Ozempic & GLP-1 Lawsuit Tracker: MDL 3094, MDL 3163, and the NJ Courts

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.

This tracker follows every consequential docket event in the GLP-1 litigation. Current status: MDL 3094 (stomach injuries) has 4,022 pending cases, with an evidentiary hearing on expert testimony being held September 14–18, 2026 and separate summary judgment motions pending on several injury categories; MDL 3163 (NAION vision loss) has 216 pending cases and now runs on a pretrial schedule set in August 2026; New Jersey runs parallel state-court proceedings for both. No verdicts or settlements exist in any of them.

MDL 3094 — stomach injuries (gastroparesis, obstruction, ileus)

Court: E.D. Pa., Hon. Karen S. Marston (reassigned June 6, 2024, after the passing of Judge Gene E.K. Pratter). Created: February 2, 2024. Next event: Rule 702 general-causation hearing, September 14–18, 2026 — our full explainer.

• 2026: Two tracks converged. Both sides moved to exclude the other’s experts on causation, warning adequacy and preemption. Separately, Novo Nordisk moved for summary judgment on general causation and the adequacy of its labeling (Doc. 676), and Eli Lilly moved for summary judgment on ileus and obstruction claims (Doc. 692), non-gastroparesis gastrointestinal and miscellaneous claims (Doc. 694), gastroparesis claims on preemption grounds (Doc. 695) and gallbladder claims (Doc. 697). Sur-reply briefing ran through August 21–22, 2026, and the court set a further schedule for motions to strike that sur-reply briefing running to October 7, 2026 (Doc. 880). The evidentiary hearing was rescheduled from September 10–18 to September 14–18, 2026 (Doc. 881). An exclusion ruling would narrow what the litigation can prove; a summary judgment ruling for the defendants would dispose of the affected claim categories outright. Neither has been decided.
• Aug 15, 2025: Cross-Cutting Issue 1 ruling (Doc. 468) — gastroparesis claims require an objective gastric emptying study; two plaintiff diagnostic experts excluded. What this means for claimants.
• 2025: Motion-to-dismiss rulings narrowed the case — design-defect and several other theories dismissed with leave to amend; the litigation now proceeds primarily on failure-to-warn.
• Dec 12, 2024: JPML declined to add blood-clot (DVT/VTE) claims to this MDL.
• No bellwether trials scheduled; no settlements.

MDL 3163 — NAION vision loss

Court: E.D. Pa., Hon. Karen S. Marston. Created: December 15, 2025, on Eli Lilly’s motion, over plaintiffs’ opposition — background. Growth: ~20 cases at creation → 216 by September 2026.

• Jul 2, 2026: CMO 12 — early cross-cutting motion practice on general causation and preemption authorized.
• Aug 27, 2026: CMO 14 — a full pretrial schedule through August 2027: proposed plaintiff fact sheets due September 25, 2026; master complaint October 28, 2026; Lilly fact discovery closes December 18, 2026 and Novo fact discovery February 26, 2027; expert reports March–April 2027; expert depositions close June 4, 2027; Rule 702 and summary judgment motions due July 2, 2027, fully briefed by August 31, 2027.
• Aug 27, 2026: CMO 15 — time and expense protocol and common benefit fund established.
• Regulatory backdrop: EU label lists NAION as “very rare” (June 2025); Australia followed (July 2026); U.S. label unchanged as of August 7, 2026 — the divergence ledger.
• No dismissals, no Daubert rulings, no trial or bellwether date, no settlements. The CMO 14 schedule is pretrial only.

New Jersey multicounty litigation

On October 16, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court designated two GLP-1 multicounty litigations — one per injury track — in Bergen County before Judge Gregg A. Padovano. Details here.

What we’re watching next

The rulings that follow the September 2026 evidentiary hearing — both the motions to exclude expert testimony and the pending summary judgment motions (MDL 3094); the strike-motion briefing running to October 7, 2026; the master complaint due October 28, 2026 under CMO 14 (MDL 3163); any U.S. FDA action on NAION labeling; monthly JPML case counts, which can fall as well as rise — an order of September 8, 2026 directed that the cases listed in its Appendix A be marked closed (Doc. 883); and any first bellwether scheduling in either MDL. This page is updated when the docket moves — the update date above is the tell.

Inside the master complaint: the pleading this docket runs on

Every one of the thousands of cases this tracker counts rests on the same document: the Amended Master Long Form Complaint (Doc. 481, filed August 29, 2025, unsealed that October), which pleads sixteen counts against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. We host the full 264-page document with a count-by-count dissection — quotes, paragraph citations, and the defense position on each count from the actual briefing. What belongs on a tracker is the status of those counts, because the pleading you can read today is the survivor of a full year of motion practice, and its current posture explains what the docket is fighting about now.
The procedural history in one paragraph: the original master complaint (Doc. 294, November 2024) pleaded seventeen counts. Defendants moved to dismiss twelve of them in January 2025 (Doc. 329, with a 51-page memorandum); plaintiffs opposed in 64 pages (Doc. 364); the reply landed in April (Doc. 392); the court heard argument on April 21; and on August 15, 2025, Judge Marston ruled in a 79-page memorandum and order (Docs. 465–466) — the same day as the gastric-emptying-study order. Fourteen days later plaintiffs filed the amended, renumbered, sixteen-count complaint that governs today. Count status, mapped to the current numbering:

• Alive and never challenged at the pleading stage: the two failure-to-warn counts (I–II) — the litigation’s center of gravity — plus wrongful death, loss of consortium, and survival (XIV–XVI). The defendants never moved against these; their attack runs through expert evidence instead, which is exactly what the September 14–18 Rule 702 hearing will decide.
• Survived the motion outright: express warranty (III) — the court rejected the argument that “safe and effective” statements are mere opinion incapable of creating a warranty at the pleading stage; implied warranty (IV); and negligent undertaking (XII), the count aimed squarely at direct-to-consumer advertising, which survived over the defendants’ learned-intermediary objections.
• Survived in part, repleaded: the fraud and misrepresentation family (V–IX). What remains centers on alleged omissions of injury information from the FDA-approved labels (V) and alleged misrepresentation of weight-loss benefits in identified consumer campaigns plus risk statements in the labels (VII–IX); claims built on unidentified communications to physicians were dismissed with leave. Fraudulent misrepresentation (VI) was dismissed as a “placeholder” and repleaded — individual plaintiffs asserting it now attach case-specific fraud supplements to their short form complaints.
• Rebuilt to the court’s specification: consumer protection (now Count X, pleading exact statutes and subsections state by state) and general negligence (now XI, its theories separated as ordered). A new Count XIII pleads the product liability acts of eleven states by citation.
• Gone: both design-defect counts, dismissed as preempted by federal law — the single ruling most responsible for this litigation now being a warnings case — and the standalone medical-monitoring remedy, dismissed as pleaded. The count numbering changed with the amendment, so pre-September-2025 commentary cites different numbers for the same claims; our dissection carries the full old-to-new map.

For the record-keepers: the counts adopt by paragraph range (Count I is ¶¶ 606–640, Count V runs 59 paragraphs at ¶¶ 721–779, and so on — the full map is in the dissection), and the injuries pleaded run wider than the headlines: beyond gastroparesis, obstruction, and ileus, the complaint alleges ischemic bowel, necrotizing pancreatitis, gallbladder injury requiring surgery, micronutrient deficiencies, Wernicke’s encephalopathy, aspiration, and death. What any individual case claims is whatever subset its short form checks.
The defense posture is part of the status picture too. Against the statutory counts, defendants’ core objection — quoted in the opinion — was that the original pleading referenced “the statutes of 55 states and territories” without context, leaving everyone “to guess what unfair trade practices claims they are asserting”; the court agreed, and the specificity regime in today’s short forms is the result. Against the design counts they argued federal preemption and won. Against the warn counts they filed nothing at the pleading stage — the tell, visible in hindsight, that the real fight was always going to be expert causation.
No renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint appears on the master docket as of this update — the pleadings fight is effectively closed. What the docket is fighting about now is expert evidence and summary judgment. Two pleadings-related signals could still move, and this tracker watches both: individual short form complaints stricken under the specificity requirements (those orders would appear on member dockets, and none of consequence has been reported), and any second amendment of the master complaint — possible in principle if the Rule 702 ruling reshapes what the surviving counts can rely on, though nothing on the docket suggests one is coming. The defendants dispute every allegation; nothing pleaded has been proven, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone’s injury.

How a case is filed — and what that means for the numbers above

The filing mechanics and this tracker’s counting method are the same story, which is why they belong side by side. Since CMO 27 (October 3, 2025), a new case enters MDL 3094 as an 11-page Short Form Complaint filed on its own member-case docket in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — never on the master docket — adopting the master complaint’s counts by checkbox and adding the individual’s specifics: the four residence facts that fix governing state law, the medications used with date ranges (all eight GLP-1 products are options), the injuries claimed from the form’s twelve-item list, and any statutory claims pleaded with the exact-statute-and-subsection specificity the court requires on pain of the pleading being stricken. Cases that were already pending when CMO 27 issued had 60 days to convert to the short form (90 for firms with more than 500 cases) — a conversion wave that itself showed up in docket activity in late 2025.
Under the MDL’s direct-filing order (CMO 14, July 2024), plaintiffs anywhere in the country file straight into Philadelphia rather than filing at home and waiting months for a JPML transfer. That is precisely why our between-report filing counts watch Judge Marston’s docket for new direct filings — it is where new cases actually appear first — and also why those counts are a floor: cases filed in other district courts and awaiting transfer, and state-court filings in New Jersey, are not in them. The JPML’s monthly report remains the official total; everything between reports is docket observation with an as-of date.
The counting consequences are worth spelling out, because they explain apparent oddities in every public number. The JPML total counts pending cases — dismissals and remands come out of it, which is why month-over-month growth understates gross filings. Our between-report floor counts direct filings only, so a case filed in, say, a plaintiff’s home district in Georgia this week exists in no public MDL number until the JPML transfers it. New Jersey’s parallel multicounty litigations are state-court proceedings and never enter the federal counts at all. And a “member case” is one plaintiff’s lawsuit — a family’s wrongful-death, survival, and consortium claims typically travel together in a single case, so case counts and claimant counts are not the same thing. When the next JPML report lands (expected in early September), every count on this page and the state pages syncs to it, with the as-of date updated — that discipline, not any single number, is what makes tracking meaningful.
Filing mechanics show up in the docket data in small ways worth decoding: every new complaint entry carries the standard $405 federal filing fee and receipt number (one quick way to distinguish true new cases from administrative re-filings); each SFC is captioned with both the MDL heading and the member case’s own civil action number; and service runs through CMO 14’s streamlined process with a 30-day cure window for any claimed defect, so service disputes almost never surface as motions.
What a fully assembled filing looks like in practice — a real member case’s completed form, with its count adoptions by paragraph range, its state product-liability-act statute pleaded down to subsections, and its attached fraud supplement — is walked through on the short-form page; the filing closes with counsel’s signature block, not the plaintiff’s, which says most of what needs saying about whether this is a do-it-yourself process.
Three CMO 27 rules are worth knowing even if you never read an order. A case is deemed initiated on the date of its original complaint or its short form, whichever came first — the rule that protects earlier filers’ dates and makes each state’s own deadline the real clock (state specifics here). Every short form is automatically “deemed answered and denied” with all defenses preserved — so the absence of answer activity on member dockets is procedure, not neglect, and defendants’ jurisdiction and venue challenges for each plaintiff’s home court survive for later. And motions against individual member cases require a further court order — which is why docket motion in this MDL happens on the master docket, where this tracker watches it. The form itself — every field and checkbox, its two strike-warning traps, and a real completed example from a member case — is dissected on the short form complaint page; the pleading it adopts is dissected on the master complaint page.

Common questions

The data: FDA adverse-event data, FAERS reports by injury, the FAERS methodology, and the US vs. EU warning-label gap.

The filings: the master complaint, the gastric-emptying-study order (Doc. 468), CMO 12 (NAION MDL), and the September 2026 expert hearing.

The companies & court files: Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.