1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss in the lead federal case in December 2025, and failure-to-warn and negligent design claims are now proceeding into discovery. The JPML is expected to rule on MDL centralization in mid-2026. Cornerstone Law is reviewing cases nationwide — with no upfront cost to you.
Key Case and Procedural Posture
Multiple federal filings allege that long-term use of Depo-Provera caused intracranial hypertension (pseudotumor cerebri), vision loss, and severe neurological symptoms. Cases are most active in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, and Southern District of Illinois, with a JPML petition for centralization pending.
Harris v. Pfizer Inc.
Case No. 2:25-cv-01477 — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
December 2025: plaintiffs survived a partial motion to dismiss. The court allowed claims for failure to warn, negligent design, and breach of implied warranty to proceed, and ordered Phase I discovery, including production of internal safety-signal analyses and adverse-event reports related to intracranial hypertension.
In re: Depo-Provera Intracranial Hypertension Litigation
Proposed MDL No. 3112 — requested venue: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Status: plaintiffs have petitioned the JPML to centralize all federal Depo-Provera cases. The panel is expected to rule in mid-2026. Several cases are already consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in anticipation of MDL formation.
What Plaintiffs Allege
Depo-Provera contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, which plaintiffs allege interferes with cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and can cause dangerous increases in intracranial pressure. Plaintiffs contend Pfizer had access to safety signals indicating this risk and failed to act on them.
Pfizer allegedly failed to include adequate warnings about the risk of intracranial hypertension in its labeling, leaving patients and prescribers uninformed about a serious neurological risk.
Plaintiffs allege internal safety-signal analyses and adverse-event data showed a link between Depo-Provera and intracranial hypertension, and that Pfizer failed to respond appropriately.
The drug's formulation and dosing allegedly created foreseeable risks of cerebrospinal fluid pressure increase that plaintiffs say could have been addressed through alternative design.
Depo-Provera was marketed as safe for long-term use, with neurological side effects allegedly downplayed or omitted from patient-facing materials.
Eligibility
You may qualify if you used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed intracranial hypertension or related neurological symptoms. Both short-term and long-term users may be eligible depending on their diagnosis.
Legal Theories and Damages
Common Questions
Possibly. While longer use is more commonly cited in these cases, both short-term and long-term users may have a claim depending on their specific diagnosis and symptom timeline.
We handle Depo-Provera cases on contingency — no upfront fee, and we only get paid if we recover compensation for you.
Not formally yet. A petition to centralize federal cases into an MDL is pending before the JPML, with a ruling expected in mid-2026. Several cases are already coordinating in anticipation of that outcome.
Resolved symptoms don't necessarily rule out a claim, particularly if you incurred medical costs, missed work, or experienced lasting effects like vision changes. It's worth having your case reviewed.
We represent individuals harmed by Depo-Provera. Find out whether your diagnosis and use history qualify for a claim.
Get a Free Case ReviewNo fee unless we recover compensation for you. Call 1-800-928-9445.