One of the key issues in Depo-Provera litigation is establishing a clear connection between the drug and the development of meningiomas. A landmark study published in the British Medical Journal in March 2024 reviewed data from over 18,000 women who had surgery for meningiomas between 2009 and 2018. The study revealed that women who used Depo-Provera for more than one year had a 5.6x higher risk of developing these tumors compared to non-users. Interestingly, the study found no increased risk for women who used the drug for less than a year, suggesting that both the duration of use and the user’s age are important factors in determining the risk.

According to the study, the majority of Depo-Provera users with meningiomas were over the age of 45. This suggests that both the length of exposure and the age of the user may play significant roles in case intake decisions. As such, legal professionals should be prepared to examine the specifics of each claimant’s usage history, as well as their age at the time of use.

These findings represent a significant part of the plaintiffs’ case, as they help establish a potential causal link between Depo-Provera and the development of meningiomas. However, the defense is expected to argue against causation, suggesting that factors like genetics, pre-existing conditions, or other medications might also contribute to meningioma development. Lawyers will need to rely on expert testimony to counter these arguments and demonstrate that Depo-Provera use significantly increased the risk of tumor formation.

Another critical aspect of Depo-Provera litigation is the gendered nature of its marketing and the disproportionate health risks that women face. Depo-Provera, like other products marketed primarily to women—such as talcum powder, hair relaxers, and Essure—raises important questions about gender equity in health product marketing. These products have been sold with limited warning about the potential long-term risks, and the health consequences often disproportionately affect women.

This gendered aspect of the litigation should not be underestimated. Similar cases, such as the litigation surrounding talcum powder, have highlighted how juries can be influenced by the broader social implications of product marketing that targets women. As plaintiffs’ lawyers, you can leverage this aspect of the narrative to strengthen your case, particularly if evidence emerges suggesting that the manufacturers of Depo-Provera were aware of the risks but failed to adequately warn consumers.

In fact, similar mass tort cases involving products marketed to women—such as Essure and hair relaxers—have shown how powerful these gender equity issues can be in influencing both jury verdicts and public opinion. Lawyers should consider this dimension of the case, especially in instances where evidence points to corporate negligence in addressing known risks.

To help frame expectations for the Depo-Provera litigation, it’s useful to compare it with other high-profile mass tort cases, such as those involving hair relaxers, talcum powder, and Essure. These cases share common themes, such as long-term health risks, gendered marketing, and allegations of insufficient warnings about product dangers.

Settlement Projections: In the case of hair relaxers, which have been linked to an increased risk of uterine cancer, settlements for severe injuries are expected to range from $300,000 to $1.75 million.

Comparison to Depo-Provera: Depo-Provera settlements for severe meningiomas ($75,000–$200,000) are likely to be lower than those for hair relaxers, as meningiomas, while serious, are generally not life-threatening.

Key Distinction: Hair relaxer cases benefit from more robust epidemiological studies, while Depo-Provera cases are still relying on narrower, less comprehensive research. Additionally, the emotional impact of uterine cancer cases, particularly those involving infertility, is significant and has played a role in the higher settlements seen in hair relaxer cases.

Settlement Projections: Talcum powder lawsuits have resulted in settlements ranging from $100,000 to over $1 million, with some jury awards exceeding $100 million for ovarian cancer cases linked to the product.

Comparison to Depo-Provera: Depo-Provera settlements are likely to align more with the lower end of the talcum powder payouts due to the less life-threatening nature of meningiomas. However, the cases are still serious and warrant substantial compensation for those affected.

Key Distinction: Talc litigation has involved significant evidence of corporate misconduct, with internal documents showing that Johnson & Johnson was aware of the risks and failed to warn consumers adequately. Depo-Provera cases may not have the same level of internal evidence to support claims of corporate negligence, but they will rely heavily on the scientific evidence connecting the drug to meningiomas.

Settlement Projections: Essure lawsuits, which involve a contraceptive device, have led to settlements ranging from $40,000 to $500,000, with high-value cases exceeding $1 million.

Comparison to Depo-Provera: The settlement ranges for Depo-Provera are expected to be similar to Essure, as both involve contraceptive products with serious, though non-life-threatening, health consequences.

Key Distinction: Essure claims are focused on device-related complications, while Depo-Provera lawsuits center around pharmaceutical risks. The nature of the claims could affect how juries perceive the products and how settlements are structured.

Given the severity of the injuries involved and the strength of the scientific evidence, settlements for Depo-Provera cases are likely to fall into the following ranges: