There is no single "Ozempic class action". What exists is two groups of individual personal injury lawsuits, each gathered in federal court in Philadelphia before Judge Karen S. Marston. The larger one, MDL No. 3094, is about stomach and bowel injuries. The second, MDL No. 3163, is about a kind of sudden vision loss called NAION. This page reports only what the court and the federal panel that created these groups have published, with the date of each document. It is not legal advice, and we do not refer anyone to a lawyer.
What the lawsuits claim
The court's own summary of MDL 3094: "The actions in this Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (MDL No. 3094) are generally personal injury actions stemming from use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (“GLP-1 RAs”), which are medicines prescribed for, among other things, the treatment of type 2 diabetes."1 The drugs named on that page are Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus from Novo Nordisk, and Trulicity and Mounjaro from Eli Lilly. The court records the other side in one line: "The Novo Nordisk defendants and Eli Lilly and Company deny these allegations."1
In its August 2025 rulings the court listed eight medications at issue: Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Victoza and Saxenda from Novo, and Trulicity, Mounjaro and Zepbound from Lilly. A footnote in the same memorandum explains that the panel never named Victoza or Zepbound in its transfer orders, but the parties agree they belong in the MDL.5
The injuries are gastrointestinal. When the court set the schedule for its causation question, it recorded the parties' agreement that the issue "will consider general causation for gastroparesis, ileus, small bowel obstruction, gallbladder injuries".4 Gastroparesis means the stomach empties too slowly; ileus and bowel obstruction mean the intestine stops moving food along.
How the cases ended up in one courtroom
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 3094. Its transfer order describes where the litigation started: "This litigation consists of eighteen actions pending in eleven districts, as listed on Schedule A."2 It then sent them to Pennsylvania: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings."2 The court's MDL page now lists Judge Karen S. Marston as the presiding judge.1
The phrase that matters is "coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings". An MDL gathers separate lawsuits so that evidence, expert questions and common legal issues are handled once, before one judge, instead of in dozens of courts. Each case remains its own lawsuit.
How many cases there are
The number grows as new cases are filed, so the only honest figure is a dated one. In its memorandum of 15 August 2025, the court wrote: "As of the date of this Memorandum, there are more than 2400 cases included in the MDL".5 The court pages we read on 3 October 2026 do not publish a newer running total, so we do not print one.
The three "cross cutting" questions
Instead of trying a handful of sample cases first, the court decided to answer three questions that affect every case. Its October 2024 memorandum names them as the drugmakers framed them: "(1) gastroparesis diagnostic testing, (2) preemption and adequacy of warnings, and (3) general causation."3 In plain terms:
| Issue | The question | Status in the court's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Cross Cutting Issue 1 | Can gastroparesis be reliably diagnosed without a gastric emptying study? | Decided 15 August 2025 (see below) |
| Cross Cutting Issue 2 | Do federal rules on drug labels block the warning claims, and were the warnings adequate? | Rule 702 hearing set for 14 to 18 September 2026 |
| Cross Cutting Issue 3 | Can these drugs cause gastroparesis, ileus, small bowel obstruction and gallbladder injuries at all (general causation)? | Same hearing, 14 to 18 September 2026 |
The first ruling: a test is required for one kind of claim
On 15 August 2025 the court excluded the plaintiffs' expert opinions on Issue 1 and set a rule for one group of claims: "As a result of this ruling, any plaintiff claiming to have had drug-induced gastroparesis must have had a gastric emptying study (scintigraphy, breath test, or WMC) properly performed at the time of diagnosis, which confirmed delayed emptying."5
The same memorandum says the effect is narrower than headlines suggested, because most plaintiffs claim permanent or persistent gastroparesis rather than the temporary, drug-induced kind, and plaintiffs' counsel had agreed that a properly performed study is needed to diagnose the other forms.5 What it does settle: a gastroparesis claim without that test faces a hard evidentiary wall.
The motion to dismiss: some claims survived, some did not
On the same day the court ruled on the drugmakers' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' master complaint, the document that sets out the claims common to every case. Its conclusion: "Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 329) is denied in part and granted in part."6 Its conclusion lists which counts go forward and which were dismissed with leave to amend, including the request for medical monitoring.6 This is a ruling on whether the claims are properly pleaded, not on whether they are true.
A timeline from the court's own documents
Every date below is printed on the document it comes from. Undated steps are left undated rather than guessed.
| Date | What happened | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer order | The JPML centralizes 18 actions from 11 districts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 3094. | JPML transfer order2 |
| 17 Oct 2024 | A memorandum sets out the three cross cutting issues, and the court denies the plaintiffs' motion to permit discovery into the drugs' marketing. | Memorandum and order311 |
| 25 Oct 2024 | Case Management Order No. 20 sets the schedule for Issues 2 and 3 and lists the injuries Issue 3 covers. | CMO 204 |
| 15 Aug 2025 | Ruling on Issue 1 (gastric emptying study required for drug-induced gastroparesis claims); more than 2,400 cases reported. | Memorandum5 |
| 15 Aug 2025 | Motion to dismiss the Master Complaint denied in part and granted in part. | Memorandum6 |
| 30 Apr 2026 | Case Management Order No. 32 extends the Issues 2 and 3 deadlines at Novo's unopposed request. | CMO 327 |
| 14 to 18 Sep 2026 | Rule 702 ("Daubert") hearing on Issues 2 and 3. | Court notice8 |
Who the parties are
On the defense side are two drugmakers and their US companies. The transfer order lists the Novo Nordisk defendants as "Novo Nordisk A/S; Novo Nordisk North America Operations A/S; Novo Nordisk US Holdings Inc.; Novo Nordisk US Commercial Holdings Inc.; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Novo Nordisk Research Center Seattle, Inc.; and Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries LP."13 The court's August 2025 memorandum names the other side of the industry: "The Eli Lilly Defendants are Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC."14
On the plaintiffs' side, thousands of individual cases are run day to day by a court-appointed leadership group; the court's orders list includes "Case Management Order No. 6 - Appointment of Plaintiff Leadership".12 That is normal in an MDL: one team argues the common questions so each case does not repeat them.
Why "general causation" is the question to watch
In product liability cases, causation is usually argued in two steps. General causation asks whether the drug can cause a given injury in anyone. Specific causation asks whether it caused this person's injury. Issue 3 is the first step, for gastroparesis, ileus, small bowel obstruction and gallbladder injuries.4 If the court finds the plaintiffs' expert evidence on general causation unreliable for an injury, claims for that injury have little left to stand on. If it lets the evidence in, the cases move toward the individual questions, and eventually toward trials of selected cases. That is why the September 2026 hearing matters more than any headline about case counts.
How to read lawsuit ads and headlines
Search results for this topic are mostly law firm pages, and many quote case values or settlement ranges. A few checks keep you on solid ground:
- Look for the MDL number. Stomach and bowel injury cases are MDL 3094; vision loss (NAION) cases are MDL 3163. Both are in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Look for a dated court document. The court posts its orders on its own MDL pages, free to read.
- Treat payout figures as guesses. No settlement appears in the court documents we read on 3 October 2026.
- You can watch. The court says "Non-leadership counsel and members of the public may use the information below to watch the proceedings, but may not participate absent prior approval from the Court."15
Where it stands now: the September 2026 hearing
The schedule for Issues 2 and 3 moved several times. Case Management Order No. 32, dated 30 April 2026, extended the deadlines "upon consideration of the Novo Defendants’ unopposed request to extend the case management deadlines as to Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3".7 The court's page then announced the hearing itself: "From September 14, 2026 through September 18, 2026, Judge Marston is holding a Rule 702 evidentiary hearing ("Daubert" hearing) on Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3."8
A Rule 702 hearing tests whether each side's expert evidence is reliable enough to be heard by a jury. On 3 October 2026, the newest order on the court's MDL page was the August scheduling order for that hearing, and we found no ruling on Issues 2 and 3 posted yet. We will update this page when one appears.
The second lawsuit group: NAION and vision loss
Claims that GLP-1 drugs caused non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a sudden loss of vision in one eye, are in a separate MDL. The court explains the split: "This is the second MDL involving personal injury actions stemming from the use of GLP-1 RAs. The related MDL (MDL No. 3094) is also pending before Judge Marston. While the actions in this MDL allege that Plaintiffs suffer from NAION, the actions in MDL No. 3094 allege gastrointestinal injuries."9 The court's page for that MDL names Ozempic, Wegovy, Saxenda and Trulicity.9
One fact worth knowing: the Ozempic prescribing information on DailyMed that we read on 3 October 2026 (revised May 2026) does not name NAION. Whether the label should have warned about it is exactly what those cases dispute.
What the label says about these injuries today
The current Ozempic label already warns about the stomach side of this: "OZEMPIC is not recommended in patients with severe gastroparesis."10 Its list of reactions reported after approval includes "ileus, intestinal obstruction, severe constipation including fecal impaction".10 The label adds that because these post-approval reports are voluntary, a frequency or a causal link cannot always be established. Proving that link in court is the work of Issue 3.
If you take a GLP-1 and have severe or lasting stomach pain, vomiting you cannot stop, or a sudden change in your vision, contact a clinician now. Do not stop a prescribed medicine because of a lawsuit headline without talking to the person who prescribed it.
What this page will not tell you
We do not estimate what a case is worth, predict outcomes or settlements, or suggest anyone file a claim. None of the court pages or orders we read announce a settlement or a trial date, and any page that quotes a payout figure is guessing. When the court rules on Issues 2 and 3, the dates and quotes here will change first.
If you are reading this because you are deciding whether to keep paying for a GLP-1, the price side is something we can answer with certainty, checked from each seller's own page:
