There is a major development in the Ozempic and Mounjaro MDL as the defendants—Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly—have filed a motion to dismiss a large number of claims that they have deemed "extraneous." Recently, the defendants filed a motion before Judge Marston that specifically seeks to rid the MDL of any claims based on breach of warranty, design defect, negligence, and demands for medical monitoring.
Background on the Ozempic and Mounjaro MDL
The Ozempic MDL consolidates thousands of personal injury lawsuits against GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, more commonly known as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Trulicity, to name a few.
These drugs used to be commonly prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes.
However, they have recently been prescribed for weight management, which has become a sort of cultural phenomenon. Celebrities have been losing 100+ pounds right before our eyes, family members have to rush off to get their shot before picking up the kids, and the TV and internet can quit talking about it (I am doing it now…).
However, it hasn’t all been cupcakes and skinny jeans. These medications have also led to severe gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), ileus (intestinal blockage), NAION (blindness caused by a lack of blood to the optical nerve), and severe nausea/vomiting.
Because of this, plaintiffs have filed lawsuits from all across the country alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn them about these risks.
Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly’s Motion to Dismiss
In their motion, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly claim that the majority of the plaintiffs' claims are not related to the core reason for the litigation, inadequately reasoned, or are legally unfounded.
They claim that the lawsuit's primary focus should remain on the failure-to-warn allegations, which they plan to address in upcoming proceedings.
The defendants maintain that their products' labels already include warnings about gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, and argue that additional claims like design defect and breach of warranty are unfounded.
What This Means for the Plaintiffs
If the court grants the defendants' motion, plaintiffs will see some of their claims dropped, potentially narrowing the litigation to primarily failure-to-warn allegations. This would streamline the proceedings but would also restrict the different avenues for plaintiffs to seek compensation for their injuries and could lower potential settlements.
Which Claims Are Being Challenged?
The following claims are the basis of the defendants’ motion to dismiss:
Breach of Express and Implied Warranty
Breach of express and implied warranty claims are based on the idea that Ozempic, Mounjaro, and similar drugs should not have been marketed as safe and effective. They claim these companies made specific promises about their drugs’ safety in advertising and labeling, which plaintiffs claim were misleading.
The defendants argue that generalized statements about safety and efficacy do not create an all-inclusive umbrella guarantee under the law.
Design Defect
Some of the claims say that Ozempic and other GLP-1 RA drugs are inherently defective in their design and that safer alternatives or safer formulas could have been developed.
The defense strongly opposes this claim, arguing that design-defect lawsuits against FDA-approved prescription medications are automatically invalid because of federal law. Under existing legal precedent, manufacturers cannot unilaterally alter a drug’s design without FDA approval, meaning they cannot be held liable for failing to make changes the FDA has not authorized. If the court agrees with this argument, plaintiffs’ design-defect claims may be dismissed entirely.
Negligence
Negligence claims assert that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly failed in their duty to care for their patients by developing and marketing a drug that is not safe. Plaintiffs argue that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the risks associated with prolonged use of these medications but failed to take sufficient action to protect consumers.
The defendants claim that these negligence allegations are the same as the failure-to-warn claims, are too broadly written, and have not been proven with specific evidence.
Medical Monitoring
Some lawsuits seek damages for medical monitoring, arguing that individuals who took Ozempic and similar drugs should receive ongoing medical supervision due to the risk of developing long-term health issues. These claims are based on the theory that, even if plaintiffs have not yet suffered severe complications, they should be entitled to routine medical testing and monitoring as a precaution on the defendants’ dime.
Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly contend that medical monitoring claims are not well-supported by the facts and do not meet the legal requirements for damages in a personal injury claim.
Next Steps for the Ozempic MDL
The court's decision on this motion will significantly influence the course of this massive MDL.
A ruling in favor of the defendants would obviously lead to the dismissal of claims, but how many claims would be affected is unknown; we just don’t know how many of the cases against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly included one or more of these four allegations. But it would definitely not be good for the plaintiffs by any means.
Conversely, if the motion is denied, plaintiffs will retain the ability to pursue a broader range of allegations against the manufacturers, which will likely mean a larger amount of compensation.
As the MDL continues, we will keep you updated.
If you feel that Ozempic, Mounjaro, or some other GLP-1 drug that was prescribed to you has caused you to suffer injuries and/or harm, speak to one of our mass tort lawyers to see if your claim is eligible to be added to the MDL.