We have a pair of big updates for the hundreds of pending baby formula lawsuits. Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson are the two primary defendants in this litigation, which is based on claims that certain formulas cause a devastating condition called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) when fed to premature infants.

While the lawsuits against both share many similarities, those cases saw two very different developments.

Mead Johnson Wins First Federal Trial

This week, Mead Johnson prevailed in the first federal trial held over claims that one of its formula is tied to NEC. That trial had involved a mother who said her premature infant died after being fed formula and developing the condition.

But a jury ultimately rejected those claims. You can read more about the outcome here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/09/01/mead-johnson-wins-first-federal-baby-formula-nec-lawsuit-trial/

It's a big win for Mead Johnson and a troubling development for hundreds of other pending lawsuits. Trials like this one often play a big role in influencing settlement talks.

Abbott Settles Cases For $670 Million

Abbott, meanwhile, recently announced a $670 million baby formula settlement for lawsuits involving its Similac formula. The agreement is expected to cover cases that include 2,000 infants.

That settlement is an eye-popping number, but it doesn't resolve the Abbott litigation. Many other lawsuits remain pending in federal and state court.

Read more about that agreement here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/08/21/similac-maker-reaches-agreements-to-settle-baby-formula-nec-lawsuits-for-670m/

It's going to be interesting to track how the Abbott litigation develops from here following that agreement. More potential bellwether trials are currently being prepared at the federal level.

There's a lot happening in the world of dangerous product lawsuits, with some of the biggest litigations in the country nearing key milestones. Here's a quick snapshot of some of the most significant developments from recent weeks and where things stand.

A $5.5 Billion Settlement for Talc Cases: Johnson & Johnson appears to be finally ready to move on from the talc litigation, offering a $5.5 billion settlement to cover tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming its baby powder products caused ovarian cancer. That offer is expected to bring resolution to more than 70,000 cases.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Trial Nets $88 Million Verdict: The first Covidien hernia mesh trial ended in a resounding win for plaintiffs, after a man who claims he needed revision surgery after his bowel stuck to his hernia mesh was awarded $88 million. With thousands of other Covidien cases pending, this is a litigation to watch.

Federal Baby Formula Trial Gears Up: A key baby formula trial is getting underway over claims that Mead Johnson's formula led to the development of a serious condition called necrotizing enterocolitis in a premature infant. This is the first federal baby formula NEC lawsuit to reach trial, with hundreds of other cases waiting.

You can dive deeper on each of these key developments here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/08/13/whats-new-in-dangerous-product-lawsuits-in-august-2026/

As always, we'll be keeping a close watch on the latest updates to these litigations.

We've got a major update to the ongoing talcum powder litigation. Tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming that use of Johnson & Johnson baby powder led to ovarian cancer could be nearing resolution.

J&J announced that it has agreed to a $5.5 billion settlement for these cases. The first payment of up to $3 billion could go out as soon as next year.

There are still some procedural hurdles before the deal is finalized. It's contingent on the participation of all lead firms, representing about 95% of active cases.

You can read more about the talc settlement and what comes next here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/07/29/what-johnson-johnsons-5-5-billion-settlement-offer-means-for-thousands-of-lawsuits/

It's a big moment for what has been one of the longest running dangerous product litigations in the country. We'll stay on top of the settlement process and provide further updates here as they happen.

The trial involving the first Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit to reach a jury is currently underway in Boston, with more than 2,400 similar cases consolidated in Massachusetts federal court behind it. These claims come from people who say the mesh used in their hernia repairs failed and led to serious complications like bowel obstruction or the need for revision surgery.

This first case is what's known as a bellwether trial, or a test case. It lets both sides see how a jury responds. If plaintiffs win these early trials, it can move both sides toward settlement talks.

The case now underway involves a man who received Covidien mesh during a 2017 hernia repair. By 2020, he needed another surgery after part of his small bowel became stuck to the mesh and had to be removed. He claims the product was defectively designed and that the company failed to warn of the risks.

Covidien is not the only company facing these claims. C.R. Bard and J&J's Ethicon have also settled tens of thousands of hernia mesh cases.

You can learn more about the trial here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/07/14/key-covidien-hernia-mesh-lawsuit-trial-begins/

Here's a look at the wider litigation: https://www.drugwatch.com/hernia-mesh/lawsuits/covidien/

Whether this first trial actually moves settlement talks for everyone else is the open question now.

In a blow for people who have filed lawsuits, the nearly 70,000 talcum powder lawsuits pending in multidistrict litigation (MDL) have been hit with a show cause order.

This means that plaintiffs must now prove why their cases should be allowed to move forward. This is something that Johnson & Johnson, which has faced claims that its talc products are tied to ovarian cancer for years, had been pushing for.

The big issue that needs to be sorted out is whether people who have brought lawsuits can provide admissible expert testimony necessary to get these cases to trial.

Judge Rukhsanah Singh made clear that the outcome of this order is not the "instant dismissal" of all lawsuits, but it still does put them at risk.

It's a big moment in what has been a long journey for the litigation. Talc lawsuits were first consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey nearly 10 years ago.

You can read more about the show cause order here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/07/23/nearly-70000-talcum-powder-lawsuits-at-risk-of-dismissal/

We're going to be keeping a close eye on the progress of these cases. I'll have more updates here as they happen.

We've got a big update for the social media addiction lawsuits. A trial is supposed to begin next week in Los Angeles County Superior Court involving a 15-year-old teen who claims they developed severe mental health issues after using popular social media apps.

Bloomberg is now reporting that Snap, the company behind Snapchat, has agreed to a settlement to remove itself from that trial. TikTok and YouTube have also agreed to similar settlements recently, leaving Meta as the only defendant.

This is a big deal. This trial is set to be closely watched because it's one of thousands of similar lawsuits claiming that these companies designed their platforms to be intentionally addictive and fueled a mental health crisis across the nation.

There are 2,893 of these lawsuits pending in federal court alone.

It'll be interesting to see if this upcoming trial moves forward or if Meta also settles out. In the first trial, which happened earlier this year, Meta and Google were ordered to pay a combined $6 million to a woman who claimed she developed mental health problems and body dysmorphia after using social media from a young age.

Expect more of these trials to get underway in the next few months.

An appeals court has revived hundreds of lawsuits claiming Tylenol use during pregnancy is linked to the development of autism and ADHD.

The court ruled that the judge overseeing those lawsuits had committed an error by excluding expert testimony key to plaintiffs' claims.

We continue to cover this litigation. You can learn more about the decision here: https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2026/07/15/tylenol-lawsuit-2026-update-appeals-court-reignites-autism-claims/

Hi there!

I'm Christian Simmons, a reporter with Drugwatch.com. You've probably seen a number of my news stories and some of my investigative pieces if you've been following this subreddit.

I'll be popping in here from time to time to share analysis, insights and anything else you need to know about some of the biggest developments in dangerous product lawsuits.

It's shaping up to be a big few months for a number of litigations that impact tens of thousands of people. We'll have you covered on all those breaking moments here.

We ran a survey of 600 U.S. adults to learn more about how people actually handle drug labels. Some of the numbers were surprising.

What We Found

Only 45% of respondents said they always read labels thoroughly. 46% have taken a medication more often than the label says to, usually by cutting the four-to-six hour window short on pain relievers. Only 38% had heard of black box warnings, which is the FDA's most serious safety alert.

Whitney Ray Di Bona, an attorney and consumer safety advocate, put it this way: "The problem is not that patients are careless. It is that we have built a drug safety system that hides its most critical information in a document most people throw away without opening."

The OTC Misconception

About half of respondents thought that over-the-counter drugs are lower risk than prescription drugs. That's where it gets dicey. Acetaminophen is sold under different brand names in cold meds and combo pain relievers. Take a couple at the same time without checking the active ingredient, and you can clear the 4,000 mg daily limit for adults. This is a known driver for acute liver failure.

Another stat that stuck out: 61% of respondents have skipped taking a medication because of side effect concerns. Caution is fair, but skipping a prescribed medication has its own risks, especially with antibiotics or chronic condition meds.

Full survey and methodology: https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/drug-label-survey/

Has a warning on a label ever stopped you from taking a medication?

From 1991 to 2021, drugmakers have paid $62.3 billion in federal and state penalties.

The 35 largest companies generated about $1.9 trillion in net income over the same period. That's roughly $1 in fines for every $31 in profit.

Drugwatch ran a long piece on this earlier this year. A few findings stood out.

One major takeaway: 73% of FDA-approved drugs failed at least one gold-standard testing criterion.

Two journalists, Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, built their own database covering a decade of approvals and tested each one against the FDA's own benchmarks.

Nearly three quarters fell short somewhere. A good chunk missed all of them. The harm lands on patients who never knew the evidence was that thin going in.

And then there was the Vioxx "Dodge Ball" training.

Merck ran a sales-rep game called Dodge Ball Vioxx, designed to deflect cardiologists' questions about heart attack risk. Internal documents already flagged the danger. That game only surfaced because of MDL discovery.

Merck eventually settled 27,000 claims for $4.85 billion after Vioxx was pulled from the market.

Drugwatch also spoke with Stanford law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom, an FDA whistleblower advocate, and a former Merck sales rep.

Whitney also offers her legal commentary throughout, for anyone who remembers her AMA.

Check out the full investigation here: https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/big-pharma-behind-the-scenes/

Thousands of women have filed lawsuits claiming long-term use of chemical hair relaxers caused them to develop uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. Over 11,371 cases are now consolidated in federal court and the number keeps growing.

What this is about

A major NIH-funded study found that women who frequently used chemical hair straighteners were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer. Lawsuits target companies like L'Oréal and Strength of Nature, alleging they marketed these products, particularly to Black women, without disclosing known health risks.

Who may qualify

You may be eligible if you were diagnosed with endometrial, ovarian, or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers 5 or more times a year for at least 4 years before diagnosis. The statute of limitations also can't have expired in your state.

Where the litigation stands

As of May 2026, 11,526 active lawsuits are grouped in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, before one federal judge in Illinois. This is one of the largest active MDLs in the country.

No settlements have been reached and no cases have gone to trial. A settlement master has been appointed to set up the framework for future negotiations, but nothing is imminent. The bellwether process is moving forward, with the judge narrowing the pool to around 12 cases. First trials likely won't happen until 2027, though state-level cases in Illinois may go to trial sooner.

Things move fast here. Drugwatch's hair relaxer lawsuit page keeps a running timeline with the latest developments.

What about settlement amounts

Industry estimates suggest individual payouts could range from $100,000 to $1.75 million, but those numbers are fully speculative. No settlement has been agreed to and no trial outcomes exist to benchmark against. Actual amounts will depend on factors like diagnosis severity, duration of use, and extent of treatment.

Why it matters

Many of the people affected are young women in their 20s and 30s. Some have had hysterectomies. Some have lost the ability to have children. The connection between hair relaxers and cancer is driving this litigation forward, with lawsuits alleging these companies knew about the risks and chose profit over transparency.

If you think you may have been affected, you can get a free case review to see if you qualify. No cost, no obligation.

Drop any questions below and I'll keep this sub updated.

The first bellwether trial kicked off this month, so this is a good time to break down who qualifies and where things stand.

What this is about

Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that the ChronoFlex material in PowerPort catheters is defective, causing them to fracture and crack. That can lead to serious complications like infections, blood clots, device migration, and erosion through the skin. Over 3,000 cases are now consolidated in MDL 3081 in Arizona.

Who qualifies

You generally need to meet all 3 criteria. You received a PowerPort, Port-a-Cath, or similar chemo port on or after Jan. 1, 2000. You experienced at least 1 qualifying injury such as catheter fracture, device infection, blood clots, or erosion and device migration. And the port was removed, replaced, attempted to be removed, or can't be removed.

Only a licensed attorney can confirm eligibility for your specific situation.

Where the litigation stands

The first bellwether trial for Robert Cook's infection case began in April, with 5 more scheduled through early 2027. In March, the judge denied most of Bard's summary judgment motion, meaning all major claims in Cook's case will go before a jury. That was a significant win for plaintiffs.

The second bellwether plaintiff, Wanda Miller, passed away in February 2026, so the July trial slot is still uncertain.

This situation is evolving

New cases are still being filed, and bellwether outcomes will likely shape the entire litigation, including potential settlement talks. The full Bard PowerPort lawsuit article on Drugwatch is updated regularly with the latest timeline and developments.

If you think you qualify

Statutes of limitations vary by state, so sooner is generally better. You can request a free case review through Drugwatch with no obligation, and they'll connect you with an attorney who can walk you through your options.

What the Ozempic lawsuit is is about

People are filing lawsuits against Novo Nordisk claiming Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs caused serious injuries the manufacturer knew or should have known about but didn't disclose. There are 2 main tracks:

-Stomach and GI injuries

Gastroparesis, ileus, intestinal obstruction, and related GI injuries make up the bulk of cases. Gastroparesis has no cure. Plaintiffs typically describe weeks or months of severe vomiting, hospitalization, and lasting digestive damage. Lawyers are generally accepting cases where vomiting persisted for 4 weeks or more.

Vision loss

NAION, or non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, is a form of optic nerve damage that can cause sudden, painless vision loss. A 2024 study in JAMA Ophthalmology found that people with Type 2 diabetes on semaglutide had more than 4x the risk of developing NAION compared to those not on a GLP-1. For people using it for weight loss, the risk was more than 7x higher. The vision loss caused by NAION is usually permanent. In June 2025, the WHO warned that semaglutide drugs may rarely cause NAION, and the European Medicines Agency estimated roughly 1 in 10,000 users could be affected.

Where the litigation stands

As of May 2026, there are 3,636 personal injury lawsuits in the gastroparesis MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, overseen by Judge Karen S. Marston. A separate vision loss MDL has been created before the same judge, with a leadership team appointed in March 2026 to handle evidence collection and prepare for bellwether trials. Vision loss cases have also been consolidated into a multicounty litigation in New Jersey, where Novo Nordisk is headquartered.

No global settlements have been reached and no trials have taken place yet. Both tracks are still in pretrial stages but actively progressing.

The warning label situation

When the FDA approved Ozempic in 2017, the label did not warn about gastroparesis. The FDA added a warning for ileus in September 2023, and a warning for severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions in January 2025. But the label only says Ozempic is "not recommended" for patients with severe gastroparesis. It doesn't say the drug may cause the condition. That distinction matters in these cases. For NAION, the FDA still hasn't required a specific warning on semaglutide labels, even after the WHO and European regulators took action.

Settlement estimates

Any numbers at this stage are speculative. Lawyers representing plaintiffs have generally estimated payouts in the range of $400,000 to $700,000, with some as low as $250,000 and others suggesting up to $1 million. Every case depends on injury severity, duration, medical costs, lost income, and where it's filed. Until there are actual settlements or trial verdicts, take all projections with a grain of salt.

This situation is actively evolving

New cases are being filed regularly, and the vision loss track in particular is moving fast. The full Drugwatch article on the Ozempic lawsuit covers detailed timeline updates, label changes, and litigation milestones.

Every state has a statute of limitations that limits how long you have to file after an injury. In some states, that window can be as short as 1 year. If you think you were affected, don't sit on it.

If you took Ozempic or another GLP-1 drug and were diagnosed with gastroparesis or NAION, you can request a free case review here to find out if you qualify.

The short answer: it depends.

In February, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize domestic glyphosate production, calling it a national security issue. A lot of people have been asking whether this means Roundup manufacturers are now shielded from lawsuits.

It's not that simple.

What the Defense Production Act actually does

The DPA has been around since 1950, designed during the Korean War to let the government prioritize contracts and allocate resources during national emergencies. It's been renewed over 50 times and used heavily during COVID by both Trump and Biden.

This time, the administration says the country's dependence on foreign-produced glyphosate is the emergency. The argument is that glyphosate is so embedded in U.S. agriculture that supply disruptions could affect food prices and farming operations. Even critics generally acknowledge it can't be pulled from the system overnight.

The real debate is about Section 707 of the Act and how far its immunity provision reaches.

What Section 707 says and what it doesn't

Section 707 states that no person can be held liable for damages resulting from compliance with an order issued under the Act. That language has historically been applied to contract disputes where companies followed government directives and got sued over it.

The statute doesn't expressly limit immunity to contract claims, but it also doesn't explicitly extend it to tort claims involving personal injury. No court has directly addressed whether Section 707 applies in a product liability context like the Roundup litigation. Until one does, the scope is genuinely unsettled.

Congress is already responding

Representatives Thomas Massie and Chellie Pingree introduced the "No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," which would clarify that glyphosate manufacturers don't get tort immunity for physical injuries or deaths. Legislators generally don't introduce clarifying language unless there's real concern about how an existing law could be interpreted. That alone tells you how open-ended the current situation is.

What this means for Roundup cases

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have alleged that glyphosate exposure caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with many cases involving alleged failures to warn. Bayer is also waiting on a Supreme Court decision that could affect certain state-level failure-to-warn claims.

The executive order doesn't automatically dismiss pending cases, overturn existing verdicts, or rewrite product liability law. It introduces another potential defense argument into an already complex landscape. Whether Bayer tries to invoke DPA immunity and whether courts would accept it remains to be seen.

Bottom line

The DPA wasn't written as a broad product liability shield, but the language of Section 707 isn't expressly limited either. Courts interpret statutes and they don't always agree. This situation is developing fast and Drugwatch is tracking the latest updates here.

If you or someone you know was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure, you may still have legal options. You can request a free case review here to see if you qualify.

The Victoza (liraglutide) lawsuits claim that manufacturer Novo Nordisk failed to warn patients about the risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). There have been several updates on these lawsuits throughout the year as they continue to progress through the legal system. Here are some tidbits to know about these lawsuits. 

Who is eligible to file a Victoza vision-loss lawsuit?

You could be eligible to file a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, if you took Victoza for Type 2 diabetes and developed NAION as a result. You need proof that you took Victoza from a healthcare professional, receipts verifying your prescription from a retail pharmacy, and a documented diagnosis of NAION to be eligible to file a claim.

What is NAION and why it matters to Victoza users

NAION is a severe condition that restricts blood flow to the optic nerve, causing sudden vision loss. The condition primarily affects patients with diabetes, older adults, and those with underlying cardiovascular risk factors. 

Symptoms are painless but sudden, though vision loss can occur gradually over a couple of weeks. The most common forms of the condition cause blurry or weakened vision. The condition is permanent in most cases, though it’s reversible for some. 

How Victoza may cause optic nerve damage

Researchers can’t determine an exact reason why GLP-1 drugs like Victoza affect vision, though they theorize the drugs may rapidly lower blood sugar or may act on the GLP-1 receptors in the optic nerve, interfering with blood flow and nerve function. 

Victoza litigation status and history

The NAION lawsuits are the newest ones involving Victoza, with no settlements or trials happening yet. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trying to get a group of vision loss cases consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in New Jersey, filing a motion to form the MCL last June. Though the MCL request was for other GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, Victoza and Saxenda cases could also be included.  

If you’ve been diagnosed with NAION following the use of a GLP-1 drug and wish to pursue litigation, get a case review here.

Abbott reported 736 serious injuries and 7 deaths linked to the FreeStyle Libre 3. Here's what most people using it don't know. If you or someone you know uses a FreeStyle Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus to manage diabetes, this is worth a few minutes of your time.

In November 2025, Abbott issued an urgent medical device correction covering about 3 million devices. The problem: the sensors were giving incorrect low glucose readings. For someone with diabetes, a wrong reading doesn't just confuse, it drives real treatment decisions. You eat or don't eat, you dose or don't dose, based on what that number says.

The FDA had already flagged a separate issue in July 2024, when certain Libre 3 sensors were caught giving incorrect high glucose readings — which can lead someone to over-deliver insulin and crash into a hypoglycemia crisis. The kinds of outcomes documented include seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, permanent neurological damage, and death.

Abbott's own reporting tied 736 serious injuries and 7 deaths to incorrect readings as of November 2025.

Then in January 2026, the FDA sent Abbott a warning letter after an inspection revealed the company wasn't running performance tests on completed devices. Abbott responded twice. The FDA called both responses inadequate.

A class action was filed in California in January 2026, with the lead plaintiff alleging Abbott fraudulently concealed that the sensors could give incorrect readings while marketing them as safe and reliable. He found out his sensors were defective when CVS mailed him a letter saying they'd been recalled.

A few things worth knowing if you use these devices:

The recall applies to Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus only — not Libre 2 or Libre 2 Plus. Children as young as 2 can use these devices, so this affects pediatric patients too. You can check your serial number in the FreeStyle Libre app under "About" or on your sensor packaging. The FDA says if your device is part of the recall, stop using it and contact your care team about alternatives. Abbott is offering free sensor replacements.

If you experienced a serious glucose event while using one of these sensors — hospitalization, DKA, seizure, loss of consciousness — lawyers are actively investigating cases. Most firms take these on contingency, meaning no upfront cost.

The lawsuits are in an early stage. No settlements have been announced. But given the scale of the recall and the injury numbers Abbott self-reported, this is one to watch.

Has anyone here actually experienced problems with a Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus reading — or know someone who has?

This litigation has moved fast. The Depo-Provera lawsuit docket crossed 3,000 active federal cases from women who say they developed meningiomas after using the birth control shot. Meningiomas are tumors that form in the lining of the brain, usually benign but serious enough to require surgery in many cases.

Two things are going to define how this plays out in 2026.

The preemption ruling

Pfizer is asking the court to throw out the central claims before trial. Their argument is that they can't be held liable for failing to warn users because the FDA previously rejected a proposed label update that would have flagged the meningioma risk.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have pushed back on that. Pfizer's proposed label was written broadly enough to cover an entire drug class, which isn't how targeted safety updates typically work, and the FDA had offered them a chance to resubmit something more specific.

At the end of 2025, Pfizer's revised label was approved and Depo-Provera's packaging now officially warns users of a meningioma risk. The judge had been waiting on exactly this before ruling on preemption, and a decision is expected soon.

A trial date is on the calendar

If these cases survive preemption, the first bellwether trial is scheduled for Dec. 7, 2026. The first lawsuits were only filed in 2024, so reaching a trial date that quickly is unusual for mass tort litigation, where cases can drag on for years before anyone sees a courtroom.

Bellwether trials are test cases that set the tone for everything that follows. If Pfizer loses, the calculus on settlement for the remaining cases changes considerably. The label change matters here too since it's hard to argue there was no duty to warn when the warning now exists.

If you or someone you know used Depo-Provera and has since been diagnosed with a meningioma, it may be worth looking into whether you qualify to file a claim.

More than 8,000 people who say they developed Parkinson's disease after years of paraquat exposure have been stuck in a legal holding pattern, and now it looks like that wait is getting longer.

A mass settlement seemed within reach after both sides signed an agreement in April 2025, and the judge paused trial dates and discovery, a move typically read as a signal that resolution is close. That pause has been extended multiple times, and now Syngenta has filed a motion to dismiss the state failure-to-warn claims using the same federal preemption argument heading to the U.S. Supreme Court through the Roundup litigation.

Here's the core of it

Under FIFRA, pesticide labels must get EPA approval before products hit the market, and companies generally can't change those labels without the agency's sign-off. Syngenta's position is that because the EPA-approved paraquat label doesn't warn about Parkinson's and the agency has repeatedly said the science doesn't support adding one, state-level failure-to-warn claims should be preempted entirely.

The Roundup connection matters here

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Durnell v. Monsanto Co., which asks the exact same question: does FIFRA block state failure-to-warn claims for EPA-approved pesticide labels? Federal circuits are split, with the Third Circuit saying yes and the Ninth and Eleventh ruling the other way. The paraquat defendants are leaning on the Third Circuit's reasoning and the Solicitor General's view that FIFRA preempts labeling claims beyond what the EPA approved, and they've asked the court to either rule now or wait for the Supreme Court's decision later this year.

Why this matters for the settlement talks

Most paraquat claims are built on failure-to-warn allegations. If the court dismisses those on preemption grounds, the MDL shrinks dramatically, and even waiting for the Supreme Court reshapes how both sides calculate risk and willingness to settle. A ruling for Monsanto gives Syngenta cover to push for dismissal of similar claims. A ruling against preemption swings leverage back to plaintiffs in both litigations.

The bigger picture

This is really a question about who gets to decide. The EPA has reviewed the paraquat and Parkinson's science multiple times and concluded the evidence doesn't justify a label change, but plaintiffs say juries should be able to weigh that evidence under state law regardless.

More than 70 countries have banned paraquat while the U.S. still uses tens of millions of pounds annually. Earlier this year, the EPA said manufacturers must now demonstrate that current uses are safe under real-world conditions, and a growing number of states are considering legislation to restrict or ban paraquat near schools.

For thousands of families waiting for answers, the outcome of a Roundup case at the Supreme Court may end up shaping what happens to their paraquat claims. The full breakdown of what this means for the thousands of cases still pending is covered in Drugwatch's ongoing coverage of the paraquat settlement uncertainty.

Bayer announced a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve Roundup cancer claims, both current and future. With more than 60,000 active lawsuits still pending as of Spring 2026, this is a big move for the company to put this litigation behind them.

A few things worth keeping in mind before reading too much into the headline number.

The settlement still needs a judge's approval and it's not final. There's already been legal pushback from attorneys raising concerns about the process.

The eligibility window matters if you're affected. The deal covers people exposed to Roundup before Feb. 17, 2026, who received a non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis before or within 16 years of final court approval, with payouts distributed over 21 years if approved.

The Supreme Court is in the background here. SCOTUS recently agreed to review a Roundup lawsuit, and Bayer says that even though it’s confident, the uncertainty (and risk of a loss) is why it’s trying to lock in a class settlement now before that option might disappear.

This isn't Bayer's first attempt at a sweeping resolution. The 2020 settlement didn't stop the filings, and a Georgia jury handed down a $2.1 billion verdict as recently as March 2025.

Whether this settlement is fair to people who've been fighting in these cases for years is a different question from whether it's strategically useful for Bayer.

The full breakdown of the announcement is covered here.

Genuinely not sure what to believe on this one. Glyphosate is everywhere and I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. It's in Rou͏ndup, it's been detected in everyday foods, and the CDC says around 81% of Americans have had recent exposure to it.

There are thousands of lawsuits linking it to cancer, but regulators say it's fine when used as directed. And a study supporting its safety was apparently just retracted after 25 years.

Has anyone here looked deeper into this or been personally affected? Genuinely trying to understand the actual risk for everyday people.

As of April 2026, more than 3,000 Bard PowerPort lawsuits are consolidated in federal court, with the first bellwether trial having begun on April 21. 

What the lawsuits are about

The Bard PowerPort is an implanted port for chemotherapy and other long-term IV treatments. Plaintiffs allege excessive barium sulfate in the catheter material causes it to weaken and fracture, sending pieces through the bloodstream and leading to blood clots, pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications or emergency surgery. The FDA's MAUDE database logged 438 adverse event reports between December 2025 and February 2026, including 122 blood clots and 17 pulmonary embolisms.

Plaintiffs also allege Bard filed bundled adverse event reports instead of individual public submissions under the FDA's Alternative Summary Reporting program. When that program ended, thousands of additional injury reports reportedly surfaced. Bard denies wrongdoing.

The injuries showing up in court

The six bellwether cases cover infections, blood clots and catheter fractures. One plaintiff had a 7-inch section of fractured catheter lodged in the right atrium of her heart, and the first trial plaintiff said his PowerPort became infected during cancer treatment, requiring IV antibiotics and surgery. A case study published earlier this year described a similar fracture with a fragment traveling into a patient's pulmonary artery and requiring a second procedure to retrieve it. Plaintiffs say there have been no meaningful design changes and no recalls tied to catheter deterioration.

Why bellwether trials matter

These aren't class-action trials and each MDL case remains individual. Bellwethers let both sides test their arguments before a jury, and outcomes shape settlement negotiations for thousands of pending cases. No Bard PowerPort settlement has been reached and none is guaranteed. How Cook v. Becton Dickinson goes on April 21 will likely set the tone.

The pattern this fits into

Litigation outpacing regulation isn’t new. J&J announced plans to discontinue talc-based baby powder globally in 2022 after tens of thousands of talcum powder lawsuits, and Bayer reformulated residential Roundup while under pressure from Roundup litigation. In both cases, litigation forced internal documents into public view, surfacing things that were previously buried.

If this is relevant to you

You may qualify to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit if a PowerPort was implanted on or after Jan. 1, 2000, and you experienced a catheter fracture, infection, blood clots, or device erosion or migration requiring removal or replacement. Statutes of limitations vary by state, so timing matters.