Pfizer Depo Provera Lawsuit

Published By:
Jessica Paluch-Hoerman
Jessica Paluch-Hoerman

Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.

TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.

Key takeaways:

  • Pfizer faces significant legal challenges over Depo-Provera, with lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn U.S. consumers about meningioma risks despite including such warnings on product labels in Europe and Canada, potentially exposing them to substantial liability.
  • The lawsuits rely on several product liability theories, including strict liability for failure to warn, negligence, and design defect claims.
  • The litigation has been consolidated into MDL No. 3140 under Judge M. Casey Rodgers with potential settlement amounts ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 depending on specific factors.

Overview of the Pfizer Depo Provera Lawsuit

The Pfizer Depo Provera lawsuit involves allegations against Pfizer, the manufacturer of the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera, for failing to adequately warn users about the potential risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.

This litigation centers around claims of product liability, failure to warn, and negligence.

On this page, we’ll provide an overview of the Pfizer Depo Provera lawsuit, evidence against Pfizer in Depo-Provera cases, Pfizer’s role in the Depo-Provera lawsuit, and much more.

Pfizer Depo Provera Lawsuit

Pfizer Depo Provera Lawsuit Allegations

The allegations against Pfizer primarily focus on three (3) key areas:

  1. Failure to Warn: Plaintiffs argue that Pfizer did not provide adequate warnings about the risk of meningiomas, despite scientific evidence linking the drug to these tumors. In contrast, Pfizer updated warning labels in Europe to include this risk, but not in the U.S.
  2. Product Liability: Claims assert that Depo-Provera is an unreasonably dangerous product due to its association with meningiomas, making Pfizer liable for the harm caused, regardless of intent or negligence.
  3. Negligence: Some plaintiffs also claim that Pfizer was negligent in its post-market surveillance and failed to adequately investigate or respond to reports of brain tumors linked to Depo-Provera.

Eligibility and Next Steps

Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and the team at TruLaw, along with their partner firms, are dedicated to providing the legal resources and support necessary for a successful outcome in such cases.

If you or a loved one has developed a meningioma after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.

Table of Contents

How Can A Depo Provera Lawsuit Attorney from TruLaw Help You?

Our Pfizer Depo Provera attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a pharmaceutical injury lawsuit.

With extensive experience in handling similar cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman provides personalized support and advocacy to clients who have suffered adverse effects from Depo Provera.

We understand the challenges and emotional toll that medication-related injuries can have on your life, which is why we focus on simplifying the legal process of seeking the compensation you deserve.

Meet the Lead Pfizer Depo Provera Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Pfizer Depo Provera attorney:

  • Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: Her dedication to holding negligent parties accountable for their actions has led to billions of dollars in compensation for her clients nationwide through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does it cost to hire a Pfizer Depo Provera lawyer from TruLaw?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you won’t face any upfront costs for your legal representation.

Our fee is only collected if we are successful in securing compensation on your behalf.

This arrangement not only removes the financial risk of pursuing your case, it allows us to focus our resources on achieving a positive outcome in your case by:

  • Court Filings and Legal Documentation: Handling all necessary paperwork, including filing fees and procedural documents, to ensure your case proceeds smoothly through the legal system.
  • Research/Data Analysis: Dedicating resources to thoroughly investigate your case and gather the best possible evidence.
  • Expert Testimony: Consulting with leading experts in the field to support your case and demonstrate the strength of your case to the court.
  • Negotiations and Trial Preparation: Allocating resources to negotiate potential settlements and, if needed, preparing comprehensive trial strategies to present your case in court effectively.

Our investment in representing you demonstrates our unwavering commitment to seeking the compensation you deserve.

If you or a loved one suffered health issues after using Depo Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Pfizer Depo Provera lawsuit today.

Pfizer's Role in the Depo-Provera Lawsuits

As the pharmaceutical giant behind Depo-Provera, Pfizer stands at the center of mounting legal scrutiny over alleged links between their injectable contraceptive and brain tumors.

The company acquired the medication through its merger with Pharmacia in 2003, inheriting both the product’s profitable market position and its growing safety concerns.

Lawsuits nationwide claim Pfizer prioritized profits over patient safety by maintaining different warning standards across global markets.

Manufacturer Liability and Legal Claims

Pfizer, as the primary manufacturer of brand-name Depo-Provera, faces significant legal challenges in the growing meningioma litigation across the United States.

Under strict liability, Pfizer had a legal obligation to ensure their product was reasonably safe and to provide adequate warnings about known risks regardless of their level of care.

Plaintiffs allege Pfizer knew or should have known about the increased meningioma risk associated with Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate, based on scientific evidence dating back decades.

The litigation focuses heavily on Pfizer’s alleged failure to warn U.S. patients and healthcare providers about meningioma risks, despite providing such warnings in other countries.

Legal documents claim this differential treatment of warning labels shows conscious disregard for U.S. patient safety.

These cases may expose Pfizer to substantial financial liability given the severity of brain tumors and the large number of women who have used Depo-Provera since its FDA approval for contraceptive use in 1992.

Regulatory History and Pfizer’s Response

The FDA initially denied approval for contraceptive use in 1972 due to safety concerns but eventually approved it in 1992, decades after its introduction for other medical purposes in 1959.

In 2004, the FDA required Pfizer to add a black box warning about bone density loss with long-term use, but no similar warning was mandated for meningioma risks despite growing evidence of a connection.

Pfizer has included meningioma warnings on Depo-Provera packaging in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Canada for nearly a decade.

The European labels specifically advise patients with a history of meningioma to consult with their doctors before using the product.

In response to recent lawsuits, Pfizer has presented a preemption defense, claiming they attempted to update U.S. warning labels to include meningioma risks, but the FDA rejected these proposed changes due to insufficient evidence.

This defense aims to shield the company from liability by arguing that federal regulatory decisions override state-level failure to warn claims.

Critics note the company has not used the FDA’s Changes Being Effected (CBE) process to unilaterally add these warnings to U.S. labels, despite having the authority to do so for newly discovered risks.

Evidence Against Pfizer in Depo-Provera Cases

The growing litigation against Pfizer relies on several key forms of evidence that attorneys believe demonstrate the company’s liability for meningioma injuries.

As cases move through pretrial discovery, this evidence will face intense scrutiny from both sides, with plaintiffs working to establish clear causal links while Pfizer challenges both the scientific basis of claims and its legal obligation to warn.

Legal analysts note that combining scientific research and international regulatory discrepancies creates a compelling narrative for plaintiffs.

The evidence suggests Pfizer may have recognized meningioma risks for years before American patients received any warning, a pattern similar to other pharmaceutical mass torts where foreign safety warnings preceded U.S. disclosures.

Scientific Studies on Meningioma Risk

The primary scientific evidence linking Depo-Provera to meningioma risk comes from a landmark study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in March 2024.

This study builds upon a significant body of earlier medical literature documenting the relationship between progesterone-like hormones and meningioma development.

Research dating back to the 1980s has established that progesterone receptors contribute to meningioma growth, with studies showing that as many as 80 percent of meningioma cells express progesterone receptors.

Medical experts are now providing testimony in current cases explaining how medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, interacts with these progesterone receptors to potentially stimulate tumor growth.

As one medical study noted, “Studies have found that meningioma tumor cells often contain progesterone receptors, making them potentially responsive to hormones like MPA.”

International Warning Discrepancies

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence against Pfizer is the stark contrast between Depo-Provera warning labels in the United States and those in other countries.

This discrepancy forms a central argument in many lawsuits, suggesting that Pfizer’s differential approach to safety warnings demonstrates knowledge of risks that the company failed to share with American consumers.

European Union and United Kingdom labels for Depo-Provera explicitly list meningioma under “special warnings and precautions for use” and specifically advise patients with a history of meningioma to consult with their doctors before using the product.

Similarly, the Canadian label has mentioned meningiomas as a potential “post-market adverse drug reaction” for nearly a decade.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are using these international warning discrepancies as evidence in U.S. cases, arguing that if Pfizer recognized the need to warn patients in Europe and Canada, they had an equal obligation to warn American women.

Pfizer Settlement Considerations

The question of potential settlements looms large as the Depo-Provera MDL advances under Judge Rodgers’ supervision.

While Pfizer has yet to offer settlements for meningioma claims, legal analysts are examining past settlement patterns and specific case factors to predict possible outcomes.

Settlement negotiations typically emerge after several bellwether trials establish precedent and help both sides assess jury reactions to evidence.

Past Settlements for Depo-Provera Injuries

In May 2021, Pfizer reached a $2.176 million settlement in a Canadian class action lawsuit involving Depo-Provera’s link to bone density loss.

This settlement was divided into $1,913,750 for class members and $262,500 for provincial health insurers.

The Canadian settlement applied specifically to individuals who used Depo-Provera before May 31, 2010, and were diagnosed with osteopenia, osteoporosis, or fragility fractures.

This resolution came after over a decade of litigation, as the class action was initially authorized in 2008.

Projected Settlement Amounts for Current Cases

Legal experts estimate that individual settlements for Depo-Provera meningioma cases could range between $100,000 and $500,000, with some plaintiffs potentially receiving significantly higher amounts depending on case-specific factors.

These projections are only an estimate and do not promise specific outcomes for individual cases.

The actual settlement amounts can vary widely based on a variety of factors, such as:

  • The need for surgical intervention to remove tumors
  • Permanent neurological damage or disability resulting from the meningioma
  • Extensive medical expenses for ongoing treatment
  • Lost income and diminished earning capacity
  • Length of Depo-Provera use (with longer usage potentially strengthening causation claims)
  • Age of the plaintiff when diagnosed (with younger plaintiffs typically receiving higher compensation)

Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and the team at TruLaw, along with their partner firms, are dedicated to providing the legal resources and support necessary for a successful outcome in such cases.

If you or a loved one has developed a meningioma after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.

TruLaw: Your Depo-Provera Law Firm

Depo-Provera lawsuits are being filed by individuals across the country who developed meningiomas after using the contraceptive injection.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Depo-Provera litigation against Pfizer.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Depo-Provera lawsuit include:

  • If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The pharmaceutical liability lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
  • Expertise: We have years of experience handling pharmaceutical cases similar to the Depo-Provera lawsuits, which helps us anticipate what we can expect to see in your case and the regulations we will be required to meet.
  • Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one developed meningiomas after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the Depo-Provera litigation today.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • What is the current status of Depo-Provera lawsuits?

    More than 70 federal cases have been consolidated Depo-Provera lawsuits into an MDL in the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers as of March 2025.

    The litigation focuses on women who developed Depo-Provera brain tumor issues after using Depo-Provera contraceptive injections.

  • Who qualifies to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit?

    Women who received at least two Depo-Provera injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor may qualify to file a lawsuit against Pfizer.

    Candidates must have medical documentation confirming both their Depo subq Provera usage and meningioma diagnosis through imaging or surgical records.

  • What are the main legal claims in Depo-Provera lawsuits?

    The primary claims center on failure to warn allegations, stating that Pfizer knew about meningioma risks but didn’t properly warn U.S. patients about dangers of the Depo-Provera shot.

    Additional claims suggest the contraceptive Depo-Provera caused brain tumors, and argue that safer alternatives were available but not promoted.

  • How long do I have to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit?

    The statute of limitations varies by state, typically ranging from 1-3 years from either your meningioma diagnosis or when you reasonably should have known about the connection to prolonged Depo-Provera use.

    Some states apply a discovery rule that extends the deadline for those who have filed Depo-Provera lawsuits based on when the connection became known.

  • What documentation is needed to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit?

    Required documentation includes medical records confirming Injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera prescriptions, pharmacy records showing injection dates, and complete diagnostic records of your meningioma.

    Depo-Provera lawyers recommend including surgical records and evidence of how the condition has impacted your quality of life when preparing Depo-Provera claims.

  • When can plaintiffs expect resolution in Depo-Provera cases?

    Legal experts anticipate that those with a Depo-Provera shot lawsuit or a Depo shot lawsuit may see significant developments within 12-24 months, with possible Depo-Provera settlements beginning after the first bellwether trials.

    Judge Rodgers’ handling of cases involving prolonged Depo-Provera exposure suggests an accelerated timeline compared to typical MDLs.

Published By:
Jessica Paluch-Hoerman
Jessica Paluch-Hoerman

Managing Attorney & Owner

With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three.  She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.

In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.

In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!

AFFF Lawsuit

AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.

Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.

Suboxone Lawsuit

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.

Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.

Social Media Lawsuits

Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.

Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.

Bair Hugger Lawsuit

Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).

Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.

Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit

Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.

Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.

Do You
Have A Case?

Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.

Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.

Would you like our help?

Helpful Sites & Resources