The Top Drug Products Involved in Mass Tort Litigation: Understanding Your Legal Rights and Options

September 27, 2023

In the world of pharmaceuticals, even the most beneficial drug products can sometimes lead to unforeseen and harmful side effects. Over the years, various drug products have been at the center of mass tort litigation due to their alleged harmful effects.


Mass torts are lawsuits filed by numerous plaintiffs who claim they were injured by the same product or action. Unlike class actions, where plaintiffs are treated as one unit, mass tort plaintiffs are treated individually, allowing for more personalized compensation based on the extent of their injuries.


Top Drug Products Involved In Mass Tort Litigation


Several high-profile drug products have been implicated in mass tort litigation over the years. Here are just a few:

  1. Tylenol Autism Lawsuit: This ongoing litigation involves allegations that the use of Tylenol during pregnancy has resulted in children developing autism spectrum disorder, marking a significant development in pharmaceutical liability cases.
  2. Roundup Products Liability Litigation: With a staggering $11 billion in settlements in 2021 and approximately 26,000 active lawsuits still pending, this case against the widely used weedkiller continues to be one of the largest product liability litigations in history.
  3. 3M Earplugs Lawsuit: Holding the record as the largest consolidated mass tort in U.S. history, this case involves 272,416 individual lawsuits alleging hearing damage caused by defective earplugs supplied by 3M to the military.
  4. Paraquat Lawsuit: Over 2,000 lawsuits are currently pending in Multi-District Litigation (MDL), with plaintiffs alleging that exposure to the herbicide paraquat has caused them to develop certain types of cancer, presenting a significant challenge to the agricultural industry.
  5. Hernia Mesh Lawsuit: Involving three separate MDLs, these cases concern defective mesh implants used in hernia repair surgeries, and with upcoming bellwether trials, they hold the potential for major settlements that could significantly impact the medical device industry.


If you believe you have been harmed by a defective drug or medical device, it's important to know your legal rights and options. You may have a valid product liability claim, which requires proving that the drug or device that injured you is defective due to design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure-to-warn defects.


Drug and medical device companies may resort to several defenses to avoid liability. These include contributory negligence, learned intermediaries, and preemption. However, certain defenses may be barred depending on the court or the specific circumstances of the case.


If a company decides to offer settlements, the degree of injury and financial damages determine the amount of the settlement in individual claims. In mass tort cases, a company will often offer one lump sum to settle thousands of cases. The settlement matrix, a document that includes a set amount for each claimant and information on how to evaluate and value each claim, is used to calculate the award.


Several factors can influence the amount of settlement you might receive. These include your age, the seriousness of your injuries, type of treatment, dosage of medicine, the number of implants received, your smoking history, and any preexisting health conditions.


In the wake of these mass tort litigations, it is clear that patients must remain vigilant about the medications and medical devices they use. If you believe you have been harmed by a defective drug or medical device, it is crucial to consult with a legal expert to understand your rights and options.


Remember that every case is unique, and it requires a thorough analysis of your situation to navigate the complexities of mass tort litigation effectively. Stay informed and don't hesitate to seek legal advice if needed.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.