Key Takeaways

In 2025, the JPML continued to grant a majority of the MDL petitions that it considered, including petitions involving product liability claims. The JPML tended to grant centralization when defendants share common defenses, or plaintiffs sought to pursue additional injuries for products subject to an existing MDL, but was hesitant to do so when the scope of potential defendants and claims could not be sufficiently limited based on the claims alleged.

The number of pending multidistrict litigations (“MDLs”) has decreased from 170 in January 2025 to 158 in January 2026. Despite this slight decrease, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) continued to look favorably on MDLs, granting 21 of the 32 MDL petitions it considered in 2025.

At present, product liability MDLs comprise approximately 40% of all pending MDLs. Of the five product liability petitions considered in 2025, four were granted and one was denied. The four petitions granted in 2025 relate to:

  • Claims alleging that the contraceptive Depo-Provera causes brain tumors (MDL No. 3140, centralized in the N.D. Fla. before Judge M. Casey Rodgers);
  • Claims alleging that Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) cause vision loss (MDL No. 3163, centralized in the E.D. Pa. before Judge Karen S. Marston);
  • Claims arising out of a 2025 air crash at the Toronto airport (MDL No. 3155, centralized in the D. Minn. before Judge Jerry W. Blackwell); and
  • Claims alleging that the Roblox gaming platform was used to groom and sexually exploit minor children (MDL No. 3166, centralized in the N.D. Cal. before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg).

The single product liability MDL petition that the JPML denied in 2025 involved video game addiction claims. This was a second petition for plaintiffs who were previously denied consolidation; plaintiffs attempted to narrow the defendants and claims to three gaming platforms. See In re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3168, ECF No. 86 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 10, 2025). Nonetheless, the JPML remained concerned that other companies and products would be “drawn into this litigation” as relevant to the causation inquiry, rendering the proposed MDL “unwieldy.” Id. at 2.

Several key takeaways emerged from the JPML’s 2025 decisions:

  • First, the JPML has created separate MDLs involving the same product, but with different alleged injuries. See In re: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAS) Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3163, ECF No. 49 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 15, 2025) (creating MDL to address vision-related injuries allegedly caused by GLP-1s despite the pendency of another MDL involving gastrointestinal injuries). Notably, both MDLs are assigned to the same judge.
  • Second, the JPML rejected centralization where there was only a “slight overlap” between the various parties and products. See In re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3168, ECF No. 86 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 10, 2025). However, common defenses amongst defendants has supported centralization. See In re: Roblox Corp. Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litig., MDL No. 3166, ECF No. 98 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 12, 2025) (potential overlapping defenses included those under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the First Amendment).
  • Third, when determining where to establish an MDL, the JPML considered where the “center of gravity,” or most of the parties and evidence, are found, see In re: Air Crash at Toronto Pearson Int’l Airport on Feb. 17, 2025, MDL No. 3155, ECF No. 38 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 8, 2025), but the JPML still sometimes sends MDLs to jurisdictions without any substantial connection to the litigation in order to more equally distribute caseloads and provide MDL opportunities to judges throughout the country.

Contributors

The Re:Torts team would like to thank Brenna Gaffney for their contribution to this article.