Key Takeaways
The JPML’s 2024 rulings emphasized the importance of informal coordination while reinforcing opportunities to argue against coordination of cases that implicate a range of products and competitors within the same industry.
The number of multidistrict litigations (“MDLs”) remained steady in 2024, with 167 pending MDLs as of January 2024 increasing just slightly to 170 as of January 2025. Product liability MDLs comprised approximately 40% of pending MDLs. During 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) considered petitions to centralize seven new product liability actions and granted centralization in four of them. Specifically, the JPML established MDLs that involve:
- Claims that the opioid addiction treatment Suboxone causes dental injuries (MDL 3092, centralized in the N.D. Ohio before Judge J. Philip Calabrese);
- Claims that GLP-1 receptor agonist medications used for treating diabetes and obesity cause gastrointestinal injuries (MDL 3094, centralized in the E.D. Pa. before Judge Karen Spencer Marston);
- Claims that exposure to heavy metals in baby food products result in autism spectrum disorder and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (MDL 3101, centralized in the N.D. Cal. before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley); and
- Claims that port catheters cause perforation, infections, and blood clots (MDL 3125, centralized in the S.D. Cal. before Judge Jinsook Ohta).
The JPML denied centralization in cases involving:
- Allegedly deficient embryo culture media used for in vitro fertilization;
- Benzoyl peroxide skincare products and an alleged risk of benzene exposure; and
- Video games and claims of addiction.
Three trends may be helpful to parties navigating future requests for, or opposition to, the creation of product liability MDLs.
First, in all three rulings denying centralization, the JPML determined that each litigation was better suited for informal coordination, focusing on:
- The “relatively small number of involved courts” in the individual actions. See In re: The Cooper Cos., Inc., In Vitro Fertilization Global Culture Media Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3122, ECF No. 63 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 4, 2024).
- “The presence of common counsel” across the pending actions. Id.; see also In re: Video Game Addiction Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3109, ECF No. 92 (J.P.M.L. June 5, 2024).
- The defendants’ “concerted efforts to organize the litigation on a defendant-specific basis.” In re: Benzoyl Peroxide Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3120, ECF No. 117 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 1, 2024).
Second, in two of those rulings, the JPML addressed industry-wide MDLs with multiple defendants and disparate products. Where the at-issue products had significant differences, such as different formulations, and the defendants were competitors, the JPML found that it “could result in an unwieldy MDL and require separate discovery tracks to safeguard the confidentiality of defendants’ unique formulations.” Id. Similarly, in denying the motion to centralize claims related to video game addiction, the JPML noted that “there is a broad range of games and defendants in each action, with the at-issue games only partially overlapping.” In re: Video Game Addiction, MDL No. 3109, ECF No. 92.
Finally, where the JPML centralized actions against multiple defendants with different products, the Panel cited an anticipated overlap in expert discovery and questions of causation. See In re: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3094, ECF No. 145.