Steal This Newsletter | July 07, 2026

By Michael Stanisci | #MassTortMichael | About a 10 minute read

Opening Note

Some weeks in mass torts move slow. This was not one of them.

On Monday, the California Supreme Court ended the largest "duty to innovate" case in American history. About a week before that, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $5.5 billion to close out most of the talc ovarian cancer docket. Two of the biggest litigations of the last decade both hit turning points within ten days of each other.

Here is the thread that ties this edition together: doors close, and doors open. TDF claimants in California just lost their path. Talc claimants just got theirs. Depo-Provera claimants got a settlement framework in under two years, which may be the fastest turnaround I have covered in this newsletter. Hernia mesh is grinding through bellwethers. AI harm is still wide open and growing. And microplastics sits where every mass tort sits before it becomes a mass tort, which is to say, in the science phase.

If you are a lawyer, this is the week to call your clients and referral partners. If you are a claimant or a family member, this is the week to understand where your case actually stands.

Let's get into it.

This Edition Is Sponsored by CASE Legal Media

This week's edition is brought to you by:

CASE Legal Media (https://www.caselegalmedia.com/), a results-driven case acquisition agency built for law firms. They run the full pipeline in one connected system: media campaigns, creative production, 24/7/365 intake, case workup, and a 100% history of TCPA compliance [1]. Their active campaigns cover areas readers of this newsletter know well, including asbestos exposure, sex abuse, Depo-Provera, and motor vehicle accidents [1].

Sponsored by CASE Legal Media

I know the people behind this operation and I trust their work. If your firm wants to grow its docket in any of the litigations covered in this newsletter or beyond, reach out to me directly and I will make a warm introduction to the CASE team. Email me at michael@masstortmichael.com or call or text 908-548-5378.

Fast Facts, This Week

• The California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 on August 3 that Gilead had no legal duty to bring its safer HIV drug to market sooner, wiping out claims for roughly 24,000 TDF plaintiffs [2] [3].

• Johnson & Johnson agreed in late July to a $5.5 billion settlement covering roughly 76,000 talc ovarian cancer claims, about 99.75% of remaining state and federal cases [4].

• The talc MDL held 68,914 pending cases as of early August, still the largest active MDL in the federal system [5].

• The Bard hernia mesh MDL still lists more than 23,000 claims even after the billion dollar plus settlement, and a Covidien bellwether trial was underway in Boston in late July [6] [7].

• Character.AI and Google settled five AI chatbot harm lawsuits in January. Kentucky and Pennsylvania have since sued Character Technologies, and Florida reportedly brought the first state enforcement action against OpenAI [8] [9].

• Pfizer and Depo-Provera plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle in June on a global settlement framework for the meningioma MDL, which held more than 6,000 claims as of August [28] [29].

• The EPA's April 2026 draft Contaminant Candidate List 6 put microplastics on the federal drinking water radar for the first time [10].

Key Mass Tort Spotlights

1. Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF): The Door Closes in California

What happened and why it matters. For years, roughly 24,000 people who took Gilead's TDF-based HIV drugs, including Truvada, Viread, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild, pursued a novel theory. They did not claim TDF was defective. They claimed Gilead had a safer version, called TAF, sitting in its pipeline, and delayed it to protect TDF profits while patients suffered kidney damage, bone loss, and tooth injuries [11] [3]. On August 3, the California Supreme Court rejected that theory 6 to 1. The court held that a drug maker owes no duty of care in deciding whether and when to develop and sell a safer alternative to a drug that is not defective [2] [3]. Justice Kelli Evans dissented and called Gilead's conduct morally blameworthy, but the majority found the early TAF data, a two week study of 30 subjects, too thin to support a legal duty [3] [12]. Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institution fellow, told Bloomberg Law the ruling is the biggest sea change imaginable for a state court reining in liability claims, and he drew a parallel to the U.S. Supreme Court siding with Bayer in the Roundup warnings case this June [13]. Lawyers may try to bring these cases to other State Courts, though it will be a difficult battle ahead.

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: Very high on paper, roughly 23,000 to 24,000 consolidated California claimants, but the ruling guts the core theory [3] [12].

• Defendant Viability: Gilead is a going concern. HIV drugs made up 70% of its $29.4 billion in 2025 revenue [14].

• Financial Viability: Strong defendant, but that no longer matters if the duty does not exist.

• Scientific Viability: The kidney and bone injury science was never the main problem. The legal theory was.

• Time to Resolution: The California track is effectively over for the duty to innovate claims. Any surviving individual claims face long odds.

• Venue: California JCCP No. 5043, plus a smaller federal track that settled in 2024 for a reported $40 million covering about 2,625 cases [15].

• Bellwether Results: None reached. The case died at the duty stage.

• Daubert/Frye: Never the battleground here.

• State of Litigation: Closing. This ruling is a warning for every future case built on a "should have innovated faster" theory.

What to do next.

• Attorneys: If you hold TDF referrals, communicate with your clients now, honestly and early. Also warn clients about settlement scam emails, which plaintiff leadership has flagged in this litigation [16]. And study this opinion. It will show up in defense briefs across other litigations for years.

• Claimants: If you took a TDF drug and were told you had a claim, call your lawyer and ask directly how this ruling affects your case. Do not respond to any email asking for banking information. Real settlement communications never start that way [16].

2. Talcum Powder: $5.5 Billion on the Table

What happened and why it matters. After three failed bankruptcy attempts, a string of nine figure verdicts, and a scary July ruling on expert causation, J&J moved. In late July, the company agreed to pay $5.5 billion to resolve roughly 76,000 ovarian cancer claims, covering about 99.75% of remaining cases in state and federal court [4]. The deal needs acceptance from 95% of claimants to become final, and it covers existing claims only, not future ones [4]. J&J expects to pay about $3 billion in 2027 with more in 2028 [4]. The timing tells the story. Just days earlier, the MDL judge had ordered plaintiffs to show they could present admissible expert testimony on specific causation after two key experts were withdrawn [4] [17]. The settlement does not cover mesothelioma claims, which continue on their own track and keep producing big verdicts, including a $32 million Los Angeles award in June [17] [5].

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: Massive. 68,914 MDL cases as of early August, plus state court claims, roughly 90,000 plus filings overall across the litigation [5] [17].

• Defendant Viability: J&J is one of the most solvent defendants in mass tort history.

• Financial Viability: $5.5 billion committed, on top of prior mesothelioma resolutions.

• Scientific Viability: This is the honest caution. The specific causation problem on ovarian cancer was real, and it is a big part of why this deal happened when it did [4].

• Time to Resolution: If 95% of claimants accept, first payments are expected in 2027 [4].

• Venue: MDL 2738, District of New Jersey, plus state courts nationwide.

• Bellwether Results: Mixed recent trial record. Plaintiffs won a Philadelphia verdict and the $32 million LA mesothelioma award, while J&J won a California ovarian cancer defense verdict in July [3] [5].

• Daubert/Frye: The July show cause order on expert causation was the pressure point that pushed both sides to the table [4].

• State of Litigation: Settlement phase for ovarian cancer. Active litigation continues for mesothelioma and talc supplier defendants.

What to do next.

• Attorneys: Registered claimants need clear guidance on the participation decision. Also remember mesothelioma talc claims remain live and valuable, and defendants beyond J&J, including Avon, keep losing verdicts [3].

• Claimants: If you used talc products and developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, this settlement covers existing claims, not future ones. Statute of limitations rules vary by state. Speak with a lawyer promptly to understand whether you can still file.

3. Hernia Mesh: The Long Middle

What happened and why it matters. Hernia mesh is a lesson in what the settlement phase really looks like. It is slow. Bard's parent company agreed in October 2024 to settle nearly 38,000 claims for a confidential amount reported to exceed $1 billion, and the court has established a Qualified Settlement Fund to manage payouts [6] [18]. Yet the Bard MDL still lists more than 23,000 pending claims, and many people are still waiting for checks [7] [18]. Meanwhile the action has shifted to Covidien. A Covidien bellwether trial was underway in late July in federal court in Boston, involving a Symbotex mesh implant that allegedly adhered to internal organs and required revision surgery [19]. About 2,400 Covidien cases are pending, and some observers believe Covidien cases may ultimately settle higher than Bard cases given the injuries alleged [7] [20].

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: Around 25,900 total pending federal claims against Bard, Covidien, and Atrium as of August, plus reported thousands against Medtronic in Massachusetts state court [6] [21].

• Defendant Viability: BD, Medtronic, and J&J (Ethicon, largely settled) are all substantial companies.

• Financial Viability: Proven. Over $1 billion reported for Bard alone [6].

• Scientific Viability: Established. Polypropylene mesh failure, migration, and adhesion injuries are well documented across three bellwether trials and years of discovery.

• Time to Resolution: Long. Bard payouts are processing now. New Bard cases may not resolve until after 2031, and new filings now require naming an expert at the outset [7].

• Venue: Bard in the Southern District of Ohio (MDL 2846), Covidien in the District of Massachusetts before Judge Saris [18] [19].

• Bellwether Results: Bard had mixed trial results, including a reported $4.8 million Rhode Island verdict in the Trevino case [18]. A Covidien bellwether is being tried right now [19].

• Daubert/Frye: Largely resolved in the Bard track. Watch the Covidien expert rulings.

• State of Litigation: Bard is in settlement execution. Covidien is in active bellwether litigation, the phase where values get set.

What to do next.

• Attorneys: Case selection discipline matters now. The economics only work for strong injury cases with clean product identification. Watch the Covidien verdict closely. It will set the negotiating table for 2,400 plus claims [19].

• Claimants: If you had hernia repair surgery and later needed revision surgery, or suffered bowel obstruction, adhesion, or chronic pain, you may still have a claim. Get your device identified from your surgical records. The mesh brand and model determine which track your case belongs to.

4. AI Harm: The Newest Tort Keeps Growing

What happened and why it matters. This litigation did not exist three years ago. Now it has its first settlements, its first state enforcement actions, and its first companion chatbot statute. In January, Character.AI and Google settled five lawsuits brought by families whose children died by suicide or suffered severe mental health harm after extended chatbot use. Terms were confidential with no admission of liability [8]. That same month, California SB 243 took effect, requiring AI disclosures, crisis referral protocols, break reminders for minor users, and a private right of action [8]. The states then piled in. Kentucky's Attorney General sued Character Technologies, the first state to do so [9]. Florida reportedly became the first state to bring an enforcement action against OpenAI in June [9]. Pennsylvania sued in May over chatbots allegedly posing as licensed medical professionals [9]. On the private side, cases against OpenAI continue, including a July 2026 California suit by a man with bipolar disorder who alleges ChatGPT encouraged his suicidal ideation during a mental health crisis [22]. In April, a federal judge in California refused to halt a wrongful death case against OpenAI [9]. There is no MDL yet. Cases are proceeding one by one in state and federal courts [9].

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: Still small in filed cases but growing steadily. The exposed population, minors and vulnerable adults using companion chatbots, is enormous.

• Defendant Viability: Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Character Technologies. Deep pockets across the board, and the January settlement confirmed Google's financial connection was enough to keep it in these cases [23].

• Financial Viability: Very strong.

• Scientific Viability: The causation framework is being built case by case. Preliminary reports suggest courts are receptive at the pleading stage, and it is our understanding that the May 2025 ruling allowing the first wrongful death case past dismissal remains the key marker [9].

• Time to Resolution: The January settlements came about 15 months after the first filing. That is fast for a new tort, but broad resolution is years away.

• Venue: No MDL yet. California, Florida, and various state and federal courts [9].

• Bellwether Results: None yet. The January settlements resolved cases before trial [8].

• Daubert/Frye: Untested. This will be the defining fight.

• State of Litigation: Emerging phase, moving toward the litigation phase. This is the highest risk and highest opportunity moment.

What to do next.

• Attorneys: Intake criteria are still forming. The strongest cases involve documented, extensive chatbot use tied to death, self-harm, or a diagnosed mental health crisis, especially involving minors. Preserve the account data immediately. Watch the state AG actions, because their discovery will feed private cases.

• Families: If your child suffered serious harm connected to an AI companion app, preserve everything. Chat logs, screenshots, app store records, device history. Deadlines generally run 1 to 3 years depending on your state, and rules for minors can differ [9]. This is a sensitive subject, and if your family is in crisis right now, getting support comes first, before any legal step.

5. Depo-Provera: A Settlement Framework in Record Time

What happened and why it matters. The first Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuit was filed in October 2024 [28]. Less than two years later, in June 2026, Pfizer and plaintiffs' leadership reached an agreement in principle on a global settlement framework [29]. That is remarkable speed for a pharmaceutical mass tort. The claims allege that long-term use of the injectable contraceptive increased the risk of meningioma, a tumor that grows on the membranes surrounding the brain, and that Pfizer failed to warn users [28] [30]. The science pressure was building fast. In December 2025, the FDA approved updated labeling that warns about meningioma with long-term use and recommends stopping the drug if a tumor is diagnosed [30] [31]. Plaintiffs argue that warning came decades late, pointing to research going back years and to warnings added in other countries [30]. After the June announcement, Judge M. Casey Rodgers vacated deadlines in the first bellwether case, which had been set for trial in December 2026, and postponed the closely watched hearing on expert causation testimony while terms are finalized [29]. Settlement terms remain confidential. No payout amounts or tiers have been announced [29]. Pfizer estimates the deal could resolve approximately 80% of pending MDL cases, with the rest continuing in court, including a hearing scheduled for September [28]. This litigation matters to a huge population. Around 24.5% of sexually active women in the U.S. have used Depo-Provera at some point [28].

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: More than 6,000 MDL claims as of August, up from roughly 3,100 in March, plus coordinated state proceedings in New York and Delaware [28] [32] [30]. The exposed population is enormous.

• Defendant Viability: Pfizer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

• Financial Viability: Strong. Pfizer has also previously paid over $2 million in Depo settlements tied to bone mineral density warnings [28].

• Scientific Viability: Strong and improving. The FDA label change is the kind of development that reduces case risk overnight [30] [31]. The formal expert causation hearing was postponed for settlement talks, so Daubert was never fully tested [29].

• Time to Resolution: Fast by mass tort standards. Framework in place about 20 months after the first filing. Individual payouts still depend on final terms.

• Venue: MDL 3140, Northern District of Florida, before Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Pensacola [31] [30].

• Bellwether Results: None. The first trial was set for December 2026 and its deadlines were vacated when the settlement framework was announced [29].

• Daubert/Frye: The general causation hearing was postponed while talks continue [29]. It is our understanding that plaintiffs' counsel viewed the science as strong going into that hearing, though it was never ruled on.

• State of Litigation: Entering the settlement phase for most claims, while new cases are still being filed and roughly 20% of claims may continue litigating [28] [29].

What to do next.

• Attorneys: This case is not closed. New claims are still being filed, and firms are still accepting cases for women with imaging-confirmed meningioma diagnoses after Depo use [29] [33]. Client communication discipline matters here too: settlement terms are confidential, so do not let clients get their expectations set by advertising numbers. And note that this edition's sponsor, CASE Legal Media, runs an active Depo-Provera brain tumor campaign [1].

• Claimants: If you used Depo-Provera or Depo-SubQ Provera for an extended period and were later diagnosed with a meningioma, you may still qualify to file. You will need imaging proof of the diagnosis, and deadlines vary by state [33]. If you experience symptoms like persistent headaches, vision changes, or memory problems and have a long Depo history, talk to your doctor first, then consider a legal consultation.

6. Microplastics: Watch, Do Not Jump

What happened and why it matters. I get asked about microplastics more than almost any other emerging topic, so let me give it to you straight. The science conversation is loud. The litigation results, so far, are quiet. At least 18 microplastics cases were filed in federal court between January 2024 and December 2025, mostly consumer class actions over water bottles, sandwich bags, and baby products [24]. Courts have been dismissing them. Judges are requiring plaintiffs to actually test the specific products at issue rather than cite general studies, and cases against Fiji Water, S.C. Johnson (Ziploc), and Philips have failed on those grounds [25] [26] [24]. The FDA's current position is that scientific evidence does not show that microplastic levels found in food pose a human health risk [25]. But two things changed the picture in 2026. First, the EPA's April draft Contaminant Candidate List 6 put microplastics on the federal drinking water radar for the first time, and the agency is taking a polluter pays lens similar to PFAS [10]. Second, state attorneys general are sending civil investigative demands and pursuing cases against plastic producers on greenwashing and pollution theories, including high profile suits against PepsiCo and Exxon Mobil [10] [27].

Evaluation snapshot.

• Plaintiff Numerosity: Potentially everyone, which is exactly the problem. Without injury specific causation, numerosity means nothing.

• Defendant Viability: The plastics and consumer products industries are massive and solvent.

• Financial Viability: Strong defendants, weak claims, for now.

• Scientific Viability: This is the whole game. It is believed that research is moving toward linking microplastic exposure to specific health outcomes, but no body of causation science exists today that would survive Daubert in a personal injury case.

• Time to Resolution: Years away from a viable personal injury track, if one ever forms. The PFAS playbook took decades.

• Venue: No MDL. Scattered federal and state consumer cases [24].

• Bellwether Results: None. Most cases die at the motion to dismiss stage [26].

• Daubert/Frye: The wall this litigation cannot yet climb.

• State of Litigation: Pre-emerging. Regulatory groundwork is being laid. That is where PFAS was fifteen years ago.

What to do next.

• Attorneys: Do not spend acquisition dollars here yet. Track the EPA CCL 6 process, state AG discovery, and the peer reviewed literature. The firms that win emerging torts are the ones that watched the science for years before the first ad ran.

• Everyone else: If you see advertising promising microplastics injury compensation today, be skeptical. The honest answer is that the science and the law are not there yet.

Personal Injury Watchlist

• Roundup ripple effects. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Bayer in June in the Roundup warnings case, and Bayer's stock jumped 20% [13]. Combined with the Gilead ruling, courts are visibly tightening tort theories this summer. Firms should pressure test the legal theory behind every docket they hold.

• Talc beyond J&J. A California appeals court upheld a $51 million mesothelioma verdict against Avon in February, a reminder that cosmetic talc exposure claims reach well past one defendant [3].

• Expert witness exposure. A New Jersey federal judge allowed a lawsuit against a prominent talc plaintiff expert to proceed over a 2020 study [3]. Defense firms are now attacking the experts themselves. Vet your experts like your case depends on it, because it does.

Practical Outreach Angles

• Past clients are future clients. If your firm handled talc intake at any point, your existing client list is your settlement communication list this month. Clear, fast, honest updates build the trust that generates the next referral.

• Hernia repair is common surgery. Your past personal injury clients, their families, and your professional network include people who had mesh implanted. A simple educational note about revision surgery symptoms surfaces claims that ads never reach.

• For AI harm, the referral sources are not lawyers. They are therapists, school counselors, and pediatricians who see the aftermath first. Relationship building there is slow, careful work, and it should always lead with resources, not retainers.

• On TDF, the outreach is closure. Telling a client the truth about a lost theory, promptly and personally, is the outreach that matters. It is also what separates firms people recommend from firms people resent.

From Michael

I keep coming back to the two rulings that bookend this edition. Twenty four thousand people lost their case Monday, not because the injuries were not real, but because the theory reached further than the law would go. A week earlier, seventy six thousand people got a path to payment after a fight that ran more than a decade and survived three bankruptcy attempts.

The lesson I take is not cynical. It is practical. Theories matter as much as injuries. Timing matters as much as theories. And through all of it, the person on the other end of the file is living with the outcome, not reading about it. Whatever seat you sit in, that is worth remembering this week.

Talk soon.

Contact Michael Stanisci, MassTortMichael

• If you are a potential claimant, I can help connect you with the right law firm for your situation.

• If you are an attorney, I consult end to end: operations, meaningful technology for your stack, and claimant acquisition growth. I can also introduce your firm to this edition's sponsor, CASE Legal Media, for full pipeline case acquisition.

• Email: michael@masstortmichael.com

• Phone (calls and texts): 908-548-5378

• Web: https://www.masstortmichael.com/

Citations

1. CASE Legal Media, official site: https://www.caselegalmedia.com/

2. Gibson Dunn, Gilead Tenofovir Cases decision summary: https://www.gibsondunn.com/california-supreme-court-holds-holds-that-drug-manufacturers-cannot-be-held-liable-for-selling-nondefective-drugs-on-the-theory-that-they-should-have-made-safer-drugs-available-sooner/

3. Medical Daily, California Supreme Court Gilead ruling coverage; Drugwatch talc litigation updates: https://www.medicaldaily.com/california-supreme-court-gilead-tenofovir-duty-innovate-ruling-476864 ; https://www.drugwatch.com/talcum-powder/lawsuits/

4. TorHoerman Law, J&J talc litigation updates including July 29, 2026 settlement and July 23 show cause order: https://www.torhoermanlaw.com/johnson-and-johnson-talcum-powder-lawsuit/

5. Consumer Notice, talc settlement and MDL case counts: https://www.consumernotice.org/legal/talcum-powder-settlements/

6. Sokolove Law, hernia mesh litigation and settlement updates: https://www.sokolovelaw.com/product-liability/medical-devices/hernia-mesh/

7. Miller & Zois, hernia mesh settlement updates including July 28, 2026 Covidien bellwether: https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

8. Wisner Baum, Character.AI litigation timeline, January 2026 settlements, SB 243: https://www.wisnerbaum.com/ai-chatbot-lawsuit/character-ai-lawsuit/

9. Callfob, AI chatbot litigation status, state enforcement actions, deadlines: https://callfob.com/character-ai-lawsuit/

10. National Law Review, EPA draft CCL 6 and state AG microplastics activity: https://natlawreview.com/article/microplastics-no-longer-micro-concern-consumer-products

11. ConsumerShield, Truvada and TDF drug litigation background: https://www.consumershield.com/product-liability/truvada

12. Orrick, Gilead California Supreme Court victory announcement: https://www.orrick.com/en/News/2026/08/Gilead-Sciences-Secures-Landmark-California-Supreme-Court

13. Bloomberg Law, Gilead ruling as tort law sea change, Bayer Roundup Supreme Court context: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/california-high-courts-gilead-ruling-marks-tort-law-sea-change

14. GV Wire, Gilead ruling and revenue figures: https://gvwire.com/2026/08/03/californias-highest-court-rules-for-gilead-in-duty-to-innovate-case/

15. AboutLawsuits, federal TDF settlement, June 2024: https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/hiv-drug/

16. Wallace Miller, TDF litigation client updates and settlement scam warning: https://wallacemiller.com/cases/tdf-tenofovir/

17. Sokolove Law, talc litigation update including June 2026 LA verdict and expert withdrawal: https://www.sokolovelaw.com/product-liability/talcum-powder/lawsuit-updates/

18. Lawsuit Information Center and Carolyn St. Clair RN JD, Bard MDL status, QSF, bellwether history: https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/bard-hernia-mesh-lawsuits.html ; https://www.carolynstclair.com/hernia-mesh-lawsuit-update-2026/

19. King Law, Covidien bellwether trial and MDL case counts: https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/hernia-mesh-lawsuit/hernia-mesh-settlements/

20. Lawsuit Information Center, Covidien MDL outlook: https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/how-much-compensation-can-you-expect-for-a-hernia-mesh-lawsuit.html

21. King Law, Medtronic Massachusetts state court claims per Reuters: https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/hernia-mesh-lawsuit/hernia-mesh-settlements/

22. Nolo, 2026 suicide lawsuits against OpenAI and Character.AI, Kentucky and Florida actions: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-ai-companies-be-held-liable-for-user-suicide.html

23. Lawfold, persona AI lawsuit eligibility and Google settlement significance: https://lawfold.com/persona-ai-lawsuit/

24. American Bar Association, emerging issues in microplastics litigation: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/products-liability/emerging-issues-microplastics-litigation/

25. National Law Review, courts dismissing microplastics class actions, FDA position: https://natlawreview.com/article/how-much-plastic-too-much-class-action-plaintiffs-skip-homework-and-fail-test

26. Harris Beach Murtha, microplastics litigation defense trends, March 2026: https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com/insights/microplastics-litigation-defenses-against-attempts-to-expand-theories-of-liability/

27. The Lyon Firm, plastics producer litigation including PepsiCo and Exxon Mobil: https://www.thelyonfirm.com/blog/plastics-microplastics-lawsuits

28. Sokolove Law, Depo-Provera lawsuit updates, MDL count, settlement estimate, usage statistics: https://www.sokolovelaw.com/dangerous-drugs/depo-provera/

29. TorHoerman Law, Depo-Provera June 2026 settlement framework, vacated deadlines, postponed causation hearing: https://www.torhoermanlaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/

30. TruLaw, Depo-Provera FDA label update, state court proceedings, bellwether scheduling: https://trulaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/

31. Lanier Law Firm, Depo-Provera MDL venue, label language, case management: https://www.lanierlawfirm.com/pharmaceutical-liability/depo-provera-lawsuit/

32. King Law, Depo-Provera MDL case count as of March 2026: https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/depo-provera-lawsuit/depo-provera-settlement-amounts/

33. Drugwatch, Depo-Provera eligibility criteria and MDL 3140 background: https://www.drugwatch.com/depo-provera/lawsuit/

A Note on This Newsletter

I share information, not legal advice. Every case is different, and standards vary by state. If anything here touches your situation, talk to a lawyer about your specific facts. If you need help finding the right one, that is exactly what I do.

Copyright and Sharing

Copyright © 2026 Michael Stanisci, Nisci Consulting LLC, MassTortMichael. You are encouraged to share or adapt this newsletter within your own practice with attribution to MassTortMichael. That is why it is called Steal This Newsletter.