between $8 and $20. The recalled grill brushes were manufactured in China and imported by Conair LLC, of Stamford, Connecticut.

Consumers are being urged to immediately stop using the recalled Cuisinart grill brushes and contact Conair for a refund. The company is offering either a full cash refund or a credit for use at Cuisinart.com equal to the full refund amount plus an additional 20%.

Individuals will be required to discard the recalled grill brushes after submitting their claims.

Additional information is available by contacting Conair at 888-520-1304 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time Monday through Friday or through the company’s online recall portal.

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

A Washington man’s death was allegedly caused by a defective Medtronic MiniMed insulin pump, according to a recently filed product liability lawsuit.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Roy McNairy on behalf of the estate of Scott Alan McNairy, his late father, naming Medtronic Inc., and its MiniMed subsidiary as the defendants. Originally filed in Washington state court, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 29.

McNairy alleges that a defective retainer ring in the insulin pump failed, causing his father’s death due to complications from diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The same insulin pump design was recalled in 2020 due to problems with the the retaining ring, which has been prone to breaking, loosening or potentially disconnecting the insulin reservoir.

Medtronic MiniMed insulin pumps are designed to help diabetics control their blood glucose levels. They provide a steady, continuous flow of insulin throughout the day, along with extra doses when necessary.

However, if the insulin pumps fail to provide the proper amount of insulin, either too much or too little, it can cause serious and life-threatening side effects. Too much insulin can cause hypoglycemia, leading to confusion, seizures or even death, while too little insulin can cause high blood sugar and, over time, diabetic ketoacidosis, another life-threatening condition.

The insulin pump linked to McNairy’s death was the subject of a Medtronic MiniMed recall in February 2020, due to the risk of insulin overdoses believed to be caused by the defective retainer rings. The problem was linked to more than 2,000 injuries and at least one patient death.

According to the lawsuit, Scott McNairy used a Medtronic MiniMed Model 670G MMT-1780 insulin pump to regulate his glucose levels until he suffered severe health problems on June 26, 2023. McNairy was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with hyperglycemia.

McNairy suffered diabetic acidosis with cardiorespiratory arrest and died that same day. His son’s complaint indicates that his father’s death was due to the defective clear retainer ring design.

“The reservoir can become loose due to a broken or missing retainer ring that prevents a proper lock. If the reservoir is not properly locked into the pump, it could lead to over or under delivery of insulin, which could then result in hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.”

– Roy McNairy et al. v. Medtronic MiniMed Inc. et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of construction defect, defective design, failure to warn, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, and statutory wrongful death and survival claims. It seeks compensatory damages for past medical damages, hospital expenses, pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional distress and the humiliation his father may have suffered prior to his death.

Medtronic MiniMed Lawsuits

The retainer ring recall was only one of multiple MiniMed recalls issued over the last several years, due to ongoing safety concerns involving insulin dosing errors, device malfunctions and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This has led to an increasing number of MiniMed lawsuits filed in courts nationwide.

When the pump’s reservoir is disconnected due to the defective retainer ring, patients are at risk of receiving too little insulin. Diabetic ketoacidosis is one of the most serious potential complications. It develops when the body lacks sufficient insulin to process glucose, forcing it to break down fat and produce dangerous ketone levels. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, rapid breathing and fruity-smelling breath. Without immediate treatment, DKA can lead to dehydration, organ failure or death.

Overdoses are not the only problem linked to the insulin pumps. In September 2022, the FDA warned that certain MiniMed pumps contained cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could allow unauthorized access to the device’s wireless communication system when in close proximity. This risk was heightened when the pump was connected to other devices, such as continuous glucose monitors, blood glucose meters or CareLink USB systems.

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 medical scope product liability 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.