Mass Tort Watch List 2026

I cannot give you one headline for 2026 mass tort litigation without leaving out half the story. Depo-Provera lawyers reached an agreement in principle that could resolve a substantial number of meningioma claims. New federal proceedings were created for Dupixent, Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators, Roblox child exploitation, Lyft passenger assaults, Cartiva implants, ByHeart infant formula, and GLP-1 vision loss cases.

There has been plenty of bad news, too. The Supreme Court handed Monsanto a serious preemption victory in the Roundup litigation. That ruling makes Bayer’s proposed settlement more attractive to some plaintiffs, even though many believe the proposed payments are too low. The first Paragard bellwether ended in a defense verdict. AFFF personal injury plaintiffs are still waiting for their first trial. Several older dockets look enormous on paper because settlement administration is slow work and cases remain in the federal count while releases, liens, dismissals, and payments are processed.

Here is where things stand for the rest of 2026. I have grouped the cases by what injured people actually need to know: which federal proceedings are moving, which new MDLs deserve attention, and which investigations remain too young for dependable predictions. Where a docket has reached settlement administration, I say that. Where I do not have a confident view yet, I say that, too.

Major Active Federal Personal Injury MDLs in 2026

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 205,540 actions pending across 162 MDLs on August 3, 2026. I have limited the chart to personal injury proceedings readers are most likely to encounter. A docket count tells you how many actions are pending. It does not tell you how many injuries have been proven, how many settlement claims remain unpaid, or why cases entered or left the docket during the month.

See additional federal MDL dockets

Litigation	Federal Court	MDL	Pending August 3, 2026	Current Posture
Suboxone Tooth Decay	Northern District of Ohio	3092	1,827	Dental injury and warning claims in discovery
NEC Infant Formula	Northern District of Illinois	3026	825	Mixed trial results, appeals, and continuing claims
Philips CPAP	Western District of Pennsylvania	3014	624	Settlement and dismissal administration
Baby Food Heavy Metals	Northern District of California	3101	478	Litigation on life support after MDL ruling
AngioDynamics/Navilyst Ports	Southern District of California	3125	407	A separate port catheter MDL from Bard PowerPort
Tepezza Hearing Loss	Northern District of Illinois	3079	277	Hearing loss and tinnitus claims
Roblox Child Exploitation	Northern District of California	3166	177	New MDL created in December 2025
GLP-1 NAION Vision Loss	Eastern District of Pennsylvania	3163	200	Separate MDL for optic nerve injury
Gardasil	Western District of North Carolina	3036	7	Winding down
Lyft Passenger Sexual Assault	Northern District of California	3171	72	New MDL created in February 2026
Dupixent CTCL	District of New Jersey	3180	28	New MDL created in June 2026
Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulators	Central District of California	3181	26	Boston Scientific cases only
Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant	Eastern District of Arkansas	3172	21	New MDL created in February 2026
ByHeart Infant Formula	Southern District of New York	3178	21	New MDL created in April 2026

Source: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, August 3, 2026 docket report. The figures change monthly.

New Mass Tort MDLs to Watch

Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma

The JPML created the Dupixent MDL on June 4, 2026, and sent the cases to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that Dupixent caused, accelerated, or masked cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare blood cancer that in its early stages can look a lot like eczema or ordinary dermatitis on a chart.

The fight will center on diagnosis and causation, and it will get technical fast. Defendants will argue that some plaintiffs had undiagnosed CTCL before receiving Dupixent because early CTCL can resemble eczema or ordinary dermatitis. Plaintiffs will focus on whether the drug accelerated the disease, changed its course, or delayed the correct diagnosis. The useful evidence is already sitting in the medical chart: what the skin looked like before treatment, how it responded, what later biopsies showed, and what the treating physicians understood at each point. The JPML transfer order identifies the common disputes over the science, the defendants’ knowledge, and the warnings.

I like the potential of a well-documented CTCL case. The docket remains small, and there is not enough information yet to predict how broadly the litigation will grow.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulators

On June 5, 2026, the JPML created MDL No. 3181 in the Central District of California in front of Judge Josephine L. Staton. This covers Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases only. It does not sweep in claims against Abbott, Medtronic, Nevro, or any other stimulator maker although we may see MDLs for them, too.

Patients allege painful shocks, burning, device migration, lead fracture, neurological injury, failed therapy, revision surgery, and explant procedures. In these cases, the product model, implant records, programming logs, imaging, revision findings, and the explanted device itself will make or break the claim. Do not assume an Abbott or Medtronic case belongs in this MDL just because the injury involves a spinal cord stimulator. It does not, under the transfer order. That person may well have a claim. It just will not live here.

I like these cases when the records show a device malfunction followed by a substantial new injury or revision surgery. A disappointed patient whose stimulator simply failed to relieve chronic pain presents a harder claim.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits

GLP-1 litigation now runs on two separate tracks in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MDL No. 3094 addresses gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, ileus, and intestinal obstruction. MDL No. 3163, created in December 2025, handles non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION.

NAION causes sudden, painless, and often permanent vision loss. These cases need proof of the exact medication, when it was used, the eye diagnosis, competing vascular risk factors, and what the warning said at the relevant time. Keeping these two MDLs apart is not just bureaucratic tidiness. A vision loss case and a gastroparesis case rely on completely different medical experts, and lumping them together under the label “Ozempic lawsuit” would make that label meaningless.

I am bullish on the NAION cases with a confirmed diagnosis, permanent vision loss, a clean medication history, and no dominant competing cause. The injury is concrete, but the science and individual vascular risk factors will decide how far the litigation goes.

Roblox Child Exploitation Lawsuits

The Roblox MDL was created in December 2025 and had 177 pending cases by August 3, 2026. Families allege that predators used Roblox’s features and connected messaging to groom, exploit, traffic, or sexually assault children. The claims examine Roblox’s safety systems, age controls, moderation practices, response to prior reports, and underlying design choices.

Platform records will decide these cases. Chat histories, account reports, moderation decisions, device records, communications with parents, police files, and counseling records will show how contact started and what Roblox knew and when. Do not confuse this litigation with the video game addiction lawsuits below. Different injury, different evidence, different legal theory entirely.

Lyft Passenger Sexual Assault MDL

The JPML centralized Lyft passenger sexual assault cases in February 2026. The claims generally allege that Lyft failed to screen or remove dangerous drivers, failed to respond to prior complaints, failed to warn passengers, or simply never built adequate safety measures into the platform. This proceeding follows the much larger Uber passenger assault MDL sitting in the same federal district.

Every survivor still has her own individual claim here. The MDL coordinates discovery into Lyft’s policies, internal records, safety data, and what the company knew. It is not a class action, and it will not produce equal payments across the board.

Cartiva Implant Lawsuits

Cartiva is a synthetic cartilage implant used in the big toe joint. Plaintiffs allege implant subsidence, migration, fragmentation, persistent pain, bone loss, and failed procedures that required removal or fusion surgery. The JPML created MDL No. 3172 in February 2026.

We have been taking these cases for years. This is a small docket right now, but the injury pattern is concrete and easy to document. Operative notes, postoperative imaging, evidence of failed conservative care, and findings from any revision surgery will get close attention. A small case count today does not tell you whether Cartiva becomes a large mass tort tomorrow.

ByHeart Infant Formula

The ByHeart MDL was created in April 2026 in the Southern District of New York. It covers claims arising from allegedly contaminated infant formula and serious infant illness. Twenty-one actions were pending on July 1.

Small dockets like this can take off quickly once the product, manufacturing records, recall history, and alleged injuries line up. They can also stay small if the pool of exposed children turns out to be limited. It is simply too early to make a sensible settlement prediction here.

The docket is too new and too small for me to have a confident view of its long-term potential. The first useful information will come from manufacturing discovery and a careful accounting of the children who suffered serious illness.

The Largest Active Mass Torts

Talcum Powder

Talc is now the largest active federal mass tort docket in the country, with 68,914 pending cases on August 3. Johnson & Johnson’s repeated bankruptcy strategy never produced the final global resolution the company was chasing. Plaintiffs returned to the tort system, where they still have to prove exposure, diagnosis, causation, and damages the old-fashioned way.

The litigation covers both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma claims, and I would caution against valuing them together. They are not the same case. Exposure history and pathology diverge, and so does the relevant product testing, the asbestos evidence, and the governing state law. J&J still has real defenses and enormous resources behind it. It also faces the ongoing cost and unpredictability of trial after trial. A comprehensive settlement is still possible. A docket this size just makes any deal a lot more complicated to structure.

Johnson & Johnson has now proposed a $5.5 billion talc settlement covering roughly 76,000 ovarian cancer claims. The proposal requires at least 95 percent participation. It does not cover future claims, and mesothelioma cases remain on a different track. No public payment schedule tells an individual woman what she would receive. The participation rate will tell us whether the proposal is a resolution or another temporary turn in a litigation that has already produced plenty of them.

Hernia Mesh

Bard and Covidien are running on separate tracks. Bard has a global settlement framework in place, yet more than 23,000 actions were still listed as pending on July 1. Some cases have settled but enrollment, lien resolution, releases, dismissals, allocation disputes, and payment administration simply take a long time to work through.

Covidien’s MDL, meanwhile, is still active in Massachusetts with more than 2,400 pending cases. If someone tells you their case falls under a generic “hernia mesh settlement,” find out the manufacturer, the product name, the implant date, the revision history, and the current symptoms before you draw any conclusions.

On August 4, 2026, the first federal Covidien bellwether produced an $88 million verdict. That result gives plaintiffs real leverage. Yes, there will be post-trial motions and any appeal, but the bellwether impact of this verdict will not change.

AFFF Firefighting Foam

AFFF is the third largest active docket on this list. The earlier public water settlements already resolved claims brought by water providers. Firefighters, service members, airport workers, and others alleging cancer or other personal injuries were not part of those deals and are still waiting.

The personal injury docket is building test cases around specific diseases and specific exposure histories. The first scheduled trial did not go forward, which pushed back the moment both sides get a clean jury valuation to work from. Kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis have each gotten bellwether attention. Plaintiffs still need to show real, credible proof that they used or encountered AFFF, where that exposure happened, how often, and whether some other risk factor offers a competing explanation.

The hard part for plaintiffs is the waiting. This litigation is taking forever to get a trial date.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Litigation

The hair relaxer MDL had 11,779 pending cases on August 3. The claims allege that long-term use of chemical straighteners raised the risk of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and other injuries. Product identification is unusually difficult because many women used several brands over decades and have no receipts or packaging left.

The first federal trial is expected in January 2027, and it will tell us something no docket count ever could: how a jury actually reacts to the epidemiology, the product history, and the testimony of a woman whose use stretches back years. Until that trial happens, I would treat any confident settlement forecast with real skepticism.

Paraquat

Paraquat claims allege that repeated herbicide exposure caused Parkinson’s disease. The docket still holds more than 6,600 cases, but it has not had an easy road. Expert exclusions knocked out early test cases. Later trial dates gave way to settlement activity instead, including reports of confidential resolutions and a qualified settlement structure taking shape.

There is still no public payment grid that lets you back into a Paraquat settlement number from the case count alone. Direct occupational exposure, product identification, the Parkinson’s diagnosis itself, how long and how the product was used, protective equipment, medical history, and other possible exposures all still matter. Anyone quoting you a fixed payout based on docket size is getting ahead of the actual evidence.

Depo-Provera

Depo-Provera became one of the fastest-growing mass torts of 2025 and 2026. Plaintiffs allege that repeated injections of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate raised the risk of meningioma and that the warning label did not say so adequately.

On June 15, 2026, the court announced a Depo-Provera settlement agreement in principle that could resolve a substantial percentage of the pending claims. The terms are confidential, and I would not treat that announcement as a published settlement schedule, no matter how it gets reported. The court also held its rescheduled Rule 702 hearing on July 27. Those expert rulings still matter, both for claims that fall outside any agreement and for the leverage that shapes the final settlement terms.

Paragard

Paragard lawsuits allege that the copper IUD can fracture during removal, leaving an arm or fragment inside the uterus and sometimes requiring hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or more invasive surgery to retrieve. The MDL spent years in discovery before it finally reached its first bellwether.

That first federal bellwether ended in a defense verdict, and I think it should take some of the easy optimism out of the settlement estimates people were throwing around before trial. One loss does not set the value of every case in the docket, but it hands the defense a result they can and will use. The next trials will tell us whether that first verdict was a warning about the whole litigation or just a judgment about one plaintiff’s particular proof problems. Cases with clearer device failure, better contemporaneous records, retained fragments, and substantial surgery may look very different.

Roundup After the Supreme Court Ruling

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding that federal pesticide labeling law preempted the state failure to warn claim at issue in that case.

This gives Bayer a serious defense, and it means lawyers now have to look much more carefully at each state’s law and each theory of liability rather than relying on the old playbook. It does not erase the history of Roundup verdicts, and it does not automatically dispose of every design defect, misrepresentation, warranty, or fact-specific claim out there. But any 2026 watch list that predicts a new global settlement without grappling with Durnell is out of date the day it gets published.

Bayer has proposed a nationwide class settlement funded with up to $7.25 billion over as many as 21 years. Some plaintiff firms support it. Others argue that the payments are too low and the protection for Monsanto is too broad. The Supreme Court ruling plainly changed the bargaining position. It did not answer whether the proposed program gives sick plaintiffs enough money for the rights they would release.

GLP-1 Gastrointestinal Injuries

The original GLP-1 MDL has nearly 3,900 cases alleging gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, ileus, and related injuries from Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound, and similar drugs. The manufacturers are going to lean hard on diabetes history, obesity, prior gastrointestinal problems, medication history, dose changes, and whether objective testing actually backs up the diagnosis.

The potential population here is huge simply because these drugs are so widely used. That does not mean every patient with nausea has a viable lawsuit. Persistent symptoms, hospitalization, real diagnostic testing, treatment, and an injury the litigation actually recognizes are what give a claim a firm footing.

Bard PowerPort and Other Port Catheters

Bard PowerPort plaintiffs allege catheter fracture, migration, thrombosis, embolization, infection, and vascular injury. The Bard MDL has grown past 3,500 cases. A separate AngioDynamics and Navilyst port MDL has more than 400 cases sitting in the Southern District of California.

These are medical record cases from the first to the last page. The implant card tells you the model. Imaging may show a fracture or migration. Operative and retrieval notes may explain exactly what failed. Pathology and culture records help with infection claims. And if the explanted device itself was properly preserved, it can give your experts evidence that nothing else can recreate after the fact.

Social Media Addiction

The social media MDL coordinates claims against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and other platforms. Families, school districts, and government entities allege that product features were designed to encourage compulsive use by children and contributed to depression, self harm, eating disorders, and other injuries.

The docket added 244 cases in July and reached 3,137 pending actions on August 3. That growth is worth watching, but the real pressure comes from discovery and trials. Internal design records can show whether a company identified harmful patterns among young users and continued to optimize the same features. A family still needs proof tying the child’s platform use to a recognized injury. Device data, treatment records, school records, and testimony from people who watched the change happen will carry more weight than a general complaint that social media is bad for teenagers.

I expect these cases to be fought company by company and injury by injury, but you will not see a lot of trials because the defendants seem to be taking great measures to avoid juries.

See additional active MDLs

Suboxone Tooth Decay

Suboxone film plaintiffs allege that prolonged contact with the acidic medication caused severe decay, broken teeth, extractions, implants, and other dental treatment before an adequate warning was added. Dental records from before and after Suboxone use matter enormously. The MDL remains in discovery with more than 1,800 pending cases.

NEC Infant Formula

Parents allege that cow’s milk-based formula fed to premature infants raised the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis. Trials have produced mixed results, and the appeals still pending are consequential. Gestational age, feeding history, warnings, hospital decisions, the bowel injury itself, surgery, and long-term complications all separate one claim from the next.

Baby Food Heavy Metals

This MDL alleges that arsenic, lead, cadmium, or mercury in commercial baby food contributed to autism or developmental injury. Causation is going to be the hard center of every one of these cases, since autism has multiple recognized risk factors and the exposure has to be reconstructed from products used years earlier.

Tepezza Hearing Loss

Tepezza cases allege permanent hearing loss and tinnitus following treatment for thyroid eye disease. Baseline hearing tests, audiograms, the timing of symptoms, cumulative dose, and other possible causes of hearing loss will shape each individual claim. This docket remains modest next to the other pharmaceutical MDLs on this list.

Gardasil

Gardasil plaintiffs allege postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoimmune problems, and other injuries. This litigation has run into substantial causation and preemption challenges. Do not treat this as a docket where case count alone tells you a near term settlement is coming.

Developing Claims Without a Federal MDL

Worth remembering before you read this section: an MDL is just a procedure for coordinating similar federal cases. It is not a stamp of scientific approval, and not having one does not stop anyone from filing suit. The investigations below are worth watching, but they are earlier stage and less predictable than everything above.

Chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s Disease

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide sold under names like Lorsban and Dursban. New chlorpyrifos lawsuits allege that repeated direct exposure contributed to Parkinson’s disease. Recent research has put fresh attention on that association and on possible biological mechanisms involving dopamine-producing neurons and abnormal protein buildup.

There is no chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s MDL and no settlement program of any kind. The early cases will turn on direct evidence, product identification, the duration and route of the exposure, employment records, the Parkinson’s diagnosis, and expert testimony. Someone who mixed, loaded, or sprayed the product for years has a very different case than someone whose exposure is inferred only from living near farmland.

Internal Bra Mesh

Internal bra mesh products get used in breast reconstruction, lifts, reductions, and related procedures. Patients report infection, chronic inflammation, poor healing, tissue damage, mesh exposure or migration, implant loss, and revision surgery. Several different products and regulatory histories are wrapped up in this one, so preemption and product identification need to get addressed early. No federal internal bra mesh MDL exists yet.

BioZorb

BioZorb is a three-dimensional marker implanted after lumpectomy. Lawsuits allege persistent pain, infection, migration, erosion, scarring, palpable masses, and additional surgery. The FDA recall history and adverse event record give these cases more structure than a brand new product investigation usually has, but the litigation remains decentralized.

Tavneos

Tavneos treats severe ANCA-associated vasculitis. On April 27, 2026, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research proposed withdrawing approval, stating that the drug had not been shown effective and that the application contained materially untrue statements. That is a serious regulatory development, and it is worth reading closely.

I would still call it too early to call Tavneos a mature mass tort. A regulatory fight over effectiveness does not automatically mean a patient suffered a compensable injury. Lawyers taking these cases will need a defined injury, real medical causation, a documented use history, and a viable warning or fraud theory before this becomes anything more than a regulatory story.

Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Claims against online casinos and sports betting apps allege predatory promotions, VIP programs, inducements to keep wagering, and targeting of users showing obvious signs of addiction. These cases raise hard questions about state gambling law, causation, personal responsibility, arbitration clauses, and whether a platform ignored its own responsible gaming safeguards.

There is no federal gambling addiction MDL yet. The strongest facts I would look for are documented losses, repeated requests to stop or self-exclude, direct communications with VIP hosts, continued inducements after those requests, evidence of treatment, and proof the operator knew the customer was in trouble and kept going anyway.

Video Game Addiction

Families allege that companies used reward loops, microtransactions, social pressure, and engagement systems to encourage compulsive play by children. In December 2025, the JPML declined to create a video game addiction MDL. The cases can still move forward in individual courts.

That decision will probably make discovery slower and results less uniform across cases. It also means no single leadership group gets to develop the whole factual record for everyone. Treatment history, gaming data, school performance, spending records, parental controls, and a clearly identified injury remain the building blocks of any individual claim.

National Litigation Outside the MDL System

Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune claims are consolidated in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, but this is not a JPML mass tort MDL, and that distinction is more than bookkeeping. The statute created its own eligibility rules, its own administrative claim process, a government defendant, and its own federal court procedure.

Thousands of lawsuits remain pending, and the government has made some settlement offers through its elective option framework. Progress has been painfully slow for sick veterans and their families. I track that proceeding separately on our Camp Lejeune lawsuit page.

Older Dockets and Settlement Administration

See older mass torts that no longer belong at the top of the watch list

3M Combat Arms Earplugs

The 3M earplug litigation has moved almost entirely into settlement administration. The MDL once held hundreds of thousands of claims. The JPML listed only two pending actions in the summer of 2026. Payment timing, liens, allocation, and exceptional injury funds still matter to veterans working through the process, but this is no longer a developing mass tort for a new claimant.

Philips CPAP

The CPAP proceeding has moved through economic loss and personal injury settlements, dismissals, and administration. A handful of claims remain on the docket. It does not belong next to the new MDLs above as though it were still rapidly building toward its first resolution. That stage has already passed.

Exactech

Exactech knee, hip, and ankle implant claims remain listed in the federal MDL. Bankruptcy proceedings and settlement structures now control what claimants can actually recover and when. The mechanical failure evidence may be strong in a particular case, but collectability and bankruptcy rules can still dictate the practical outcome.

Zantac

The federal Zantac MDL suffered a sweeping expert evidence dismissal, though state court litigation kept going on different records and under different rulings. The JPML still listed pending federal cases in 2026. Calling Zantac one single active national mass tort misses just how fractured its procedural history has become.

Where I Would Focus for the Rest of 2026

Depo-Provera is closest to a broad resolution because the parties have already announced an agreement in principle. Covidien now has an $88 million bellwether verdict hanging over it. Hair relaxer is finally moving toward a jury. Roundup plaintiffs must decide whether Bayer’s proposed program offers enough after the Supreme Court changed the calculus. AFFF remains the great exercise in patience.

The new MDLs will spend most of this year on organization, pleadings, preservation, and discovery. That work rarely produces a dramatic headline, but it determines which claims survive. The best early cases usually have a known product, a recognized injury, a defensible timeline, and records created before anyone called a lawyer.

If you are trying to decide whether you have a claim, start with the product and the diagnosis. Find the implant card, prescription history, operative report, pathology result, exposure record, or account data that connects you to the litigation. A docket with thousands of cases cannot repair missing proof in your individual file.