Eli Lilly asks the JPML to centralize GLP-1 vision loss cases

Eli Lilly and Company filed a motion on Aug. 19, 2025, asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate at least 21 federal lawsuits that claim GLP-1 medicines caused non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, a form of optic nerve damage that can cause permanent blindness ^[1][2]. Lilly asked that the cases go to Judge Karen S. Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or, as a backup, that they be folded into the existing GLP-1 gastrointestinal-injury MDL she already oversees ^[1][2].

The request is unusual in one respect: the motion was brought by a defendant drugmaker, not by plaintiffs' lawyers ^[1][2]. Lilly is represented by Kirkland & Ellis ^[2]. In its brief, docketed as MDL No. 3163 and captioned "In re: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Products Liability Litigation (No. II)," Lilly told the panel the NAION suits name the same defendants and the same medicines as the earlier litigation, and are "mostly represented by the same plaintiffs' lawyers who serve as Co-Lead Counsel in MDL 3094" ^[1].

What the cases claim

The suits target Lilly's Trulicity (dulaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide) and Novo Nordisk's Ozempic and Wegovy (both semaglutide), among others ^[1][2]. Lilly noted that Mounjaro and Zepbound, both tirzepatide, are dual agonists that activate the GLP-1 receptor and the GIP hormone receptor, unlike Trulicity and Ozempic ^[1].

Lilly's brief says the filings followed published articles that "reported potential associations, but drew no causal conclusions," between NAION and semaglutide ^[1]. Two studies are cited in the brief's authorities: a Danish-Norwegian cohort study by Simonsen and colleagues on semaglutide use and NAION risk, and a 2025 JAMA Network Open paper by Wang and colleagues on semaglutide or tirzepatide and optic nerve and visual pathway disorders in people with type 2 diabetes ^[1]. Lilly maintains its medicines "are safe and effective treatment options" with "robust FDA-approved labels" ^[1]. The sources do not describe any FDA labeling action on NAION, and the studies' detailed findings are not in the filing.

How this fits the existing GLP-1 litigation

The JPML created MDL 3094 in February 2024, centralizing gastrointestinal-injury claims against both Lilly and Novo Nordisk in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge Marston ^[1]. Lilly argues she has developed expertise in the scientific and regulatory issues around these drugs and is in a "unique position to guide" the NAION litigation ^[1].

The company also told the panel that several "combination" cases alleging both NAION and gastrointestinal injuries have already been filed directly into MDL 3094 ^[1]. Beyond federal court, Lilly said there are dozens of NAION cases and hundreds of gastrointestinal cases in state courts, most of them subject to requests to create a New Jersey multicounty litigation that would put both injury types before one judge ^[1]. A section of the brief also argues that the NAION issue differs from a prior request involving deep vein thrombosis that the panel considered in 2024 ^[1].

Why it matters for patients

For people taking or considering semaglutide or tirzepatide, this filing is a litigation development, not a regulatory or scientific one. Nothing in the motion changes a prescription label, and Lilly's own brief stresses that the published research it cites reported possible associations without concluding the drugs cause NAION ^[1].

What it does signal is that eye-injury claims are becoming a second front in GLP-1 litigation, separate from the gastrointestinal claims consolidated in 2024 ^[1]. If the panel grants the motion, pretrial fact-finding on a central question — whether reliable scientific evidence shows these medicines can cause NAION — would happen in one courtroom rather than dozens ^[1]. That evidence, and any court rulings on it, would become public over time and could eventually inform what doctors and patients know about the risk.

It is also worth noting what the sources do not say: they do not report how many people have been diagnosed with NAION while using these drugs, what the absolute risk might be, or whether regulators are reviewing the question.

What happens next

The JPML must decide whether to create a new MDL, add the cases to MDL 3094, or deny centralization. The panel typically sets a hearing before ruling, but no hearing date or decision deadline appears in the available sources. Novo Nordisk's and plaintiffs' responses to Lilly's motion are also not yet known.