Blog

The Takeaway

The number of GLP-1 lawsuits is growing at a rapid pace. While many may be swept into multi-district litigation proceedings in federal court, many can remain in state courts. Experience has shown that plaintiffs’ attorneys are creative at pleading to defeat removal opportunities. Therefore, identifying improper venue and pursuing a change can be key to a better long-term outcome for a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Also, although consolidating matters for case management and discovery may offer defendants some advantages, consolidating for trial does not.

What is GLP-1?

Scientists discovered the first glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (“GLP-1”) in 1984.[1] The GLP-1 hormone helps the “pancreas … produce more insulin after meals.”[2] It also slows down the movement of food into the small intestine, which helps suppress appetite.[3] This combination of actions solidified GLP-1s eventual use for patients with diabetes.

Over time, researchers and clinicians found that patients taking GLP-1’s for diabetes also experienced weight loss.[4] In 2005, the FDA approved Byetta as the first GLP-1 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes; in 2014, it approved Saxenda as the first GLP-1 for the treatment of weight loss.[5] With those approvals, pharmaceutical companies were off to the races. The FDA has now approved Ozempic, Mounjaro, Trulicity, Victoza, Byetta, and Bydureon BCise specifically for diabetes and Wegovy, Zepbound, and Saxenda for weight loss.[6] Ozempic (manufactured by Novo Nordisk) and Mounjaro (manufactured by Eli Lilly) are by far the two most common.

Lawsuit Claims

In the last two years, prescriptions for GLP-1 injectables for use in patients with diabetes and weight loss have skyrocketed. According to KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation), approximately 12% of people in the United States report having used GLP-1s, and that number is only expected to rise as more GLP-1s are approved specifically for weight loss.[7]

Despite their popularity, GLP-1 injectables are not without side effects. Reportedly, the most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.[8] However, plaintiffs claim they weren’t adequately warned about the potential to develop severe gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach delays and/or slowly empties food into the small intestine.

According to drugwatch.com (a website dedicated to “provid[ing] information on high-risk medical products and health issues and help[ing] people take legal action if they’ve been injured”), there are over 1,000 GLP-1 lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with another 10,000 expected to be filed.[9] The claims allege: 1) gastroparesis; 2) ileus (inability of intestines to move food naturally[10]); and 3) intestinal blockage/obstruction.[11]

Defending the Lawsuits

 It is not uncommon for plaintiffs’ attorneys to try to keep matters in state courts and to specifically prevent matters from being removed to federal court and transferred into an MDL proceeding. In pharmaceutical cases, this is often attempted by naming a pharmacy retailer or a local prescribing physician. Plaintiffs’ attorneys also regularly seek to file in state court venues they believe are plaintiff friendly rather than the venue in which the plaintiff lives or was injured. In doing so, plaintiffs argue that because a company’s product was sold or prescribed in that county, the venue is proper. Identifying improper venue and pursuing a change can be key to a long-term better outcome for a pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also prefer state venues that allow them to consolidate multiple cases into a single consolidated action for trial. Pharmaceutical litigation is often referred to as a mass action because plaintiffs’ counsel collect numerous plaintiffs alleging similar claims for use of a particular pharmaceutical product and bring all those claims against the manufacturer into one friendly location. Consolidation for trial is often a beneficial tactic for plaintiffs as it may create leverage to obtain a more lucrative settlement than might exist with an individual case. While consolidating matters for case management and discovery may have advantages for defendants, too, consolidation for trial is normally not helpful. In GLP-1 cases specifically, cases should be tried individually because: (1) each GLP-1 injectable has a different molecular structure, and (2) plaintiffs are each unique with different health histories. Trying these cases together can confuse juries. One plaintiff’s potential injuries can be conflated to other plaintiffs, which is unfair, prejudicial, and often leads to artificially inflated verdicts.

Conclusion

 With the rising popularity of GLP-1 products, it’s likely that thousands of lawsuits will be filed across the country. We urge defense attorneys to stay abreast of the litigation.

HeplerBroom attorneys have successfully defended pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in numerous proceedings and at trial. Contact one of our experienced Pharmaceutical & Medical Device or Class & Mass Tort Action attorneys for help in defending your company against GLP-1 lawsuits.

[1] Megan Dorrell, PharmD, BCACP, “Rx History: The Rise of GLP-1s,” innovative Rx STRATEGIES (Jan. 25, 2024).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Julie Adkinson, PharmD, BCACP, CDCES, “Ozempic, Trulicity, and More: 10 GLP-1 Agonist Drugs and How to Navigate Your Options,” GoodRx (Apr. 1, 2024); see also M. Regina Castro, M.D., “GLP-1 agonists: Diabetes drugs and weight loss,” Mayo Clinic (Oct 29, 2024).

[7] Alex Montero, Grace Sparks, Marley Presiado, and Liz Hamel, “KFF Health Tracking Poll May 2024: The Public’s Use and Views of GLP-1 Drugs, KFF (May 10, 2024).

[8] M. Regina Castro, M.D., “GLP-1 agonists: Diabetes drugs and weight loss,” Mayo Clinic (Oct 29, 2024).

[9] Michelle Llama, BCPA, “Mounjaro Lawsuit,” drugwatch (Oct 22, 2024).

[10] “Paralytic Ileus,” Cleveland Clinic (Oct. 8, 2021).

[11] Michelle Llama, BCPA, “Mounjaro Lawsuit,” drugwatch (Oct 22, 2024).