Depo-Provera Lawsuit Overview: Brain Tumor Claims and MDL 3140

Understanding the Depo-Provera Litigation

Women across the United States are filing lawsuits claiming that Depo-Provera, a popular birth control injection, caused them to develop brain tumors called intracranial meningiomas. These cases have been consolidated into a rapidly growing multidistrict litigation that could affect thousands of women who used this contraceptive.

Bottom Line Up Front: As of September 2025, over 800 lawsuits are pending in the federal MDL, with the litigation growing by approximately 10 new cases per day. A critical federal preemption ruling expected in late September/October 2025 could determine the future of the entire MDL. The litigation is moving quickly, with aggressive discovery deadlines and potential bellwether trials on the horizon.

Doctor preparing an injection.

Key Information About the Depo-Provera MDL

MDL Number: MDL 3140 (In re: Depo-Provera [Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate] Products Liability Litigation)

Court Location: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Presiding Judge: Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Date Established: February 7, 2025

Current Case Count: Over 800 cases as of September 2025 (up from 550 in August)

Special Master: The Honorable David Herndon (Retired)

Data Administrator: BrownGreer PLC

Leadership Team

Judge Rodgers appointed a comprehensive leadership structure on March 16, 2025, to coordinate the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Lead and Co-Lead Counsel:

Lead Counsel:

• Christopher Seeger - Seeger Weiss LLP

Co-Lead Counsel:

• Bryan Aylstock - Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC (AWKO)

• Ellen Relkin - Weitz & Luxenberg PC

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel:

• Christopher Paulos - Levin Papantonio

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

The six-member Executive Committee includes:

• Virginia Buchanan (Co-Chair) - Levin Papantonio (also serves on Trial Subcommittee)

• Additional committee members coordinating strategy and discovery

Plaintiffs' Steering Committee:

A ten-member committee focused on organization and efficiency, including:

• Savannah Green - Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC

Science Committee:

• Doug Kreis (Co-Chair) - Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC

This diverse leadership team brings extensive experience from other major pharmaceutical litigations, including the massive 3M Combat Arms Earplug cases that Judge Rodgers previously oversaw.

Who Are the Defendants?

The primary defendants in the Depo-Provera litigation include:

• Pfizer Inc. - Current manufacturer and marketer of Depo-Provera

• Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC - Pfizer subsidiary involved in manufacturing

• Pharmacia LLC - Related Pfizer entity

Generic Manufacturers:

• Initially included Greenstone LLC, Viatris Inc., and Prasco LLC.

• Prasco has been dismissed from the litigation.

• Greenstone and Viatris remain as defendants for the generic versions.

What is Depo-Provera?

Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate or DMPA) is a hormonal contraceptive injection administered every three months. It has been widely used in the United States since the 1960s and works by:

• Preventing ovulation

• Thickening cervical mucus

• Thinning the uterine lining

Medical Uses:

• Birth control (primary use)

• Managing endometriosis

• Treating abnormal uterine bleeding

• Managing heavy or irregular periods

Brand Names and Products:

• Depo-Provera (150 mg intramuscular injection)

• Depo-SubQ Provera 104 (104 mg subcutaneous injection - lower dose alternative)

• Various generic equivalents

The Science: What Are Meningiomas?

Meningiomas are tumors that develop in the meninges, the protective membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. While often benign (non-cancerous), they can cause serious health complications.

Symptoms and Complications:

• Severe headaches

• Seizures

• Vision or hearing loss

• Memory impairment

• Motor function problems

• Cognitive changes

• Personality changes

Treatment: Many meningiomas require surgical removal (craniotomy), radiation therapy, or ongoing monitoring.

Key Scientific Studies

French Study (2024): The landmark research that triggered the litigation revealed a significant association between Depo-Provera use and an increased risk of meningioma.

University of British Columbia Study (February 2025): Found a 3.55 times higher risk of meningiomas in Depo-Provera users compared to those using other hormonal contraceptives like ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel.

JAMA Neurology Study (September 2025): Published research showing women who used depot medroxyprogesterone acetate had a "statistically significant increased relative risk of developing a meningioma diagnosis" compared to those using other birth control or no birth control. The risk was highest in women who:

• Began using the injection after age 31

• Used it for 4 years or more

New Zealand Regulatory Action (March 2025): Medsafe, New Zealand's drug regulatory agency, issued an updated safety notice identifying meningioma as a "very rare" but serious side effect and advised discontinuation of the medication if meningioma is diagnosed.

European Warnings: In Europe, Depo-Provera labels already include warnings about the risk of meningioma, raising questions about why U.S. labels lack similar warnings.

What Are Plaintiffs Alleging?

Lawsuits allege that Pfizer and other defendants:

1. Knew or should have known that prolonged Depo-Provera use significantly increases the risk of brain and spinal tumors

2. Failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about these serious risks

3. Concealed evidence linking the drug to meningiomas despite having access to scientific research

4. Failed to promote safer alternatives like Depo-SubQ Provera 104, which uses a lower dose (104mg vs 150mg) administered subcutaneously rather than intramuscularly.

5. Continued marketing the drug without updating warning labels, even as European regulators required warnings

Recent Litigation Timeline (2024-2025)

Late 2024

• First lawsuits filed in various federal courts across the country

• Scientific studies linking Depo-Provera to meningiomas gain widespread attention.

January 2025

• January 30: JPML hearing held to determine MDL location

• Plaintiffs proposed California, Pennsylvania, Florida, or New Jersey.

• Defendants argued for the Southern District of New York (Pfizer's headquarters)

February 2025

• February 7: JPML officially creates MDL 3140 and assigns it to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida

• Initial cases transferred to the MDL.

March 2025

• March 1: First Case Management Order issued with key deadlines

• March 16: Judge Rodgers appoints plaintiffs' leadership team

• March 20: Pretrial Order No. 10 allows direct filing into the MDL (plaintiffs can file directly in federal court without going through state courts first)

• March 20: Judge Rodgers appoints Special Master David Herndon

April 2025

• MDL experiences rapid growth with 52 new cases filed in one month

• Total reaches 130 cases

• Short-form complaint finalized to streamline filing process.

May-July 2025

• May 11: Deadline for completing document production on preemption and general causation

• July 25: Preemption discovery deadline

• July 1: Case count reaches 435 (87 new cases in June alone)

• Five pilot cases selected for early discovery and trial preparation

• Court orders regarding Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaires issued

August 2025

• August 1: 550 cases pending in MDL

• August 29: Pfizer files federal preemption motion arguing FDA's denial of warning label prevents state law failure-to-warn claims

• Dispute over common benefit fund emerges.

September 2025

• September 2: 806 cases pending (256 new cases added in August - approximately 10 per day)

• September 19: Pretrial Order No. 22A provides a process for patients who stopped using Depo-Provera before June 2005 to join the MDL

• September 29: Hearing scheduled on Pfizer's federal preemption motion (critical ruling expected)

October 2025

• The preemption ruling is expected to shape the entire litigation's future.

• Additional case management conferences are scheduled monthly.

The Federal Preemption Battle

The most critical issue currently facing the MDL is Pfizer's federal preemption defense. This legal argument could potentially dismiss hundreds of cases before full discovery is completed.

Pfizer's Argument:

• The FDA rejected Pfizer's proposed warning label about meningioma risk in 2024

• Since the FDA said "no" to the warning, state law cannot require Pfizer to issue a warning about the risk.

• Federal law (FDA authority) preempts state failure-to-warn claims.

Plaintiffs' Response:

• Pfizer's proposed label language was too vague and lacked scientific specificity.

• The FDA rejected the inadequate language, not the concept of a warning.

• Pfizer could have provided better scientific support and more explicit warning language.

• Pfizer had the authority to independently strengthen warnings.

• Other claims (design defect) remain viable even if preemption succeeds.

The Stakes: If Judge Rodgers rules in favor of preemption, failure-to-warn claims could be dismissed, though design defect claims would survive. If she rules against preemption, the whole litigation moves forward with all claims intact.

Expected Ruling: Most legal analysts predict Judge Rodgers will rule in favor of plaintiffs on this issue, but the outcome remains uncertain.

The Safer Alternative Argument

A key aspect of the litigation focuses on Depo-SubQ Provera 104, an alternative product that:

• Contains a lower dose (104mg vs 150mg)

• Is administered subcutaneously instead of intramuscularly

• Is equally effective as a contraceptive

• Is FDA-approved but minimally marketed by Pfizer in the U.S.

Plaintiffs argue that this represents a design defect claim: Pfizer had a safer alternative available but continued to market the higher-dose version without adequate warnings.

This claim is not affected by federal preemption arguments and could survive even if failure-to-warn claims are dismissed.

State Court Activity

While the federal MDL is the center of activity, state court litigation is also developing:

Philadelphia: Initially appeared to be a major venue with approximately 100 cases, but after a judge severed nearly all plaintiffs from a consolidated case, only one remains. Pfizer withdrew its petition for coordination. Philadelphia is currently not a significant venue.

Delaware: In October 2025, 100 plaintiffs filed a consolidated lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court (where Pfizer and subsidiaries are incorporated), pursuing parallel claims outside the federal MDL.

Other States: Additional cases are proceeding in California, Illinois, and other jurisdictions, and Judge Rodgers has appointed liaison counsel to help coordinate state-level cases.

Who May Qualify for a Depo-Provera Lawsuit?

Women who may be eligible to file include:

Exposure Requirement:

• Received at least two injections of Depo-Provera or generic equivalent (DMPA)

• Used the medication for an extended period (longer use = higher risk)

Diagnosis Requirement:

• Diagnosed with an intracranial meningioma, another brain tumor, or a spinal tumor

• Diagnosis occurred after use of Depo-Provera.

• Must have medical imaging (MRI or CT scans) confirming diagnosis

Documentation:

• Prescription history

• Medical records documenting diagnosis and treatment

• Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire completed

Special Provision: Women who stopped using Depo-Provera before June 2005 can now file with a signed declaration and supporting documentation under Pretrial Order No. 22A.

Proof of Use Challenge and Solutions

One significant challenge in this litigation is proving that plaintiffs actually received Depo-Provera injections years or even decades ago, as many medical records have been lost or destroyed.

Court's Solution:

• All plaintiffs must complete a "Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire" within 120 days.

• The court has authorized subpoenas to third parties, including:

• Pharmacies

  • Clinics and hospitals

  • Insurance companies

  • Military medical providers

• These entities must provide records confirming DMPA injections, even if traditional medical records are unavailable.

What Happens Next?

Immediate Critical Milestone (September-October 2025)

The preemption ruling will determine whether the litigation moves forward with all claims or faces significant dismissals. This is the most crucial near-term development.

Discovery and Expert Testimony

• General causation discovery continues through early 2026

• Expert witness depositions due by January 10, 2026

• Daubert challenges to expert testimony due by February 10, 2026

Bellwether Trial Preparation

• Five pilot cases have been selected for early discovery and trial preparation.

• These cases will help establish the strength of the plaintiffs' claims.

• No specific trial dates set yet, pending preemption ruling

Leadership Accountability

Judge Rodgers has made it clear that leadership attorneys must file their cases promptly or risk being removed from leadership positions. She has expressed concern about "warehousing" cases and has ordered leadership to disclose the number of unfiled cases they hold.

Settlement Outlook

Current Status: No settlement discussions or offers have been reported at this early stage.

Expected Timeline: Given that the litigation was only established in February 2025, settlements are likely years away. The case must first survive the preemption challenge, complete discovery of general causation, and potentially undergo bellwether trials.

Potential Value: It's too early to predict settlement values, but factors that could influence compensation include:

• Severity of meningioma

• Whether surgery was required

• Permanent cognitive or neurological damage

• Duration of Depo-Provera use

• Age at diagnosis

• Impact on quality of life

Why This Matters

The Depo-Provera litigation represents a significant issue in women's health. Hundreds of thousands of women have used this contraceptive over the past several decades, trusting that it was safe. The lawsuits raise critical questions about:

• Corporate accountability: Did Pfizer prioritize profits over patient safety?

• Regulatory oversight: Why do European labels include warnings that U.S. labels lack?

• Informed consent: Were women adequately informed of potential risks?

• Medical alternatives: Why wasn't the lower-dose alternative promoted?

• Healthcare disparities: Depo-Provera has been disproportionately used in specific communities

Judge Rodgers' Approach

Judge M. Casey Rodgers is known for running efficient, aggressive MDLs. She previously presided over the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation, one of the largest product liability cases in U.S. history. Her approach includes:

• Tight deadlines: Discovery schedules are aggressive and non-negotiable

• Direct filing: Allowing cases to be filed directly in the MDL speeds the process

• Strict compliance: Defendants who miss deadlines face consequences

• Transparency: Requiring disclosure of unfiled cases to prevent warehousing

• Efficiency focus: Monthly case management conferences keep litigation moving

Key Takeaways

• Over 800 federal cases are pending in the Northern District of Florida MDL.

• A critical preemption ruling, expected in September/October 2025, could determine the litigation's future.

• Strong scientific evidence links Depo-Provera to increased meningioma risk (3.55x higher risk)

• Diverse leadership team led by Christopher Seeger (Lead), Bryan Aylstock, and Ellen Relkin (Co-Lead)

• Judge M. Casey Rodgers is known for efficient management and strict deadlines.

• A safer alternative exists (Depo-SubQ 104) with a lower dose, supporting design defect claims.

• Rapid growth: Cases are increasing by approximately 10 per day as awareness spreads

• Early stage litigation: Established February 2025; discovery ongoing through 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or legal advice. If you have used Depo-Provera and have been diagnosed with a meningioma or other brain tumor, consult with a qualified attorney to discuss your specific situation. If you have medical concerns, speak with your healthcare provider.