JPML creates MDL 3094 with Eli Lilly as a named defendant

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated personal injury lawsuits over GLP-1 medications into a single proceeding, MDL No. 3094, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ^[1]. The cases are brought by people who say the drugs caused gastrointestinal injuries, and the litigation covers products from two manufacturers, not one ^[1].

According to the court, the medications at issue include Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus — all semaglutide products made by the Novo Nordisk defendants — along with Trulicity (dulaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide), made by Eli Lilly and Company ^[1]. That makes Lilly a named defendant in the consolidated litigation alongside Novo Nordisk ^[1].

What the panel found

In centralizing the cases, the panel concluded that the lawsuits "involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation" ^[1].

The panel also described what the cases have in common: "[e]ach lawsuit contains substantially similar allegations about GLP-1 RAs (specifically, Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Trulicity, and/or Mounjaro) and their alleged propensity to cause gastrointestinal injuries . . . [and] [a]ll actions share common issues of fact regarding whether defendants knew or should have known that their GLP-1 RA products can cause gastroparesis and other gastrointestinal injuries, whether defendants adequately warned plaintiffs or their prescribing physicians about the alleged dangers of these products, and whether defendants made false, misleading, or incomplete representations regarding the safety of these products" ^[1].

Both companies dispute the claims. The court's public page states plainly that "[t]he Novo Nordisk defendants and Eli Lilly and Company deny these allegations" ^[1].

An important caveat: an MDL is a case-management tool, not a finding that a drug caused harm. Centralization groups similar federal lawsuits before one judge for pretrial work, including discovery and expert-evidence rulings ^[1]. The judge assigned to the litigation is the Honorable Karen S. Marston, who holds monthly, in-person status conferences with leadership counsel and allows the public to watch remotely ^[1].

The exact number of lawsuits transferred at the time of centralization, and the details of the court-approved short-form complaint used by plaintiffs to file into the MDL, are not stated on the court's public MDL page available here, so those specifics are not verifiable from this source ^[1].

Why it matters for patients

The filing of an MDL does not change a drug's FDA-approved labeling, its availability, or what any individual person experiences on treatment. Nothing in the court's description reflects a regulatory decision about safety ^[1].

What it does signal is that a large group of claims about gastrointestinal problems — including gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach empties too slowly — will be litigated together, and that the central legal questions involve what the manufacturers knew and how they warned prescribers and patients ^[1]. Court filings and expert rulings in this MDL may eventually put internal company documents and scientific arguments about GI risk into the public record.

It also means people taking tirzepatide or dulaglutide are covered by the same proceeding as those taking semaglutide, since Trulicity and Mounjaro are named alongside the Novo Nordisk products ^[1]. Questions about symptoms or whether to continue a medication are matters for a person's own clinician, not a court docket.

What happens next

Judge Marston's court has posted a scheduling order for monthly conferences running through 2026 ^[1]. A Rule 702 evidentiary hearing — commonly called a Daubert hearing — on "Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3" is scheduled for September 14 through September 18, 2026, with virtual viewing access listed by the court ^[1]. Those hearings determine which expert testimony a jury may hear, and they often shape whether litigation of this kind moves toward trials or resolution.