Understanding Mass Tort Litigation: Common Myths and Misconceptions Debunked

November 28, 2023

Mass tort litigation is a term you might have heard before, but do you really know what it means? With news stories and advertisements frequently talking about mass tort lawsuits, it’s understandable to be confused about what these cases entail. There are quite a few common myths and misconceptions when it comes to mass tort lawsuits. We'll debunk and shed light on what mass tort litigation is, how it works, and who is involved. 

Myth: “Mass tort litigation is the same as class-action lawsuits”

Truth: While both are forms of collective lawsuits, there’s a significant difference between class-action lawsuits and mass tort litigation. Class-action lawsuits are where a group of plaintiffs, usually with identical complaints, join together to sue a defendant. In mass torts, numerous plaintiffs file individual lawsuits against a defendant, but the court consolidates all the cases into one proceeding. Each plaintiff’s case will be decided on its own merit and damages will be awarded on an individual basis.


Myth:
“Mass tort litigation is only about money”

Truth: While damages awarded in mass tort litigation can be substantial and sometimes exceed millions of dollars, the primary goal is to hold a responsible party accountable for causing harm and to make sure victims are compensated for losses they sustained. Unlike criminal cases, where the defendant faces imprisonment for their offense, in mass tort litigation, the defendant usually pays monetary compensation to the plaintiffs.


Myth:
“Mass tort litigation is an easy way to get rich quick”

Truth: Mass tort litigation cases can take months or usually years to conclude. Even when the defendant is found liable, it’s not always a guarantee that each plaintiff will receive a significant payout. Most mass tort cases require extensive investigation, evidence gathering, and expert testimony to prove the case. Additionally, legal fees can be significant, and plaintiffs don’t always win. 


Myth:
“Most mass tort lawsuits don’t lead to a settlement or verdict”

Truth: While it’s true that not all mass tort lawsuits are successful, many do lead to a settlement or verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants often settle cases before they go to trial to avoid a potentially larger verdict and to avoid negative publicity. A mass tort lawsuit that goes to trial can take months or even years, so it’s in the best interest of both sides to reach a settlement whenever possible.


Mass tort litigation is a complex and often misunderstood area of the legal system. By busting common myths and misconceptions, we hope to provide a better understanding of what mass tort litigation entails. Whether you’re considering filing a mass tort lawsuit, or you simply want to learn more about your legal rights, it’s essential to seek legal counsel from a reputable law firm specializing in mass tort litigation. If you have any questions about mass tort litigation,
contact our office to speak with one of our highly experienced mass tort attorneys today. Remember, the more you know, the more empowered you’ll be, so be sure to do your research and get the right advice before pursuing any legal action.


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.