MDL 3140 Depo-Provera Lawsuit Updates

Attorney Reviewed and Editorially Supervised

Reviewed by Jeffrey Glassman
Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers
Nationwide injury claim intake for Depo-Provera meningioma cases
For a free consultation, call (617) 777-7777

Last reviewed: March 21, 2026

If you are following the Depo-Provera litigation, you need more than generic mass-tort commentary. You need timely, understandable updates that tell you what is actually happening in court and why it matters to women who may have claims.

This page serves as the MDL 3140 update hub for Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers. We will use it to explain major developments in the federal Depo-Provera litigation in plain English and connect those developments to the real questions potential clients are asking.

MDL 3140 is the federal multidistrict litigation titled In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation. The litigation is centralized in the Northern District of Florida. MDLs are created when many lawsuits share common factual questions, and coordinated pretrial handling is more efficient than having every case proceed separately from the beginning. This is not a class action. Each plaintiff still has an individual case.

The official Northern District of Florida MDL page lists numerous pretrial orders and case management orders in the Depo-Provera litigation. The court’s orders-by-date page shows that, as of late January 2026, the court had entered Pretrial Order No. 30 and Case Management Order No. 10. The January 26, 2026, case management order addressed supplemental preemption briefing, pilot case schedules, threshold proof of use and injury, and a state-court litigation update. The next day’s pretrial order applied rulings on preemption and Rule 702 motions to all individual actions.

That tells us the litigation is moving beyond a broad organizational setup and into more substantive issues that matter in pharmaceutical product cases. Preemption arguments can affect whether certain state-law claims may proceed. Rule 702 issues affect expert testimony, which is often critical in drug and medical-injury litigation. Pilot case scheduling also matters because it can shape how representative cases are evaluated and how the litigation develops over time. This is real movement, not a dormant docket.

According to the JPML’s MDL Statistics Report dated February 2, 2026, MDL 3140 had 2,098 actions pending and 2,123 total historical actions. That number matters because it shows the litigation has become a major nationwide proceeding, not a small cluster of isolated filings.

In December 2025, the FDA approved supplemental labeling that added information on meningioma risk to both the warning section and the patient counseling information for Depo-Provera CI and Depo-SubQ Provera 104. The updated labeling states that Depo-Provera CI should be discontinued if meningioma is diagnosed and that patients should be monitored for signs and symptoms of meningioma. For potential plaintiffs, this is one of the most important regulatory developments in the litigation because warning language is often central to pharmaceutical failure-to-warn claims.

Women across the country are paying attention because the issue is no longer confined to scattered scientific articles or rumors. There is now a combination of published research, updated FDA-approved labeling, and an active federal MDL. A 2024 BMJ study and a 2025 U.S. study in JAMA Neurology both reported increased meningioma risk signals associated with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, especially with longer exposure. Those studies do not resolve every causation issue in every lawsuit, but they help explain why the litigation accelerated.

Women who believe they may have a Depo-Provera meningioma claim should focus on preserving evidence and seeking informed legal advice. That usually means gathering medication records, imaging records, neurology or neurosurgery records, pathology records if surgery occurred, employment records showing lost time or wages, and a clear timeline of symptoms, diagnoses, and treatments.

They should also avoid relying on internet rumors about payouts, deadlines, or automatic eligibility. The right approach is a serious case evaluation grounded in records, not wishful thinking.

Our firm is watching several categories of developments in the litigation. We are following court orders affecting preemption and expert-proof issues. We are watching how the MDL handles threshold proof of use and injury. We are also watching how ongoing scientific literature and regulatory developments may affect the framing of these cases. The point is not to generate noise. The point is to understand what matters for real clients with real diagnoses.

If you used Depo-Provera and were later diagnosed with meningioma, call Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers at (617) 777-7777 for a free consultation. We can explain what the current MDL posture means, what records are important, and whether your case appears to fit the nationwide litigation.