August 2026 brought a new PFAS turnout-gear MDL, a major Depo-Provera settlement program, and several decisions limiting or expanding case transfers. However, no official August-wide MDL case-count report was available as of August 31, so claims about current national totals remain unverified. An MDL, or multidistrict litigation, combines similar federal lawsuits before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. It is not a class action: individual plaintiffs generally retain separate claims and must prove their own injuries.
Table of Contents
- Which MDLs are currently the largest?
- Why did firefighter turnout-gear claims get a separate PFAS MDL?
- What does the Depo-Provera settlement program change?
- When is the JPML refusing additional transfers?
- What does EPA's paraquat notice mean for plaintiffs?
Which MDLs are currently the largest?
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's latest official caseload report was dated July 1, 2026. The Panel had not posted an August report by August 31, making July figures the most reliable available baseline. The five largest active product-liability MDLs were talc, with 68,435 pending actions; Bard hernia mesh, with 23,382; AFFF/PFAS, with 15,244; hair relaxer, with 11,877; and proton pump inhibitors, with 11,321.
These are pending-action counts, not estimates of successful claims or future settlements, according to the JPML's July 1 caseload report. Readers should treat later totals from advertisements, law firms, or unofficial trackers cautiously. Filing activity during July and August may have changed individual dockets, but no official August-wide report confirms by how much.
Why did firefighter turnout-gear claims get a separate PFAS MDL?
On August 18, the JPML created MDL 3191 in Minnesota for purchasers of non-AFFF firefighter turnout gear who allege pfas-related harms. The Panel separated those actions because turnout-gear-only complaints do not allege exposure to aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF. The new proceeding began with five actions and four related actions. By comparison, the existing AFFF MDL already involved more than 15,000 actions, according to the JPML's turnout-gear transfer order.
This division matters because it prevents every PFAS dispute from being placed in one proceeding merely because the chemicals overlap. A firefighter's claim may belong in MDL 3191, MDL 2873, or neither, depending on the alleged product, exposure route, defendants, and injury. The boundary is not absolute for AFFF-related contamination suits. On August 11, the JPML transferred several water-system and governmental cases into MDL 2873 after finding that their allegations connected contamination to 3M's manufacture or use of AFFF.
What does the Depo-Provera settlement program change?
In Depo-Provera MDL 3140, an August 10 court order described a settlement program established on July 22. The court said the program could resolve claims for a substantial percentage of plaintiffs and reported 6,289 pending cases. Eligible claimants must register by November 30, 2026.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
The program does not include an admission of liability, as stated in the Northern District of Florida's case-management order. A settlement program is not automatically a payment to every person who used the drug. Potential claimants should confirm: Anyone represented by counsel should obtain case-specific instructions before the registration deadline. Unrepresented people should not assume that contacting a lawyer or gathering records automatically completes registration.
- Whether their lawsuit or claim falls within the program.
- What records, diagnoses, and proof of use are required.
- Whether registration affects litigation rights or deadlines.
- How fees, costs, releases, and payment calculations apply.
When is the JPML refusing additional transfers?
The JPML declined to send five new Pennsylvania Zantac cases into mature MDL 2924 on August 7. It found that the likely benefits of centralization were outweighed by delay while key rulings remained on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. That decision does not permanently close the MDL to every later-filed action. The Panel indicated that it may reconsider transfers if substantial common proceedings resume.
On August 6, the Panel also vacated the conditional transfer of a New York wrongful-death suit into the Social Media Adolescent Addiction MDL. Because the complaint alleged an indivisible injury involving multiple defendants, the Panel found it impracticable to separate the claims against New York City. Together, these orders show that factual overlap alone does not guarantee transfer. The JPML also considers whether centralization remains efficient and whether claims can realistically be divided without disrupting the case.
What does EPA's paraquat notice mean for plaintiffs?
EPA's current paraquat notice says new vapor-pressure data increased uncertainty about how much paraquat may volatilize. The agency plans to require more manufacturer data before updating its analysis of inhalation risks to bystanders, according to the EPA's paraquat review page. This is a regulatory review, not a finding that paraquat causes Parkinson's disease or proof of the allegations in the Paraquat MDL.
Regulatory questions about inhalation exposure and litigation questions about medical causation involve different evidence and legal standards. Plaintiffs should preserve exposure, employment, purchase, and medical records rather than treating the EPA notice as proof of an individual claim. Court deadlines and evidence requirements still control each lawsuit.
You Might Also Like
- Active MDL Cases Mass Tort Litigation August 2026 Update: What Changed, Why It Matters, and What to Watch Next
- Pharmaceutical Lawsuits Mass Tort Litigation August 2026 Update: What Changed, Why It Matters, and What to Watch Next
- Eligibility Tools Mass Tort Litigation August 2026 Update: What Changed, Why It Matters, and What to Watch Next