Depo-Provera Lawsuit News:
Major 2025–2026 Litigation Developments
Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss in the lead case in December 2025 — failure-to-warn and negligent design claims are proceeding into discovery. The JPML is expected to rule on MDL centralization in mid-2026. Our firm is accepting cases nationwide.
Key Case & Procedural Posture
Where the Litigation Stands Now
Multiple federal filings allege that long-term use of Depo-Provera caused intracranial hypertension (pseudotumor cerebri), vision loss, and severe neurological symptoms. Cases are most active in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, and Southern District of Illinois, with the JPML petition for centralization pending.
Harris v. Pfizer Inc.
Case No. 2:25-cv-01477 — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
December 2025: Plaintiffs survived a partial motion to dismiss. The court allowed claims for failure to warn, negligent design, and breach of implied warranty to proceed, and ordered Phase I discovery — including production of internal safety-signal analyses and adverse-event reports related to intracranial hypertension.
In re: Depo-Provera Intracranial Hypertension Litigation
Proposed MDL No. 3112 — Requested venue: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Status: Plaintiffs have petitioned the JPML to centralize all federal Depo-Provera cases. The panel is expected to rule in mid-2026. Several cases are already consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in anticipation of MDL formation.
What Plaintiffs Allege
How Pfizer Failed Depo-Provera Patients
Depo-Provera contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, which plaintiffs allege interferes with cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and can cause dangerous increases in intracranial pressure. Plaintiffs contend Pfizer had access to safety signals indicating this risk and failed to act on them.
Failure to Warn
Pfizer failed to include adequate warnings about the risk of intracranial hypertension in its labeling, leaving patients and prescribers uninformed about a serious neurological risk.
Ignored Safety Signals
Plaintiffs allege internal safety-signal analyses and adverse-event data showed a link between Depo-Provera and intracranial hypertension — and that Pfizer failed to respond appropriately.
Negligent Design
The drug’s formulation and dosing created foreseeable risks of cerebrospinal fluid pressure increase that plaintiffs allege could have been addressed through alternative design.
Misleading Long-Term Safety Claims
Depo-Provera was marketed as safe for long-term use, with neurological side effects downplayed or omitted from patient-facing materials.
Eligibility
Do You Have a Case? Who May Qualify?
You may qualify if you used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed intracranial hypertension or related neurological symptoms. Both short-term and long-term users may be eligible depending on their diagnosis.
Qualifying Diagnoses
- Intracranial hypertension (pseudotumor cerebri)
- Chronic migraines linked to IH
- Vision loss or optic nerve swelling (papilledema)
- Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
- Dizziness or balance issues
General Eligibility Factors
- Used Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate injection)
- Developed a qualifying neurological condition during or after use
- Diagnosis documented by a physician or neurologist
- Symptoms consistent with intracranial hypertension
Legal Theories & Damages
Liability & What You Can Recover
Liability Legal Theories
- Failure to warn
- Negligent design
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of implied warranty
- Negligent failure to update labeling
- Violations of state consumer-protection statutes
Damages What You Can Recover
- Medical expenses (past and future)
- Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
- Compensation for permanent vision impairment
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Punitive damages for reckless conduct
Our Firm Is Now Accepting Depo-Provera Cases
We represent individuals nationwide harmed by Depo-Provera and track every development in the emerging MDL — from Phase I discovery to JPML rulings to bellwether scheduling — to ensure our clients are best positioned for maximum recovery.
We handle these cases on a contingency fee basis — you pay nothing unless we win.