Ozempic Lawsuit 2026: Settlement Tracker & Case Updates
Plaintiffs in two federal multidistrict litigations (MDLs) allege GLP-1 drugs caused gastrointestinal injuries or a form of vision loss called NAION. These are allegations, not findings. We list only matters we read at a court, FDA or FTC source, or a company's own release, each with a link. Last checked November 6, 2026.
Litigation Landscape
Counts come from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. We have no sourced figure for total damages and did not find a settlement of these MDLs in the sources we read. We removed earlier entries and figures we could not source. Those included a damages total, settlement ranges, a pricing class action and a criminal investigation, none of which we could trace to a court or agency record.
Matters We Could Source
MDL No. 3094: GLP-1 gastrointestinal injury litigation
Federal products liability actions over gastrointestinal injuries allegedly caused by GLP-1 drugs, centralized in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge Karen S. Marston. Plaintiffs claim symptoms and injuries such as gastroparesis, ileus or intestinal obstruction, cholecystitis, and severe nausea and vomiting.
Key Details
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) reported 4,082 actions pending and 4,196 total in its November 2, 2026 report. When the court set its first priority issues in August 2024, there were 842 cases. These are allegations, and a count of filed actions does not establish that a drug caused an injury.
Source: JPML report, November 2, 2026, E.D. Pa. MDL 3094 page, JPML transfer order, 2024, Case Management Order 18
MDL No. 3163: GLP-1 NAION vision loss litigation
Plaintiffs allege these drugs caused non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), which the court describes as a condition that results in sudden, permanent vision loss. All bring substantially identical claims for failure to warn, design defect and breach of warranties. The panel created a separate MDL before Judge Marston rather than adding the cases to MDL No. 3094.
Key Details
The JPML reported 278 actions pending and 278 total in its November 2, 2026 report, up from more than 130 when the court wrote in July 2026. These are allegations, and a count of filed actions does not establish that a drug caused an injury.
Source: JPML transfer order, JPML report, November 2, 2026, E.D. Pa. MDL 3163 page, Case Management Order 12
FTC order against NextMed
The FTC's July 2025 complaint alleged undisclosed costs and membership commitments, unsubstantiated weight-loss claims, fake testimonials and distorted reviews, delays in cancellations and refunds, and charges without express informed consent.
Key Details
The final consent order, approved 2-0, requires payment of $150,000, which the FTC expects to use for consumer refunds. It bars misrepresenting costs, requires evidence for claims about typical results, and sets rules for reviews, billing consent and cancellations.
Source: FTC announcement
Outsourcing Facilities Association v. FDA
Compounders challenged FDA's decisions that the shortages were resolved. The district court in the Northern District of Texas denied preliminary injunctions on March 5, 2025 (tirzepatide, 4:24-cv-00953) and April 24, 2025 (semaglutide, 4:25-cv-00174).
Key Details
We read these rulings as FDA reports them on its policy page. We did not check the current docket, so the label on this entry may be out of date.
Source: FDA policy page
Eli Lilly v. compounders: Empower and Strive
Lilly alleges unfair competition and lost sales from compounded tirzepatide sold by Empower. Empower's motion to dismiss argues the suit is an attempt to eliminate compounding with tirzepatide. The published order in the Strive case concerns personal jurisdiction and transfer.
Key Details
We read excerpts of the published court documents linked here, not the full text, and we did not check the current dockets, so the label on this entry may be out of date. These are allegations, not findings.
Source: Empower, Document 80, Strive, Document 21
Novo Nordisk v. Hims & Hers
Hims & Hers announced a collaboration with Novo Nordisk on March 9, 2026 and said that, at the same time, Novo Nordisk was dismissing its lawsuit against Hims & Hers without prejudice.
Key Details
We read this in the company's own release. Without prejudice generally means a claim could be brought again. See our post on what Hims and Hers sell now.
Source: Hims & Hers release
Barta v. Novo Nordisk: investor class action
A proposed class of investors who bought Novo Nordisk stock between May 7, 2025 and July 28, 2025 sued in the District of New Jersey (No. 25-14045) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
Key Details
The court's memorandum order of February 17, 2026 appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. We did not check the current docket, so the label on this entry may be out of date. A securities case concerns investors, and it does not decide whether a drug is safe.
Source: Court order, GovInfo entry
Case history
From the panels' and the court's own orders. See all orders in MDL No. 3094 and MDL No. 3163.
February 2, 2024
The JPML centralized the gastrointestinal cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 18 actions in 11 districts, with 37 related actions. Source.
August 23, 2024
Judge Marston took up two issues first: how gastroparesis must be diagnosed, and preemption and warnings. She reserved ruling on making general causation a third priority. There were 842 cases. Source.
December 12, 2024
The JPML expanded MDL No. 3094 to include Saxenda. Source.
August 15, 2025
The court ruled that a plaintiff claiming gastroparesis must show the diagnosis rests on a properly performed gastric emptying study (scintigraphy, breath test or wireless motility capsule). Source.
December 15, 2025
The JPML created MDL No. 3163 for NAION cases, starting with 21 actions in three districts, and declined to fold them into MDL No. 3094. Source.
January 29 and February 23, 2026
In MDL No. 3163, the court entered its direct filing order and its order on plaintiffs' leadership counsel. Source.
April 30, 2026
In MDL No. 3094, the court reset the schedule for Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3, with Rule 702 and summary judgment motions due May 19, 2026. Source.
July 2, 2026
In MDL No. 3163, the court issued its order on early discovery and motions on cross cutting issues. Source.
August 27, 2026
In MDL No. 3163, the court set deadlines through August 31, 2027: a master complaint by October 28, 2026, fact discovery by February 26, 2027, and expert, Rule 702 and summary judgment stages after that. Source.
September 14 to 18, 2026
In MDL No. 3094, the court scheduled a Rule 702 evidentiary hearing on Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3. Source.
October 13, 2026
In MDL No. 3094, the court set closing arguments on the Rule 702 motions for this date. We found no ruling on them in the pages we read. Source.
October 20, 2026
In MDL No. 3163, the court entered its order on plaintiff fact sheets. Source.
November 2, 2026
The JPML reported 4,082 actions pending in MDL No. 3094 and 278 in MDL No. 3163. Source.
What each kind of case claims
Gastrointestinal injury (MDL No. 3094)
Patients claim they took one or more of the named drugs for type 2 diabetes or long-term weight management and suffered gastrointestinal injuries, such as gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, cholecystitis, or severe nausea and vomiting. In August 2024, plaintiffs' counsel told the court they expected over 95% of cases to allege gastroparesis.
Vision loss (MDL No. 3163)
Patients claim the drugs caused NAION. Their claims are failure to warn, design defect and breach of warranties. The cases also raise questions about the products' development, testing, regulatory history, promotion and labeling.
Consumer protection (FTC)
These concern how a telehealth seller markets and bills, not whether a drug works. The NextMed complaint covered undisclosed costs, weight-loss claims without adequate support, fake testimonials and delayed refunds.
Compounders against FDA
Compounders challenged FDA's decisions that the tirzepatide and semaglutide shortages had ended, which affected whether copies could be made under the shortage rules.
Manufacturers against compounders and telehealth sellers
Drugmakers sue over the sale and marketing of compounded versions, usually on unfair competition or false advertising theories. These are business disputes, and they do not decide whether any patient was harmed.
Investor cases
Shareholders claim a company's public statements misled them. They concern stock purchases, and they do not decide a medical question.
How to read a filing or a headline number
Headlines often quote a case count or a damages figure. A complaint can ask for any amount, and asking is not winning. We have not found a sourced total for what these cases are worth, so we do not print one. We also found no global settlement of either MDL in the sources we read, despite the word in many search results.
- Actions pending and total
- The JPML counts civil actions, in two columns: pending now, and total, which includes actions already closed. An action is usually one filed case. Neither number measures harm or proven injuries.
- MDL (multidistrict litigation)
- Federal cases grouped before one judge for pretrial proceedings. Centralizing means sharing discovery and rulings. It is not a class action, and each plaintiff's case stays separate.
- Allegation
- What a party claims in a filing. Courts have not found these claims to be true unless an order says so.
- Cross cutting issue
- A question that affects many cases, which the court decides early. In MDL No. 3094 the three are gastroparesis testing, preemption and warnings, and general causation.
- General causation
- Whether a drug can cause a condition at all. Specific causation asks whether it caused this plaintiff's condition.
- Preemption
- Whether federal drug law blocks a state-law claim, for example a claim that a label should have said more.
- Rule 702
- The rule on admitting expert testimony. If a side's experts are excluded, its claims can become hard to prove.
- Master complaint and short form complaint
- A shared statement of claims for the whole MDL, and a shorter document that lets a plaintiff adopt it.
- Direct filing
- A plaintiff files straight into the MDL court rather than in a home district and waiting for transfer.
- Plaintiff fact sheet
- A form each plaintiff completes about their use of the drug and their injury.
- Bellwether
- A test case tried first to show how similar cases may go. We did not find a bellwether trial date in the pages we read.
- Consent order
- A settlement with an agency. The NextMed order rests on the FTC's allegations, not on a court's findings after a trial.
- Dismissed without prejudice
- The case ended without a decision on the merits, and it generally can be filed again.
To read a docket yourself: the JPML publishes its counts monthly, the court's MDL pages post orders for free, and PACER holds the full docket for a fee. The court lets the public watch monthly status conferences remotely.
What This Means for Patients
These lawsuits do not mean GLP-1 medications are unsafe for everyone. Here's how to interpret the legal landscape.
A lawsuit is an allegation
The number of filed actions does not establish that a drug caused an injury. The drugs named remain FDA-approved medicines with risks listed on their labels.
Talk to your doctor about your specific risk factors
If you have a history of pancreatitis, vision problems, or severe GI issues, discuss these with your prescriber. They can help you weigh benefits against potential risks.
Document any adverse effects carefully
If you experience serious side effects, keep detailed records including dates, symptoms, and medical visits. This documentation is important for both your healthcare and any potential legal claims.
Read what FDA says about compounded GLP-1s
Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved. See our FDA actions tracker for FDA's stated concerns and dated warning letters.
Consult a lawyer if you have been seriously harmed
If you believe a GLP-1 medication seriously harmed you, a pharmaceutical litigation attorney can explain your options. Filing deadlines may apply.
Legal Disclaimer
This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Case information is compiled from court, FDA and FTC pages, and in one case a company release, linked on each entry. Case statuses and details change. If you believe you have a legal claim related to GLP-1 medications, consult a qualified attorney. GLP-1 Watchdog is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation or referrals.
Stay Informed & Stay Safe
Check our FDA actions tracker, or use the scam checker on your GLP-1 provider.