Ozempic Lawsuits 2026
Patients across the United States have pushed Ozempic litigation into one of the most closely watched drug-injury battles of the year. The lawsuits now span two major categories of harm. Gastrointestinal injuries form the largest group, while a second wave of filings centers on sudden vision loss tied to NAION. The expanding case load has drawn regulators, researchers, and federal courts into a dispute over what the manufacturer knew and when the warnings should have changed.
Thousands of cases sit inside a federal multidistrict proceeding. Many more vision-loss claims develop outside that structure. Plaintiffs say the drug produced devastating medical outcomes. Defendants maintain the overall safety profile remains strong. The clash grows heavier as new studies surface and as regulators abroad confirm a rare but serious optic-nerve risk.
How the Lawsuit Started
Early medical complaints followed rising prescriptions for semaglutide drugs. Patients reported unrelenting nausea, vomiting, delayed gastric emptying, and in severe cases full stomach paralysis. Some experienced intestinal blockages or required emergency treatment. Those reports reached law firms already watching post-marketing trends. Investigators began to see clusters of similar symptoms linked to Ozempic use. Drugwatch published updates as these injuries became more common in the legal arena. The emerging pattern suggested the problem stretched beyond isolated outcomes.
Later filings shifted attention toward sudden visual changes. Some patients described a rapid drop in eyesight consistent with an optic-nerve event. Lawsuit Information Center documented an increase in claims involving NAION. Those reports mirrored hospital case notes that caught the attention of ophthalmologists. A growing number of doctors questioned whether semaglutide could reduce blood flow to the optic nerve in vulnerable individuals.
Litigation accelerated as both categories gained traction. Federal Lawyer highlighted the broader safety concerns and tracked the surge of filings nationwide. Plaintiffs pushed for coordinated treatment of the gastrointestinal claims. Their efforts succeeded when federal consolidation arrived. The second wave of NAION cases continued to build on a parallel track.
Background of the Case
Ozempic operates within the GLP-1 receptor agonist class. The drug offers strong glucose control. It also suppresses appetite, which led to expanded use among patients seeking weight reduction. That growth in patient exposure raised the volume of adverse-event reports. Drugwatch documented recurring stories of gastric stasis, prolonged vomiting, and bowel obstruction. Severe cases sometimes led to feeding-tube placement.
The vision-loss side of the litigation developed more slowly. Researchers needed enough data to evaluate the link. Reuters reported that early studies hinted at an elevated risk of NAION among semaglutide users compared with patients using other diabetes medications. The idea gained force in Europe when regulators opened a review. That review intensified the global discussion about the safety profile of semaglutide.
The European Medicines Agency delivered the most significant regulatory shift. June 2025 marked the moment when the EMA concluded that NAION is a very rare but confirmed side effect of semaglutide medicines, including Ozempic. That determination forced companies to update product information. The ruling validated many allegations already present in U.S. lawsuits and reshaped the debate over corporate knowledge.
Key Allegations
Plaintiffs accuse the manufacturer of failing to warn users about the severity and frequency of gastrointestinal injuries. They argue the company possessed data suggesting a risk of delayed gastric emptying, gastroparesis, and intestinal obstruction. Competitor coverage from Federal Lawyer and Lawsuit Information Center reflects those core claims. Patients say they trusted the drug’s label and never received adequate notice that long-term digestive damage might occur.
Additional claims involve permanent vision loss. Plaintiffs with NAION say the warning materials offered no meaningful protection and did not acknowledge the risk of optic-nerve ischemia. Lawsuit Information Center highlighted these claims as more patients stepped forward with sudden eyesight decline. Litigants argue the company should have moved earlier to update labels, particularly once European regulators began examining the connection.
Defendants maintain that Ozempic remains safe for its intended purpose. Some statements reported by Reuters note that Novo Nordisk views underlying conditions such as diabetes or vascular disease as possible explanations for many NAION cases. That position forms the backbone of the defense strategy.
Timeline of the Ozempic Lawsuits
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Two years of rising prescriptions opened the door to the first injury alerts. 2022 marked a period when scattered gastrointestinal complaints reached medical offices in enough numbers to gain attention. Primary-care physicians and gastroenterologists recorded episodes of severe nausea, vomiting, and stomach paralysis. Drugwatch documented the emerging trend.
2023 continued the pattern. More patients experienced digestive issues after extended or repeated use. Law firms began tracking these developments, searching for consistency among the reports.
2024 brought the first wave of vision-related stories. Patients reported abrupt and sometimes irreversible eyesight changes. Those experiences produced the initial NAION claims. Lawsuit Information Center noted the jump in eye-injury allegations.
Company Response
Manufacturer statements entered the public sphere once litigation gained momentum. Some coverage by Reuters described the company’s view that the drug maintains a favorable benefit-risk profile. Corporate representatives pointed to patient conditions that predispose individuals to optic-nerve or digestive issues. The manufacturer indicated willingness to comply with regulatory labeling updates, especially once the EMA made its determination.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
February 2024 marked the establishment of federal multidistrict consolidation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred gastrointestinal-injury cases into MDL 3094 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The centralization sought to streamline discovery and avoid inconsistent rulings.
Mid-2025 provided the next surge. New filings climbed steadily as law firms advertised for affected patients. Federal Lawyer and Lawsuit Information Center reported case-count increases reaching into the thousands.
Late 2025 created a divide. Some plaintiffs pursued NAION cases outside the MDL structure because MDL 3094 focuses primarily on gastrointestinal harm. That split layered additional complexity into the litigation.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
Early rulings in MDL 3094 reinforced the court’s view that common factual questions warranted the consolidation. Judicial management orders sought uniform handling of expert discovery and product-label evidence. Those signals shaped the trajectory of the gastrointestinal-injury claims.
Government or Regulatory Actions
June 2025 delivered the most influential regulatory moment. The EMA declared NAION a confirmed but very rare side effect of semaglutide. That conclusion required label updates across Europe. Reuters reported the announcement and tracked market reactions.
FDA adverse-event data offered additional context. The agency recorded complaints involving gastrointestinal distress linked to GLP-1 medications. The reports did not constitute formal findings but added weight to plaintiffs’ allegations.
Settlement Timeline
Public records offered no verified global settlement as of early 2026. Legal analysts cited by competitor coverage noted that settlement discussions often trail far behind MDL creation. Bellwether trials typically precede any structured payouts. Some law firms predicted extended timelines stretching into 2027.
Current Status
Early 2026 finds MDL 3094 holding thousands of gastrointestinal-injury claims. Separate NAION lawsuits continue to develop in federal and state courts beyond the MDL boundaries. Plaintiffs wait for key discovery rulings. Defendants prepare for expert challenges. Regulators continue monitoring new safety data. The outcome remains uncertain.
Additional Case Details
Some plaintiffs combine injuries, alleging both digestive harm and optic-nerve damage. Those dual-injury claims complicate the litigation because different causation theories apply. Some filings identify prolonged vomiting that led to dehydration and then to reduced optic-nerve perfusion. Others highlight standalone NAION cases with no gastrointestinal symptoms at all.
Some judges may require documented gastric-emptying studies before allowing gastroparesis claims to advance. That need for objective proof appears in competitor commentary from Federal Lawyer. Plaintiffs facing NAION claims often rely on ophthalmologic imaging and expert testimony to establish causation.
Some attorneys caution that off-label weight-loss use could affect factual analysis. Patients who used Ozempic outside formal diabetic treatment may face heightened scrutiny when presenting causation evidence. Competitor sources acknowledged that possibility while emphasizing that failure-to-warn theories apply across all usage patterns.
Final Summary
Ozempic lawsuits in 2026 revolve around two injury categories: gastrointestinal harm and NAION-related vision loss. Thousands of patients challenge the adequacy of the drug’s warnings. Regulators abroad have validated part of the risk profile, shifting momentum toward plaintiffs. Courts in the United States manage parallel tracks of litigation. MDL 3094 anchors the gastrointestinal claims, while NAION cases continue outside the MDL. The litigation remains active, unsettled, and influential across the pharmaceutical-safety landscape.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you have any questions about this, please don’t hesitate to contact us.