Depo-Provera lawsuit update

Verified snapshot

The facts that anchor this dossier

A careful guide to the fast-growing federal Depo-Provera meningioma litigation: what the court is actually deciding, what the newest FDA label says, and why an epidemiologic association is not the same thing as proof in an individual case.

Federal proceeding

MDL 3140

Centralized in the Northern District of Florida before Judge M. Casey Rodgers.

Pending federal actions

6,294

JPML count as of August 3, 2026. State-court cases are counted separately and outcomes are not forecast here.

Historical actions

6,394

Total actions the JPML reports as filed in or transferred to the MDL through August 3, 2026.

Core alleged injury

Meningioma

Plaintiffs allege that repeated depot medroxyprogesterone acetate exposure caused one or more tumors; defendants dispute liability.

FDA label status

Meningioma warning added

The prescribing information revised in December 2025 says cases have been reported, primarily with long-term use, and directs monitoring and discontinuation if diagnosed.

Documented chronology

How the litigation reached this point

What MDL 3140 coordinates

Depo-Provera is the brand most people recognize. The coordinated litigation is framed more broadly, around depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA. The JPML found that the centralized actions share questions about whether the injectable contraceptive can cause meningioma, what manufacturers knew, and whether the warnings were adequate. Those questions are contested. Centralizing them settles none of them.

An MDL is a pretrial coordination device. It puts discovery, recurring legal motions, and expert-evidence disputes before one federal judge. Thousands of individual suits stay individual: product identification, duration of use, medical diagnosis, and the governing state law still decide each case on its own facts.

What the meningioma studies measured

The 2024 French national case-control study accelerated public attention. Researchers compared 18,061 women who underwent intracranial meningioma surgery with 90,305 matched controls, and found prolonged injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate exposure associated with higher odds of that surgery. The study's size and national health-data design make it substantial. It is also observational, and three features bound what it can support: how exposure was measured, what may have confounded the estimate, and the choice of a surgical endpoint rather than diagnosis.

Later U.S. database studies reported associations too, with stronger estimates at longer exposure, while noting that the absolute clinical risk was low. The MDL court decides what expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and that inquiry tests methodology and fit. It is a separate question from whether a regulator changed a label, and separate again from specific causation in one patient.

What the December 2025 FDA label says

The FDA-approved prescribing information now contains a meningioma subsection. It states that cases have been reported following repeated medroxyprogesterone acetate administration, primarily with long-term use, tells clinicians to monitor for signs and symptoms, and directs discontinuation if a meningioma is diagnosed. That is meaningful safety information written at population level. The wording stops short of saying any individual user is likely to develop a tumor.

The label also retains a boxed warning about loss of bone mineral density and says long-term contraceptive use beyond two years is generally not recommended unless other methods are inadequate. Patients should not stop or switch prescribed contraception based on litigation advertising. A prescribing clinician can discuss the current label, a person's treatment history, warning symptoms, and medically appropriate alternatives without turning that conversation into a legal judgment.

Where the federal case stands

This is no longer an intake-stage docket. The court established pilot cases, required threshold proof of use and injury, oversaw general-causation expert discovery, and scheduled Rule 702 work. In March 2026 the court noted that member filings were rising rapidly. The steadier portfolio metric is the JPML report: 6,294 actions pending out of 6,394 historical actions as of August 3, 2026.

Pretrial Order 30A disclosed that leadership counsel and certain defendants had reached a global agreement and said only plaintiffs meeting criteria agreed by the parties would have an opportunity to resolve claims. The public order does not provide a universal payout chart, does not make every DMPA user a participant, and does not justify an online conclusion about anyone's status. The same order contemplated continuing expert-evidence work because not all cases would be resolved.

Which orders to watch next

Two rulings will shape this docket: Rule 702 and preemption. A Rule 702 ruling decides whether particular expert opinions may be presented. Preemption asks whether federal regulatory law forecloses some state-law warning claims. Either can reshape the litigation while leaving every individual case undecided. Keep the federal MDL count separate from cases pending in Delaware, New York, California, and other state courts.

The useful personal records are ordinary ones: pharmacy and insurer records showing injection dates, imaging and pathology reports, and the clinical history around a diagnosis. The court's threshold-proof order shows why those records matter to the court. It is not a public checklist for legal qualification, and because limitation periods differ by jurisdiction, no generic webpage can calculate a deadline.

Reader questions

Frequently asked questions