Ozempic Lawsuit (2026): Stomach Paralysis & NAION Vision Loss Claims

Marin & MurphySuper Lawyers® 2014–2024(888) 348-2735

Ozempic (GLP-1) Lawsuit — Free Case Review

The Ozempic Litigation, Honestly Told

Two federal MDLs, no settlements yet, and real court tests ahead — find out in minutes whether your injury and records fit the current criteria.

No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state.

Did this happen to you — or someone you love?

Start your free case reviewTell us anyway

Answered 24/7 · Free & confidential · No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney's fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

(888) 348-2735

Partners

Matthew T. Marin & Stefanie A. Murphy

Super Lawyers® honorees · American Association for Justice members

Ozempic inquiries get a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.

No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state. Do not stop, start, or change any prescribed medication because of anything on this page. Those decisions belong with your prescriber. Attorney Advertising.

The Ozempic litigation is real, active, and unresolved: 4,022 stomach-injury lawsuits are consolidated in federal MDL 3094 and 216 NAION vision-loss lawsuits in MDL 3163 — both before Judge Karen S. Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — and no case has settled or gone to trial. Marin & Murphy is currently accepting Ozempic (GLP-1) gastroparesis and NAION vision-loss cases.

As of August 31, 2026: 1,031 cases filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 101 filed in the last 30 days. See the member-case ledger on the MDL tracker.

The Ozempic lawsuit is two proceedings: MDL 3094 (stomach injuries) and MDL 3163 (NAION)

People searching about “the Ozempic lawsuit” are usually talking about one of two very different things, and the courts treat them separately.

Stomach injuries (MDL 3094). Lawsuits alleging that GLP-1 medications caused gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), intestinal obstruction, or ileus were consolidated on February 2, 2024 into MDL 3094 in Philadelphia. These cases are the older, larger track — and the one facing its biggest test yet: a court hearing on the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert evidence, underway September 14–18, 2026, with separate summary judgment motions pending on several injury categories. In August 2025 the court also ruled that gastroparesis claims must be supported by an objective gastric emptying study — we explain what that test is and why it now matters so much.

NAION vision loss (MDL 3163). Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy — sudden, usually permanent vision loss in one eye — is the newer track. After a 2024 Harvard study reported elevated NAION risk in semaglutide patients and European regulators added NAION to the label as a “very rare” side effect in June 2025, U.S. lawsuits grew fast enough that a second MDL was created in December 2025. It has grown from roughly 20 cases to 216 in eight months. Start here if this happened to you or a family member — and on this track, it is very often a spouse or adult child doing the reading. This guide is for you.

Which medications are in the Ozempic and GLP-1 lawsuits?

Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus (semaglutide — Novo Nordisk) are involved in both tracks. Mounjaro, Zepbound, and Trulicity (Eli Lilly) are currently part of the vision-loss track under the criteria we work with; their stomach-injury eligibility differs — the details are on each medication page. Compounded or med-spa semaglutide is treated differently from brand-name prescriptions — read this before assuming you don’t qualify.

Who may qualify for the Ozempic lawsuit

• Stomach injuries: brand-name Ozempic, Wegovy, or Rybelsus use; gastroparesis confirmed by a gastric emptying study, or gastric obstruction confirmed by objective testing, while taking the medication or within about 30 days of stopping; an emergency-room visit or hospital admission; and a diagnosis before December 31, 2024.
• NAION vision loss: brand-name use of any of the six medications above; an actual NAION diagnosis during or after use; and some degree of permanent vision impairment.
• Not sure? Near-miss situations are worth a conversation. Criteria evolve, and “I don’t know if my testing counts” is one of the most common — and most answerable — questions we hear.

Ozempic lawsuit update: where the litigation actually stands

We would rather tell you the uncomfortable truth than what converts best: there are no Ozempic settlements, no verdicts, and no trial date. The defense has won real rulings — in August 2025 the court excluded two of the plaintiffs’ diagnostic experts and imposed the gastric-emptying-study requirement, and design-defect theories have been narrowed, leaving this primarily a failure-to-warn case. The September 2026 expert hearing could strengthen or seriously weaken the stomach-injury track. The vision-loss track is younger, with no dismissals so far and a scientific record that has been replicating — but also untested in court. Our litigation tracker follows every development, and our verdicts & settlements ledger will report outcomes when — and only when — they exist.

Inside the master complaint: what the Ozempic lawsuits actually claim

Every case in MDL 3094 runs on one central pleading — the 264-page Amended Master Long Form Complaint, filed August 29, 2025 — and reading it is the fastest way to understand what this litigation is and is not. We host the full document with a count-by-count dissection, including every paragraph citation and the defense response to each claim from the actual court briefing; here is the shape of it.

The complaint tells a two-part story. The factual half alleges that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly built a market for their GLP-1 drugs by working to medicalize obesity and marketing the medications as safe weight-loss solutions — the pleading describes billions in advertising, roughly $153 million in general payments to physicians by Novo alone between 2018 and 2023, funded advocacy organizations, and celebrity-driven campaigns pushing the drugs “into the cultural zeitgeist” — while, plaintiffs allege, knowing and concealing that the gastrointestinal effects could be severe, persistent, and debilitating rather than the “mild to moderate” and “transient” effects described to prescribers. The defendants dispute all of this, and none of it has been proven; but it is the factual spine every legal claim draws on.

The legal half converts that story into sixteen counts. Two failure-to-warn counts — negligence and strict liability — are the litigation’s core, alleging the labels did not adequately warn of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, and the complaint’s wider injury list: ischemic bowel, necrotizing pancreatitis, gallbladder injury requiring surgery, micronutrient deficiencies, Wernicke’s encephalopathy, aspiration, and death. Around that core sit two warranty counts (the “safe and effective” representations as broken promises); a five-claim fraud and misrepresentation family (concealment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent, strict-liability, and innocent misrepresentation) aimed at the gap plaintiffs allege between what the companies knew and what the marketing said; a consumer-protection count invoking the specific statutes of each plaintiff’s state; general negligence; negligent undertaking — a distinctive theory arguing that by choosing to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers, the manufacturers took on a duty to do it truthfully; a state product-liability-act count for the eleven states that channel product claims into a statute; and wrongful death, loss of consortium, and survival claims for the most serious cases. Which counts apply to any one person depends on their state — the dissection’s state-law inventory table maps every statute the complaint pleads, state by state.

Just as important is what this complaint has already survived. The defendants moved to dismiss twelve of the original seventeen counts in a 51-page brief in January 2025, plaintiffs opposed in 64 pages, and Judge Marston ruled in a 79-page opinion on August 15, 2025. The scorecard: the warranty and negligent-undertaking counts survived outright; the fraud counts survived in part — centered on what the FDA-approved labels allegedly omitted — and were repleaded; the misrepresentation counts survived as to weight-loss marketing to consumers and label-risk statements; the consumer-protection and general-negligence counts were dismissed with leave and rebuilt to the court’s specification; and both design-defect counts were dismissed as preempted by federal law. That last ruling is why this is now, at its core, a warnings case rather than a design case. The amended complaint is the rebuilt version — and notably, the defendants did not move to dismiss it again. The pleadings fight is over; the war moved to expert evidence and summary judgment, where the September 2026 Rule 702 hearing will decide whose causation experts a jury could ever hear, and pending summary judgment motions could end certain injury categories outright.

Reading the counts also clarifies what each would eventually require a plaintiff to prove, because the theories carry very different burdens. The warn counts turn on whether the labels were adequate and whether a different warning would have changed the prescribing decision. The fraud family carries the law’s heaviest pleading standard — knowledge, intent, and justifiable reliance, pleaded with particularity — which is why the court trimmed those counts hardest and why individual plaintiffs asserting them attach case-specific supplements. The statutory counts turn on each state’s own text: the complaint quotes the operative language, down to subsections, for every state it invokes, including the allegation at its center — that the companies “knew or should have known” their products carried risks of gastroparesis, obstruction, and the rest of the injury list “of a greater severity, intensity, frequency, and duration than represented.”

Two cautions we repeat everywhere. A complaint is allegations, not findings — no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone’s injury, and there are no settlements. And the breadth of what is pleaded is not the same as what a given case can advance: the master complaint pleads sixteen theories so that each individual case can adopt the ones its state’s law and its facts support, which for most people is a much shorter list. The NAION vision-loss cases are not part of this pleading at all — MDL 3163 runs its own separate track.

How an Ozempic lawsuit is actually filed, and why it takes a lawyer

Every case in MDL 3094 or MDL 3163 is an individual lawsuit filed by an Ozempic lawyer for one patient; there is no form you sign up with. What an Ozempic lawsuit attorney does, what it costs (no fee unless there is a recovery), how to choose one, and how to join are covered on the Ozempic lawyer, how to join and payout per person pages.

The mechanics of joining this litigation surprise most people — there is no sign-up sheet and no class to join, but there is also no need to write a 264-page complaint from scratch. Since Case Management Order No. 27 (October 3, 2025), an individual case starts with an 11-page Short Form Complaint: a court-designed fill-in form that adopts the master complaint by reference and adds the individual’s specifics. Under the MDL’s direct-filing order (CMO 14, in place since July 2024), it is filed straight into the MDL’s home court in Philadelphia no matter where the plaintiff lives — skipping the months a case once spent waiting for a transfer order — and it opens its own member case on the court’s docket. Master complaint plus short form together are the operative complaint.

The form runs in five movements. It identifies the plaintiff — and, in death and family cases, the estate representative, survival claimant, or spouse. It asks four residence questions (current residence, state of prescription, residence during use, residence at diagnosis) that do quiet but decisive work: they anchor which state’s law governs the case, which in turn determines which counts are even available and how long the filing window runs. It identifies the products — all eight GLP-1 medications are checkboxes, with date ranges of use for each. It checks the injuries claimed, from the form’s fixed twelve-item list. And it adopts, by checkbox, whichever of the sixteen counts fit — with two traps the court wired in deliberately: a plaintiff asserting the consumer-protection count or a state product-liability-act count must identify the exact statute and subsections with supporting facts, or the pleading is stricken with only one opportunity to amend. That warning isn’t ours; it is quoted in the form itself, from the judge’s opinion.

The rules around the form matter as much as the form. For statute-of-limitations purposes a case is deemed initiated on the date of the original complaint or the short form, whichever came first — so the real clock is your state’s deadline law, which is exactly what our state pages cover in detail. Every filed short form is automatically “deemed answered and denied” — the defendants never file an individual response, and all their defenses are preserved, including challenges to jurisdiction and venue in the home court the form makes each plaintiff identify. And motions against individual member cases require a further court order, which is why the action in this MDL happens on the master docket rather than case by case.

What a complete filing looks like is easiest to see in a real one. In the completed example we host — an Indiana plaintiff who used Ozempic and then Trulicity and underwent gallbladder-removal surgery after an emergency admission — the form names all four defendants, gives a date range for each product, specifies the injury, identifies the Southern District of Indiana as the home court, adopts eight of the sixteen counts by paragraph range, pleads the Indiana Product Liability Act down to five specific code sections with the theories it subsumes, and attaches a separate fraud supplement pleading the alleged omissions and named advertising campaigns with the particularity the fraud counts demand. That is what “filing an Ozempic lawsuit” actually is in 2026 — not a form-fill, a pleading. Cases already pending when the short-form system arrived were converted on the same architecture: CMO 27 gave existing plaintiffs 60 days to refile on the form (90 for the largest firms), which is why nearly every active case in the MDL now shares this structure.

Two mechanical details round out the picture. Service is streamlined: under CMO 14’s service provisions the defendants are served through an agreed process rather than case-by-case formal service, with a built-in cure period — if the defendants claim service was defective, the plaintiff gets 30 days’ notice to fix it before any dismissal motion on that ground. And the filing itself carries the standard federal civil filing fee (the docket shows $405 per case), a civil cover sheet, and a designation form, all filed by counsel — the form closes with the attorney’s signature, bar number, and firm block, not the plaintiff’s.

We maintain a complete field-by-field walkthrough — every checkbox explained, the blank court form, and that completed example in full — on the short form complaint page. What it all means practically: filing is neither instant nor mysterious. A properly prepared case needs product identification (prescription and pharmacy records), an injury that meets the litigation’s evidence requirements — for gastroparesis, an objective gastric emptying study — and the state-law judgment calls the form forces. That is lawyer’s work, and it is exactly what a case review is for.

What the Ozempic lawsuit means for you

Nothing about a lawsuit changes your medical care: whether to take or stop a GLP-1 medication is a decision for you and your prescriber, and being on it now doesn’t automatically disqualify you. These lawsuits are against the manufacturers — not your doctor. And if you took the medication because it worked for you, that isn’t something to be embarrassed about — it’s what makes this hard, and it’s exactly why the warnings mattered.

Common questions about the Ozempic lawsuit