Depo-Provera is a contraceptive injection given once every three months. Millions of women have used it, many of them for years at a stretch, and for a long time the conversation about its risks centered on bone density. That changed. Over the past two years a body of research has looked at whether repeated use of the drug is associated with meningioma, a tumor that grows from the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord, and the question has moved from journals into federal court.
If you took Depo-Provera and were later diagnosed with a meningioma, you have probably run into a wall of advertising that is heavy on urgency and light on specifics. This article is the other thing. It sets out what the litigation actually alleges, what the federal court file actually shows as of now, what the drug’s own labeling actually says, and how a Nevada patient’s case would be framed. It does not predict how any of it will come out, because nobody honestly can.
What the Lawsuits Allege
The claims are failure to warn claims at their core. Women who used the injection allege that they developed an intracranial meningioma, that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the risk, and that the warnings provided to prescribing physicians and patients in the United States did not reflect it.
When the federal judiciary consolidated these cases, it summarized the shared questions in its own words. The transfer order records that plaintiffs allege recent scientific studies demonstrate long-term use of Depo-Provera can result in an increased risk of developing one or more meningiomas, that each plaintiff alleges she developed an intracranial meningioma caused by use of Depo-Provera or a generic version, and that the actions share common questions about whether Depo-Provera causes meningioma, whether the defendants knew of the alleged risk, whether they failed to adequately warn of it, and whether they failed to promote safer alternatives.
That last item is a specific allegation worth understanding. Plaintiffs contend that a different formulation, Depo-SubQ Provera 104, is safer because it uses a lower dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate and is given by subcutaneous rather than intramuscular injection. Whether that contention holds up is a merits question that has not been decided.
Notice the word alleged in every sentence above, because nothing in this litigation is established yet. These are contested claims. The defendants maintain that the medication is safe and effective, and the court’s own public page for the litigation says so directly.
What the FDA Labeling Now Says
The most concrete development, and the one a patient can check for herself, is a labeling change.
On December 12, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration approved a prior approval supplemental new drug application submitted by Pfizer, covering NDA 020246 for Depo-Provera CI given intramuscularly and NDA 021583 for Depo-SubQ Provera 104 given subcutaneously. The approval letter states that the supplement provides for the addition of information related to meningioma risk in Section 5 Warnings and Precautions, in Section 17 Patient Counseling Information, and in the corresponding sections of the Patient Information. The application had been submitted in February 2024, drew an action letter from the agency in November 2024, and was completed by an amendment in June 2025.
The resulting warning, at Section 5.4 of the prescribing information, reads as follows. Cases of meningiomas have been reported following repeated administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, primarily with long term use. Monitor patients on Depo-Provera CI for signs and symptoms of meningioma. Discontinue Depo-Provera CI if a meningioma is diagnosed. The Highlights section at the front of the label carries the same instruction in shorter form.
Read that language carefully, because it is narrower than the advertising suggests. It states that cases have been reported and directs monitoring and discontinuation. It is not an agency finding that the drug causes meningioma. Whether it does is one of the questions the litigation exists to answer.
It is also worth noting what has been on the label far longer. The prescribing information carries a boxed warning about loss of bone mineral density, stating that bone loss is greater with increasing duration of use and may not be completely reversible, and that the product is not recommended as a long-term birth control method, meaning longer than two years, unless other options are considered inadequate.
How the Cases Got Consolidated
On February 7, 2025, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order centralizing the litigation. The order describes 27 actions then pending in eight districts, with the parties having identified 41 additional related actions in fifteen districts. The Panel transferred the cases to the Northern District of Florida and assigned them to Judge M. Casey Rodgers, under the caption In re Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3140, master docket number 3:25md3140.
The named defendants in the transfer proceedings included Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia and Upjohn Company LLC, Pharmacia LLC, Prasco LLC, Greenstone LLC and Viatris Inc. Several of them argued for a different transferee court rather than against centralization itself.
The Panel also recorded an agreement that narrows the litigation. All parties agreed that the MDL should be limited to plaintiffs alleging intracranial meningiomas caused by use of Depo-Provera or a generic version, and that any actions alleging the same injury from Depo-SubQ Provera 104 would also be appropriate for inclusion. The Panel noted the contraceptive was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an injectable contraceptive in 1992.
Multidistrict litigation confuses people, so it is worth being clear about the mechanics. An MDL is not a class action. Every case in it remains an individual lawsuit with its own plaintiff, its own medical records, its own facts about how long she used the drug and what her tumor looks like, and its own damages.
What centralization does is move the pretrial work into one courtroom. Document production from the manufacturers happens once instead of dozens of times. Company witnesses are deposed once. The general causation fight, meaning whether the drug is capable of causing this injury at all, gets decided by one judge under one set of rules rather than inconsistently across the country.
Bellwether trials, when they happen, are individual cases selected to be tried so that both sides learn how juries respond to the evidence. They do not decide anyone else’s case. Cases that are not resolved through the MDL process can be remanded to the district where they were originally filed.
Where the Case Stands Right Now
The single most important scheduled event is the Rule 702 motions hearing. The court’s public page for the litigation currently sets that hearing for September 18, 2026, following the case management conference held the same day. Case management conferences run on a monthly cadence through the end of the year, with dates listed on the court’s own page for the litigation, including August 21, September 18, October 16, November 20 and December 18 of 2026.
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In a pharmaceutical case, the Rule 702 ruling on general causation is usually the hinge the whole litigation turns on. If plaintiffs’ causation experts are permitted to testify, the cases move forward toward trial. If they are excluded, the litigation is in serious trouble. That ruling has not been made, and anyone telling you how it will come out is guessing.
The court maintains its own public page listing the case management orders and pretrial orders on file. Anyone who wants to follow the docket rather than the advertising can read the orders as they are entered.
The Brand Name and Generic Question
There is a threshold issue in these cases that has nothing to do with the science, and it can determine whether a particular patient has a viable claim at all. It depends on what was actually injected.
In PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, decided in 2011, the Supreme Court held that federal drug regulations applicable to generic manufacturers directly conflict with, and therefore preempt, state law failure to warn claims against them. The reasoning was that a generic manufacturer cannot independently strengthen its warning label, because federal law requires the generic label to match the brand name label. Two years later, in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, decided in 2013, the Court held that state law design defect claims which turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are preempted under the same reasoning.
What that means in practice is that a woman who received the brand name product and a woman who received a generic version may be in materially different legal positions, through no fault of their own. This is why pharmacy records matter enormously in these cases, and why they should be requested early. Pharmacy dispensing records, clinic administration records and immunization or injection logs will often show the product name, the manufacturer and the lot number for each injection.
Nevada has its own case law on the related question of who owes a warning duty. In Klasch v. Walgreen Co., 127 Nev. 832, 264 P.3d 1155, decided in 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the learned intermediary doctrine in the pharmacist and customer context, holding that pharmacists have no duty to warn of a prescribed medication’s generalized risks. The court declined to make that immunity absolute, holding that the doctrine does not foreclose liability where the pharmacist has knowledge of a customer-specific risk, and that in those circumstances a pharmacist has a duty to exercise reasonable care in warning the customer or notifying the prescribing doctor.
How a Nevada Patient’s Case Would Be Framed
A Nevada woman with a meningioma diagnosis and a history of Depo-Provera injections is bringing a product liability claim, and Nevada product liability law applies to the parts of the case that state law governs.
Nevada uses strict tort liability for defective products. Under Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135, a product is defective when it is dangerous because it fails to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function, and the injured person must still prove that the injury was caused by a defect and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s hands. Under General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366, a product can be defective because it was supplied without suitable and adequate warnings about safe and proper use.
Under Young’s Machine Co. v. Long, 100 Nev. 692, 692 P.2d 24, Nevada’s comparative negligence statute does not apply to strict products liability actions at all, and the only defenses available in such an action are assumption of the risk and misuse of the product. NRS 41.141 also preserves joint and several liability for actions based on strict liability and for injuries from products manufactured, distributed, sold or used in Nevada, which can matter when there are multiple corporate defendants in a chain.
The deadline is the ordinary personal injury period. NRS 11.190(4)(e) gives two years to bring an action for injuries to a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. When that two year clock begins in a case where a tumor is found years after the injections stopped is a contested question that gets litigated case by case, so nobody should assume a claim is dead based on the date of a first injection, and nobody should assume there is plenty of time either.
The documents that build a case are ordinary medical records. The pharmacy and clinic records showing product, manufacturer, lot and dates. The imaging that identified the tumor, including the original films rather than only the reports. The pathology if there was surgery. The treating neurosurgeon’s and neurologist’s records. Gathering those takes months, which is another argument for starting before a deadline is close.
What to Be Skeptical About
Mass tort advertising for this litigation has been heavy, and some of it is worth ignoring. Be skeptical of any specific dollar figure quoted to you. No court has ruled on general causation yet, no settlement program appears on the court’s public page for the litigation, and any number you are shown is not coming from the record. Be skeptical of any promise about timing, because a case management schedule running through the end of 2026 is a court schedule, not a payout schedule.
Be skeptical of anyone who signs you up without asking which product you received, how long you used it, and what your imaging shows, because those three facts determine whether there is a case at all. And be skeptical of any suggestion that you should stop or start a medication because of a lawsuit. The label directs monitoring and discontinuation if a meningioma is diagnosed, and that decision belongs to you and your physician, not to a law firm.
The general framework is the one described in our guides to defective product injury claims in Nevada and defective medical device injury claims in Nevada. Filing windows are covered in our overview of product liability filing deadlines and our explanation of the Nevada personal injury deadline. The pharmacy duty question is discussed further in our article on whether a pharmacist can be sued, and tumor related harm is handled through our Nevada brain injury practice. The current prescribing information, including the meningioma section quoted above, is published in full as the current Depo-Provera prescribing information.
Talking to Someone About Your Own Situation
If you used Depo-Provera and have been diagnosed with a meningioma, the useful first step is finding out what you actually received and when, and whether your records support a claim under the law as it currently stands. The Bourassa Law Group offers a free consultation to review your treatment history, help identify the records that matter, and explain honestly where this litigation is and is not. The review costs nothing, and you will leave it knowing where your situation actually stands.
This article is general information about Nevada and federal law and is not legal advice. The litigation described here is ongoing and contested, no court has determined that Depo-Provera causes meningioma, and nothing in this article should be read as a prediction about any case.
1-800-870-8910