What’s New in Dangerous Product Lawsuits in July 2026
Some of the largest dangerous product lawsuits in the country have experienced seismic developments in recent weeks.
From Pfizer reaching an agreement that could resolve thousands of Depo-Provera lawsuits to the Supreme Court limiting the Roundup litigation, here are some of the biggest updates that could impact tens of thousands of families.
Settlement Reached for Depo-Provera Lawsuits
In a somewhat unexpected development, Pfizer has tentatively agreed to a settlement that could resolve thousands of Depo-Provera lawsuits.
These cases claim that the popular birth control shot is tied to a higher risk of developing a type of tumor called a meningioma. Those tumors are rarely cancerous, but can cause severe, life-altering health issues as they press on the brain.
This was an unusually fast timeline for a litigation of this size, with the first lawsuits filed less than two years ago.
Pfizer originally leaned on a preemption defense. The company argued that it couldn’t be blamed for failing to warn patients of a meningioma risk because the Food & Drug Administration had previously rejected a label update that included that information.
The landscape around that argument shifted dramatically in December, when the FDA approved a new label that included information on meningiomas.
So far, the terms of the Depo-Provera settlement and how many of the nearly 6,000 cases in federal court will be covered have not been revealed.
Upcoming litigation deadlines have been pushed back to give both sides more time to hammer out the final agreement.
Roundup Lawsuits Suffer Key Defeat at U.S. Supreme Court
In a closely watched decision years in the making, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Bayer on a key issue that could limit tens of thousands of Roundup lawsuits.
These cases claim that exposure to the weed killer caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer, which purchased Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, has been repeatedly hit with massive verdicts when these cases have advanced to trial.
But the path forward for the litigation is no longer straightforward. In a 7-2 decision, the court determined that the failure-to-warn claims central to these lawsuits are preempted, or overruled, by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
This federal statute says that states cannot impose labeling requirements for pesticides beyond those required at the federal level. The Supreme Court determined that, since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, Bayer cannot be blamed for failing to warn customers.
While the EPA doesn’t acknowledge that Roundup could be linked to cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an arm of the World Health Organization) has found its active ingredient to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The Supreme Court’s decision does not mean that the litigation is over. Roundup lawsuits include numerous other claims, and both sides are still working through exactly how the decision will be applied in the courtroom.
At the same time, Bayer is continuing its push to finalize a $7.25 billion Roundup settlement that it believes will resolve both current and future claims. That deal is facing significant pushback, however. Under its terms, some people who developed cancer after using Roundup could walk away with as little as $6,000.
Social Media Giants Reach Settlements as Bellwether Trial Approaches
The social media addiction litigation, which includes thousands of lawsuits claiming that popular platforms designed their products to intentionally addict users, continues to advance.
A key trial involving a teen is expected to begin later this month. But a couple of major companies will no longer be part of that case.
Both YouTube and TikTok reached confidential settlements with the teen in the weeks leading up to the trial, leaving Meta and Snap as the only defendants.
This is the third time that TikTok has settled out of a social media addiction lawsuit as the trial date neared. But the YouTube agreement is particularly noteworthy after Google, which owns the platform, decided to take a previous case to trial.
That case involved a woman who claimed she developed severe mental health issues and body dysmorphia after using social media from a young age. In a landmark decision, Google and Meta were ordered to pay her a combined $6 million at the conclusion of the trial.
This is a closely watched litigation, with thousands of lawsuits active.