Depo Provera Shots Alleged to Cause Brain Cancer
Depo Provera 2025 Lawsuit – The Depo Provera lawsuits center around the claim that prolonged use of the contraception injection, containing medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), increases the risk of meningiomas, a type of brain tumor.
A study published in the British Medical Journal show that women using Depo-Provera for over a year are more than five times as likely to develop these tumors which grow due to MPA’s stimulation of hormone sensitive brain receptors.
Plaintiffs claim Pfizer the drug’s manufacturer failed to warn patients and healthcare providers about these risks and prioritized profits over safety.
The cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Florida, presided by Judge M. Casey Rodgers to streamline the process.
Plaintiffs many of whom have undergone invasive procedures like brain surgeries and have suffered long-term health issues seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and emotional distress and demand corporate accountability in pharmaceutical safety.
Depo Provera 2025 Lawsuit Facts:
- Scientific Evidence: Studies including one published in the British Medical Journal have shown Depo-Provera increases the risk of meningiomas. MPA stimulates tumor growth through hormone receptors.
- Legal Claims: Plaintiffs claim Pfizer knew or should have known about these risks but failed to update the warning labels or inform healthcare providers. This failure to warn is the basis of the lawsuits.
- Litigation Status: The cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Florida to streamline the process. This allows plaintiffs to share evidence while keeping their individual claims.
- Injuries and Damages: Many of the women in the lawsuits have undergone invasive procedures including brain surgeries and are seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering.
Depo Provera and Brain Tumors (Meningiomas)
The connection between Depo Provera, a long-acting contraception injection and meningiomas, a slow growing brain tumor is at the heart of these lawsuits.
Meningiomas are slow growing brain tumors that develop in the meninges, the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord.
Although these tumors are often benign, their location near critical brain structures can cause severe complications that result in surgery or radiation therapy.
Recent scientific research has linked prolonged use of Depo Provera to an increased risk of developing these tumors.
This is primarily caused by the hormonal effects of its active ingredient medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA).
Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a synthetic form of progesterone, a hormone that occurs naturally in the human body and regulates the menstrual cycle and pregnancy.
Depo Provera’s effectiveness as a contraception comes from its ability to mimic progesterone, which suppresses ovulation, thickens cervical mucus to block sperm and thins the uterine lining.
But this same hormone has been shown to stimulate growth of hormone sensitive tumors like meningiomas.
The British Medical Journal Study
One of the most significant studies linking Depo Provera to meningiomas was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in March 2024.
This study used data from the French National Health Data System and included 18,061 women who had surgery for meningiomas.
The results were striking. Women who used medroxyprogesterone acetate-based treatments like Depo Provera for over a year were over five times more likely to develop these brain tumors compared to non-users.
The researchers found a clear dose response relationship where the risk increased with the duration of Depo Provera use.
This strengthens the argument for causation because it shows that prolonged exposure to medroxyprogesterone acetate increases the risk.
This led to a closer look at the safety profile of Depo-Provera especially since it is used as a long-term contraception.
Biological Mechanisms
The biological mechanism behind Depo Provera and meningiomas is the role of hormone receptors in tumor development. Meningioma cells express high levels of progesterone receptors.
When these receptors are activated by high levels of progesterone or synthetic progestins like medroxyprogesterone acetate, cellular activity associated with tumor growth is stimulated.
This is not new evidence. Studies dating back to the 1980s showed that meningiomas express hormone receptors and that their growth is influenced by circulating hormone levels.
More recently, studies on progesterone blockers to shrink existing meningiomas have further confirmed the role of hormones in tumor progression.
Implications of the Data
The association found in the BMJ study has big implications as it highlights the risks tied to a medication marketed as a safe and convenient solution for millions of women worldwide.
This has led to lawsuits against the manufacturer Pfizer as it raises questions about risk communication and whether warnings were given to healthcare providers and patients.
The study has also re-ignited regulatory and ethical debates about how quickly emerging safety concerns should trigger label updates or restrictions on use.
Legal Claims in the Depo Provera Lawsuits
The lawsuits against Pfizer for Depo Provera are a big legal dispute over failure to warn claims which is one of the foundations of product liability law.
This type of claim alleges that a company did not inform consumers or healthcare providers about known risks of its product.
Plaintiffs in these cases argue that Pfizer the manufacturer of Depo Provera breached its duty to warn users about the increased risk of developing meningiomas a type of brain tumor with prolonged use of the medication.
Foundation of Failure to Warn Claims
Under US law regulating pharmaceutical products, drug manufacturers are required to disclose all known risks and side effects to prescribers and end users.
This disclosure is essential for informed medical decision making both at the healthcare provider level and for patients considering a treatment’s risks and benefits. A failure to do so is negligence.
Plaintiffs in Depo-Provera lawsuits claim that Pfizer knew or should have known about the drug’s risk of causing meningiomas.
The company is accused of not acting responsibly on this knowledge by not updating its warning labels or issuing safety announcements even after studies started to show the link between the medication and brain tumors.
Knowledge of the Risks
Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer knew or should have known about the risks of Depo Provera long before any public acknowledgement of those risks.
A growing body of research, some dating back decades showed hormonal link to meningioma growth in brain tissues with high levels of progesterone receptors.
Plaintiffs claim that this research created a duty to investigate and warn. Plaintiffs further claim that Pfizer delayed or withheld critical updates on Depo Provera’s safety to protect profits from its flagship contraceptive.
Specific Allegations
At the center of the litigation are allegations that Pfizer failed to be transparent and communicate risks including the following claims:
- ** Failure to Update Labels:** Plaintiffs claim that Pfizer did not update Depo Provera’s labeling to warn about meningiomas even when faced with mounting evidence.
While labels in some international markets like Canada had warnings about brain tumor risks US labels were silent on the issue for years. - Neglect of Post Market Surveillance Duties: Regulatory requirements mandate that manufacturers actively analyze adverse event data and follow up research post approval. Pfizer is alleged to have failed to do so.
- Suppressing Risk Communication to Doctors and Patients: The lawsuits claim that Pfizer withheld critical data from healthcare providers so doctors couldn’t counsel patients about the risks of long-term Depo Provera use. Without warning, many women continued to use the drug.
Consequences of Pfizer’s Negligence
By not disclosing known risks Pfizer denied patient’s full informed consent.
Many women who developed meningiomas claim they would not have used Depo-Provera if they had known the risks. Instead, they used it for years which increased their exposure and risk of brain tumors.
Plaintiff’s claim that Pfizer’s failure to warn has caused immense harm including invasive surgeries and long-term health complications which are the basis of these claims.
Plaintiffs are not only seeking compensation for their financial and emotional damages but also punitive damages to hold Pfizer accountable for putting profits over patient safety.
Status of the Depo-Provera Lawsuits 2025
The Depo-Provera lawsuits have reached a major milestone with the consolidation of cases into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida.
This strategic move approved by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) was done to streamline the pretrial process for the growing number of cases filed against Pfizer the manufacturer of Depo-Provera.
What is an MDL and Why is it Important?
An MDL is a legal mechanism designed to improve the management of numerous lawsuits that have common legal and factual issues.
Unlike a class action where all claims are combined as one, an MDL allows each plaintiff to maintain their own lawsuit, but the pretrial process including discovery and motions, are consolidated under one judge.
For the Depo-Provera cases the MDL consolidation allows plaintiffs to pool resources such as medical studies and expert testimony to build a stronger case.
Judge M. Casey Rodgers, an experienced mass tort judge, is overseeing the Depo-Provera MDL. She previously handled the 3M earplug litigation which was one of the largest mass tort cases in legal history.
Her involvement has given lawyers confidence that this litigation will move efficiently and fairly.
How MDL Helps Plaintiffs
The MDL structure provides several benefits to plaintiffs filing against Pfizer.
MDL status allows for consolidation of discovery.
Discovery in pharmaceutical cases involves obtaining a large amount of scientific data, corporate communications and regulatory documents from the defendant. By centralizing this process plaintiffs’ counsel avoids duplication of effort.
MDL provides a platform for bellwether trials. These are test cases that give insight into the potential outcome for the larger group of cases.
Bellwether trials often prompt settlement discussions as both sides get a clearer view of how juries will react to key evidence and arguments.
MDLs create an environment for shared resources as their counsel can work together on expert testimony, scientific arguments linking Depo-Provera to meningiomas and legal strategies.
This pooling of expertise strengthens individual claims while reducing financial burden on smaller law firms.
Individual Claims
While the MDL consolidates pretrial proceedings it preserves the individuality of each case. This means, although plaintiffs will share evidence and procedural benefits each will have their own unique circumstances assessed separately for damages based on their specific injuries, expenses and suffering.
Current Status of the Depo Provera MDL in 2025
Since the Depo Provera MDL was established in early 2025, key organizational tasks have been completed.
Judge Rodgers has appointed lead counsel and issued discovery orders.
Cases have also been transferred from state and federal courts into the MDL to centralize the proceedings.
Pilot cases (what may be thought of as bellwether trials) have been designated to guide the overall direction of the litigation.
This structure provides an efficient pathway for thousands of women affected by Depo-Provera to get compensated while addressing the broader issues in the cases.
Pilot Trials
Pilot trials have been selected in the Depo-Provera litigation. Judge M. Casey Rodgers overseeing the MDL in the Northern District of Florida has selected five pilot cases to move forward.
Discovery for these cases began on March 27, 2025, and will continue through March 2026.
These pilot cases will be test trials to help both sides assess their arguments and potentially settle. This fast-tracked approach skips the usual bellwether trial selection process and goes straight to a quicker resolution.
The Five Pilot Cases in the Depo-Provera Multidistrict Litigation MDL are:
- Donna Toney v. Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., LLC, Pharmacia LLC
Case No. 3:24cv624-MCR-HTC - Alicia Wilson v. Pfizer Inc., Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC, Prasco LLC d/b/a Prasco Laboratories
Case No. 3:25cv100-MCR-HTC - Kristina Schmidt v. Pfizer Inc., Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, Prasco Labs, Pharmacia & Upjohn
Case No. 3:25cv81-MCR-HTC - Rachel Valera-Arceo and Fredi Valera Arceo v. Pfizer Inc., Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, Prasco LLC d/b/a Prasco Laboratories, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC
Case No. 3:25cv98-MCR-HTC - Allison Blonski v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn
Case No. 3:25cv-00167-MCR-HTC
These cases were chosen to represent a cross-section of the MDL claims focusing on the link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas.
Discovery is underway for these cases and their outcomes will guide the larger litigation including settlements or further trials.
Injuries and Damages
At the core of the Depo-Provera cases are the serious injuries and life-long damages suffered by women who developed meningiomas a type of brain tumor after using the shot.
The consequences of these injuries go far beyond the initial diagnosis causing physical, emotional and financial burdens.
Plaintiffs Might Receive Compensation For:
- The severe and invasive treatments required for these conditions.
- The long-term health complications from the brain tumors themselves.
- The overall disruption to the lives of the affected individuals and their families.
- Pain and suffering
- Medical bills
- Lost work or lost wages
- And more
Types of Injuries
Many of the women in these cases were diagnosed with meningiomas. Although typically benign, meningiomas can cause severe medical problems because of their location in the brain and size.
Meningiomas develop in the meninges the protective membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord and often press against vital structures.
This can cause symptoms such as severe headaches, vision problems, memory loss, seizures and even paralysis depending on the location of the tumor.
For many plaintiffs their meningiomas required craniotomies a type of brain surgery that involves removing part of the skull to access and remove the tumor.
Craniotomies carry risks such as infection, loss of brain function and permanent disfigurement.
Post-surgical recovery can be long and require physical rehabilitation or even additional treatments like radiation to address residual tumor growth.
For some women their tumors are inoperable because of the tumor’s proximity to vital brain areas like the optic nerves or brainstem.
Patients with inoperable brain tumors don’t have a lot of options. They can try symptom management or experimental treatments but remain subject to the ongoing effects of their tumors.
Long Term Health Consequences
Long term consequences of meningiomas and their treatment can be severe and far reaching. Even after surgery, many patients are not able to return to their prior level of function.
Cognitive impairments, diminished motor skills, chronic fatigue and persistent headaches are common complaints.
Some patients require lifelong medical monitoring including regular MRIs or CT scans to ensure tumors have not returned or grown.
Patients may also experience long term emotional and psychological effects including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after their diagnosis and treatments.
These effects compound the physical challenges, and many plaintiffs are struggling to return to their normal way of life.
Types of Damages
Plaintiffs in Depo-Provera cases are seeking compensation for a range of damages caused by their brain tumor diagnoses. Some of these damages include:
- Medical Expenses
This includes the costs associated with diagnosis, surgery, hospital stays, radiation therapy, prescription medications and any future medical monitoring including follow up MRIs and scans. - Lost Wages and Diminished Earning Capacity
Women who were unable to work during their treatment and recovery period or who permanently lost their ability to work at the same level due to lingering health issues are seeking compensation for these significant financial losses. - Physical Pain and Suffering
Some Plaintiffs are suffering debilitating pain from their tumors and treatments. These plaintiffs may seek damages for their pain and suffering. - Mental and Emotional Distress
Anxiety, depression and trauma from diagnosis and treatment is a big part of the damages being sought in these cases. - Loss of Quality of Life
Many plaintiffs have had to give up hobbies, roles and responsibilities they once enjoyed because of their condition and have lost their sense of normalcy and personal fulfillment. - Punitive Damages
Plaintiffs are also seeking punitive damages to hold Pfizer accountable for their alleged negligence if it is proven that they could have acted sooner to warn patients or pull the product.
Summary – 2025 Depo Provera Lawsuit Update
Depo Provera lawsuit update – This lawsuit is about claims that prolonged use of the Depo Provera birth control shot containing medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) increases the risk of meningiomas, a type of brain tumor.
Scientific studies including one published in the British Medical Journal found that women who used Depo Provera for over a year were over five times more likely to develop meningiomas.
The tumors are believed to grow because MPA stimulates hormone sensitive receptors in the brain.
Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer, the manufacturer, failed to warn patients and healthcare providers about these risks despite decades of research.
Plaintiffs argue that Pfizer neglected their duty to update warning labels or communicate risks and put profits over patient safety.
This failure to warn is the basis of the lawsuits and plaintiffs are seeking accountability for the harm.
The cases are consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Florida overseen by Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The MDL streamlines the pretrial process allowing plaintiffs to share evidence and resources while maintaining individual claims. Pilot trials will help guide settlements.
Plaintiffs are suffering from severe health impacts such as brain surgery, cognitive impairments and chronic pain. Many are facing long term medical monitoring and emotional distress.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and punitive damages to hold Pfizer accountable.
At this point it is impossible to tell what kind of damages plaintiffs may receive. Pilot trials have been selected, and the outcomes of these test trials will paint a clearer picture of what juries may award plaintiffs.
About a Post Settlement Advance with Balanced Bridge Funding
Even after settlements are reached in cases, various delays can hold up distribution of contingency fees for plaintiff attorneys and/or the settlement awards for plaintiffs.
In those situations, Balanced Bridge provides post settlement advances to attorneys and post settlement advances to plaintiffs on the pending fees or awards.
While we are not in position to fund any Depo Provera lawsuits yet, attorneys and plaintiffs with any delayed settlements can reach out to us to see how we may be able to help.
To talk to one of our legal funding specialists about getting help managing your law firm cash flow, please call (267) 457-4540 or email info@balancedbridge.com.
Or to apply online, simply CLICK HERE and fill out our quick application.
About the Authors
Balanced Bridge Funding offers legal funding solutions for plaintiffs, plaintiff attorneys, and law firms. We provide post-settlement advances and can help in situations where an agreement has been reached but there will be some delay until distribution of the contingency fee for attorneys and/or the settlement award for plaintiffs.
To talk to one of our legal funding specialists about getting help managing your law firm cash flow, please call (267) 457-4540 or email info@balancedbridge.com.
Or to apply online, simply CLICK HERE and fill out our quick application.
