Depo-Provera

What the lawsuit is about

The Depo-Provera lawsuit — also searched as the "depo shot," "depo birth control shot," or simply "depo" lawsuit — is a federal product-liability case alleging that the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) caused intracranial meningioma brain tumors, and that Pfizer and the Pharmacia entities failed to warn users. The cases are consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation, MDL-3140, before Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Defendants dispute the claims, and no settlement has been reached.

As of July 2026 it is one of the fastest-growing active MDLs, with 5,830 actions pending. The court moved the Rule 702 expert hearing to July 27, 2026 and postponed a ruling on the federal-preemption motion. The first Pilot bellwether trial remains scheduled for December 7, 2026. Claim review focuses on injection records, imaging and pathology confirming a meningioma, and state filing deadlines.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Update: July 2026

On June 15, 2026, the court continued the Rule 702 hearing from June 24-25 to July 27, 2026 in Pensacola and postponed ruling on Pfizer's pending federal-preemption motion. The order says that a global agreement, once finalized, would not resolve all MDL cases because participation depends on agreed eligibility criteria. It does not establish an individual payment amount or automatic eligibility.

As of July 1, 2026, 5,830 actions were pending in MDL No. 3140, up from 3,490 on March 31. The first Pilot bellwether trial remains scheduled for December 7, 2026, per Case Management Order No. 9. Pfizer and the Pharmacia entities dispute the plaintiffs' claims.

The July 27 Rule 702 hearing and the pending preemption ruling are gateway decisions that may affect the trajectory of the MDL. Individuals researching this litigation should monitor court orders rather than rely on settlement-value estimates.

Case Status Snapshot

• Litigation: federal multidistrict litigation — MDL-3140 (the Depo-Provera meningioma litigation)
• Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola)
• Judge: M. Casey Rodgers
• MDL created: February 7, 2025
• Pending actions: 5,830 (JPML, July 1, 2026) — among the fastest-growing active MDLs
• Defendants: Pfizer Inc.; Pharmacia & Upjohn
• Primary injury: intracranial meningioma brain tumors
• Next milestones: Rule 702 hearing July 27, 2026; first Pilot trial December 7, 2026
• Settlement status: none as of June 2026; no amount guaranteed

Litigation Updates and Timeline

• February 2025: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Depo-Provera cases in MDL No. 3140 in the Northern District of Florida for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
• 2025: Early MDL activity focused on case management, pleadings, transfer of related actions, and procedures for organizing common factual and legal issues.
• Early 2026: Public case updates continued to focus on pretrial scheduling, proof-of-use issues, expert questions, and the shape of potential bellwether work.
• May 2026: The litigation remains active, with public court materials reflecting continued case-management activity and upcoming proceedings.
• What to watch next: Expert rulings, bellwether scheduling, warning evidence, and state-law deadline rulings may affect how claims are evaluated.

Current litigation status

Depo-Provera meningioma claims are active and being evaluated nationally. Federal Depo-Provera product liability cases have been centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3140 in the Northern District of Florida. Centralization does not decide whether any individual claim is valid; it is a process for handling common factual issues more efficiently.

The central issues include whether use of Depo-Provera or related depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injections is associated with meningioma, whether warnings were adequate, what defendants knew or should have known about the alleged risk, and how individual medical histories affect causation. Litigation status can change, so this guide should be read as a general case-status overview rather than a real-time court docket.

Key issues in the lawsuit

Depo-Provera lawsuits generally focus on allegations that users were not adequately warned about the risk of developing one or more meningiomas after receiving the injectable contraceptive. A meningioma is a tumor that forms in the membranes around the brain and spinal cord. Some meningiomas may be monitored, while others may require surgery, radiation, or ongoing neurological care.

The main factual questions are likely to include how long a person used Depo-Provera, how many injections were received, whether the product was the brand-name medication or a generic equivalent, and whether the diagnosis involved a qualifying meningioma. Legal questions may include warning adequacy, product labeling, causation, statute of limitations, and whether a plaintiff can show that different warnings would have affected prescribing or treatment decisions.

Defendants can dispute these claims in several ways. They may argue that the scientific evidence does not prove causation for a particular person, that warnings were legally adequate, that a person’s tumor had another explanation, or that the claim was filed too late. Those disputes are one reason individual medical and pharmacy records matter so much.

How claims may be evaluated

A Depo-Provera claim review usually starts with the use timeline. Prescription records, pharmacy records, injection logs, clinic notes, OB/GYN records, primary care records, and insurance histories may help show when injections occurred and how long use continued. The more specific the timeline, the easier it may be to compare product use with diagnosis and treatment history.

The diagnosis timeline is equally important. Brain imaging, neurosurgery records, pathology reports, neurology notes, radiation oncology records, and hospital records can help identify the tumor type, location, treatment, symptoms, and date of discovery. A lawyer may also want to know whether the tumor was incidental, symptomatic, surgically removed, recurrent, or treated with radiation.

Causation review may look at dose, duration, timing, other hormone exposure, prior medical conditions, family history, and whether medical providers discussed Depo-Provera in connection with the diagnosis. None of those facts automatically proves or defeats a claim, but they can affect how the claim is evaluated.

Common fact patterns

One common fact pattern may involve a person who received Depo-Provera injections for contraception over several years through an OB/GYN office, community clinic, public health clinic, or primary care provider and later learned that a brain scan showed a meningioma. Another may involve a person who stopped using the medication years earlier but was diagnosed after headaches, vision changes, seizures, balance issues, or other neurological symptoms led to imaging.

Some people may have records showing regular injection appointments every three months. Others may have gaps in use, changed providers, or received injections at different clinics. A claim may be easier to evaluate when there are dated records showing injections, the prescribing provider, the pharmacy or clinic involved, the diagnosis date, and the medical course after diagnosis.

Families may also review claims where a person required brain surgery, radiation, long-term monitoring, or experienced lasting neurological effects. Wrongful death issues may require separate state-law analysis and are not something this page can evaluate.

What can make a claim harder to evaluate

Missing injection records can make it harder to prove product use and duration. This can happen when clinics close, records are old, providers changed electronic systems, or the person cannot remember where injections were received. Insurance records, pharmacy records, patient portal downloads, and old appointment calendars may sometimes help fill gaps.

Timing can also complicate review. A very short use history, an uncertain diagnosis date, or a tumor found long after use may require closer medical and legal analysis. Other medical factors, prior tumor history, genetic conditions, other hormone treatments, or incomplete pathology records may also affect causation review.

Legal issues can make a claim harder as well. Prior releases, bankruptcy claims, estate issues, or filing deadlines may limit options. A lawyer would need to review the specific documents and state law before giving an opinion.

Why state law may still matter

Even when cases are coordinated in a federal MDL, state law may still matter. A person’s claim may be evaluated under the law of the state where they lived, received injections, were diagnosed, or experienced injury. State law can affect filing deadlines, discovery rules, wrongful death claims, damages, and what warnings or proof may be required.

For example, some deadlines may run from the date of diagnosis, while others may involve discovery of a possible connection between the product and injury. These rules are fact-specific. A national proceeding can coordinate common issues, but it does not erase state-law differences.

Questions to ask before contacting a lawyer

• Can I identify where and when I received Depo-Provera injections?
• Do I have pharmacy, clinic, OB/GYN, or insurance records showing use?
• What type of meningioma was diagnosed, and when was it first found?
• Did I have surgery, radiation, monitoring, or lasting neurological symptoms?
• How could my state’s filing deadline apply to my diagnosis timeline?
• What records would a lawyer need before giving an initial claim review?

Sources and status notes

• Federal court context: Federal Depo-Provera product liability cases are described on this site as centralized in MDL No. 3140 in the Northern District of Florida for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The JPML transfer materials are also available through the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
• Agency or medical context: Claim review may involve product labeling, injection records, brain imaging, pathology, neurology, neurosurgery, and other medical records. FDA drug-label information can be checked through the FDA Online Label Repository.
• Litigation status: This guide summarizes public litigation status information and should not be treated as a live court docket. The litigation appears to be in active pretrial development rather than a mature settlement stage.
• Review note: Case status, settlement posture, deadlines, and eligibility factors can change.
• Last reviewed: June 29, 2026.

Who may be affected

• People with documented use of or exposure to Depo-Provera birth control injections.
• People later diagnosed with meningioma brain tumors.
• People who can identify approximate dates, locations, providers, employers, or exposure circumstances.
• Families evaluating possible wrongful death issues should ask a lawyer how state law may apply.

What injuries does the Depo-Provera lawsuit involve?

• Meningioma
• Brain tumor diagnosis
• Surgery
• Radiation treatment
• Neurological symptoms

What evidence is needed for Depo-Provera claims?

• Prescription records
• Injection dates
• OB/GYN or clinic records
• Brain imaging reports
• Pathology or neurology records
• Surgery and radiation records

How has the Depo-Provera lawsuit progressed?

What is the Depo-Provera settlement status?

Depo-Provera meningioma litigation appears to be in a developing pretrial stage rather than a mature settlement stage. No global settlement is guaranteed or confirmed here. Settlement posture may be influenced by expert rulings, bellwether planning, proof-of-use requirements, warning evidence, and how individual medical histories are evaluated. Anyone researching a possible claim should focus first on preserving injection records, diagnosis records, and state-deadline information rather than relying on settlement-value estimates.

What are the Depo-Provera lawsuit filing deadlines?

Deadlines vary by state and may depend on diagnosis date, discovery date, exposure history, wrongful death issues, and other facts. A lawyer can evaluate how the relevant deadline rules may apply.

State-by-state guide links