Depo-Provera Birth Control Tumors Spark Legal Battle Over Court Venue

Manufacturers Face Growing Lawsuits Over Brain Tumor Risks as MDL Location Debated

Generic manufacturers of Depo-Provera birth control shots have pushed for consolidation of brain tumor lawsuits in New York federal court, opposing plaintiffs’ request for a California venue. The legal battle involves Pfizer and three generic drug makers – Prasco LLC, Greenstone LLC, and Viatris Inc. – who face allegations about inadequate warnings regarding meningioma risks. Court documents filed in December 2024 reveal 22 lawsuits across eight federal districts, with more expected as women discover potential links between the contraceptive and brain tumors. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear arguments in Miami on January 30, 2025, to determine the consolidated venue.

5 Key Points

• Research shows Depo-Provera users face a five times greater risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.
• 70 million women have received Depo-Provera injections since its 1992 introduction.
• 22 lawsuits currently pending seek damages for inadequate brain tumor risk warnings.
• Generic manufacturers support MDL creation but contest California venue selection.
• The final venue decision is expected after the January 30, 2025, JPML hearing in Miami.

Legal Battle Centers on Court Location and Corporate Headquarters

The venue dispute has become a central focus in the Depo-Provera litigation, with manufacturers presenting detailed arguments for New York consolidation. In responses filed last week, Prasco, Greenstone, and Viatris emphasized the Southern District of New York’s direct connection to the litigation through Pfizer’s headquarters location. The manufacturers pointed to logistical advantages, noting that remaining defendants maintain headquarters “nearby or a short, direct plane flight away in the same time zone.” This positioning contrasts with the plaintiffs’ original motion, which sought consolidation in the Northern District of California, where six of the 22 current cases are pending. “Forcing Prasco and its counsel to litigate this MDL in California would add tangible and demonstrable inefficiencies and undue burdens not present in the alternate proposed Southern District of New York venue,” Prasco’s response states, highlighting the practical considerations at play in the venue selection process.

Get a free legal case review today

Did you develop any of the following injuries after being exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? * Choose one Ulcerative Colitis Kidney Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Testicular Cancer Prostate Cancer Bladder Cancer Thyroid Disease Liver Cancer Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma None of the above Were you exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? *

YesNo

Which medication(s) did you take during your pregnancy? * Choose one Tylenol Acetaminophen Alka-Seltzer Coricidin Dayquil Excedrin FluTherapy Midol Mucinex Nyquil Panadol Robitussin Sinex Sudafed Theraflu Other Medication(s) Was your child diagnosed with Autism, ADHD or another condition? * Choose one Autism/Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Asperger’s Syndrome Kanner’s Syndrome Childhood Disintegrative Disorder Pervasive Developmental Disorder Other Medical Condition How old was your child at the time of diagnosis? *

Under 18 years old18+ years old

Did the accident occur within the last 2 years? *

YesNo

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

ZIP Code *

Phone Number *

What is your case type? * Choose one -------------------- Asbestos Baby Formula Camp Lejeune Clergy Abuse CPAP Elmiron Exactech Firefighting Foam FTX Exchange Hair Relaxer Hernia Mesh Paraquat PFAS Roundup Sex Abuse Social Media Talcum Powder Tepezza Tylenol -------------------- Birth Injury Car Accident FELA Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accident Slip and Fall Trucking Accident Uber & Lyft Rideshare Workplace Injury Weight Loss Wrongful Death -------------------- Something Else

Human Verification *

I understand and agree that (a) submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship, (b) I am not already represented by an attorney for this matter, (c) the information I submit will be shared with a law firm, and (d) I have read and accepted the terms and conditions of the Privacy Policy, Terms of Service and Legal Disclaimer. Further, I consent to being contacted by a law firm or its agent after submitting this request.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Scientific Evidence and Drug History Fuels Litigation

The litigation’s foundation rests on compelling medical research linking Depo-Provera to increased meningioma risk. The birth control medication, containing medroxyprogesterone acetate as its active ingredient, entered the market in 1992 and has since reached approximately 70 million women worldwide. Research indicates these users face a five times greater risk of developing meningiomas compared to non-users. These slow-growing brain tumors manifest through various symptoms, including seizures, headaches, vision problems, and hearing loss. The lawsuits emerged following the publication of studies demonstrating this heightened risk, with plaintiffs alleging both Pfizer and generic manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings about these potential complications. The drug continues to be marketed by Pfizer under the brand name, while several authorized generic equivalents maintain active distribution in the marketplace.

Coordinated Legal Proceedings and Future Implications

The consolidation process carries significant implications for both current and future Depo-Provera cases. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s hearing, scheduled for January 30, 2025, at Miami’s Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, will determine the framework for managing this expanding litigation. If approved, the MDL structure will streamline pretrial proceedings, allowing coordinated discovery across all cases while preventing contradictory rulings from different jurisdictions. The process preserves individual trial options, as cases may return to their original courts if settlement efforts prove unsuccessful. This procedural framework balances efficient case management with preserving individual plaintiffs’ rights to pursue their claims. The litigation’s scope appears poised for expansion, with manufacturers and plaintiffs’ attorneys anticipating additional cases as awareness of the potential link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors grows.