Depo-Provera Lawsuit (2026): Claims, Status & Who May Qualify

Depo-Provera is an injectable contraceptive whose active ingredient is medroxyprogesterone acetate, and a growing number of people who used it long term allege that it caused a type of brain tumor called a meningioma. These claims are centralized in a federal multidistrict litigation created in February 2025, and that litigation is still active: the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 6,403 actions pending in it as of its report dated September 1, 2026, and the transferee court has a general-causation hearing and monthly case management conferences on its calendar. This page explains the claims, the science, and the current status neutrally.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What Depo-Provera is and the alleged harm

Depo-Provera is a long-acting hormonal contraceptive given as an injection, typically every three months. Its active ingredient is medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic progestogen, delivered at a relatively high dose by intramuscular injection. The lawsuits allege that prolonged use of Depo-Provera caused users to develop an intracranial meningioma, a tumor that forms in the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord and is usually noncancerous but can cause serious symptoms and may require surgery. Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers knew or should have known of the risk, failed to warn patients and prescribers, and failed to promote a lower-dose subcutaneous version that they contend is safer. These are descriptions of the allegations, not a finding that Depo-Provera caused any individual person's tumor.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. A lawsuit reflects what a plaintiff claims, not a final determination of liability, and a meningioma can develop in people who never used this product.

What the science and regulators say

The scientific record describes an association between high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate and meningioma rather than a fully settled cause, and the strongest evidence is recent. A national case-control study by Roland and colleagues published in The BMJ in 2024 reported a substantially increased risk of intracranial meningioma with long-term use, finding an odds ratio of about 5.6 for use of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate for a year or more. Regulators have responded. In September 2024 the European Medicines Agency's safety committee concluded that high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate, including the injectable contraceptive, carries an increased risk of meningioma and recommended updated warnings and monitoring, while noting that the absolute risk is small. The U.S. prescribing information also notes that meningiomas have been reported with use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, primarily with long-term use, and advises discontinuation if a meningioma is diagnosed. An association in studies and a label warning are not the same as proof that the product caused any particular person's tumor.

Note: Nothing here establishes that Depo-Provera caused any individual's meningioma. Regulators describe the relative risk as increased but the absolute risk as small, and causation in any specific case is for the courts to determine.

The status of the Depo-Provera litigation (as of September 2026)

Most federal Depo-Provera cases are consolidated in In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3140, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida before Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the cases in February 2025 to handle claims that the injectable contraceptive, or its generic equivalents, can cause users to develop one or more meningiomas.

The docket has grown steadily since centralization. In the panel's statistics report dated September 1, 2026, MDL No. 3140 showed 6,403 actions pending and 6,510 actions filed to date, which places it among the larger product liability MDLs in the country.

The federal litigation remains active. The court's public case page for MDL No. 3140 lists a Rule 702 motions hearing, the stage at which a court decides whether expert general-causation testimony may be presented to a jury, set for September 18, 2026, along with case management conferences scheduled monthly into December 2026. No trial date or bellwether schedule is posted there. The docket does now reflect a settlement program taking shape. In Case Management Order No. 13, entered on August 5, 2026, Judge Rodgers recorded that the defendants had reached an agreement with plaintiffs' lead counsel that will offer a substantial percentage of plaintiffs with cases pending in the MDL the opportunity to resolve their claims, and appointed BrownGreer PLC as settlement administrator under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Under that order BrownGreer handles settlement program administration, eligibility determinations, review of supporting records, custody of releases and stipulations of dismissal, and coordination with the qualified settlement fund administrator on payment. On September 4, 2026 the court built out the payment machinery further, appointing a supplemental compensation fund allocation master in Case Management Order No. 15, a qualified settlement fund administrator in Case Management Order No. 16, and a lien resolution administrator in Case Management Order No. 17. These orders do not disclose any individual payment amount or allocation formula, and they do not resolve the MDL as a whole. Because this MDL is not a class action, the settlement is not subject to a court fairness determination, so there is no final-approval hearing to wait for; what remains is registration and claims administration. At the twelfth case management conference, held July 27, 2026 and recorded in Case Management Order No. 12, the parties represented that settlement registration should be completed in November 2026, with the claims process beginning to be completed and payments beginning to roll out by the first quarter of 2027. Those dates are the parties' own projections rather than deadlines the court has ordered, and they can move. Anyone relying on the status of this MDL should check the court's case page directly or ask an attorney, and should treat any specific settlement figure circulating in secondary coverage with caution until it appears on the court's own docket.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation are individuals who used Depo-Provera or its generic medroxyprogesterone acetate equivalent, often for a year or more, and were later diagnosed with an intracranial meningioma. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including how long the product was used, the diagnosis and its timing, the medical record connecting the two, and the law of the relevant state. Use of the product alone does not establish a claim, and most people who used Depo-Provera will not develop a meningioma. Nothing here suggests that every user has a claim or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, which are legal deadlines to file suit. These deadlines vary by state and by the type of claim, and many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury may be linked to the product, a concept sometimes called the discovery rule. Because the deadline depends on your state and your facts, there is no single national filing deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. Missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim, so people who believe they may be affected often act promptly rather than waiting. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can evaluate which deadline applies to a specific situation.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the applicable law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim; this page cannot do that. It can help to gather any records you have, such as proof that you received Depo-Provera and when, your prescription and clinic records, and your medical records confirming a meningioma diagnosis and its date, including any imaging. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation, and many work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation to file.