Ozempic/Wegovy Stomach Paralysis Lawsuit

What Is the Ozempic/Wegovy Stomach Paralysis Lawsuit About?

The Ozempic/Wegovy stomach paralysis lawsuit is a growing mass tort litigation involving individuals who developed severe gastrointestinal complications — including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), bowel obstruction, and gallbladder disease — after using GLP-1 receptor agonist medications. The cases are consolidated in MDL 3094 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonist medications, including semaglutide (sold as Ozempic and Wegovy by Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound by Eli Lilly), have become some of the most prescribed medications in the United States. Originally developed for type 2 diabetes management, these drugs have surged in popularity for weight loss after clinical trials showed significant weight reduction. Millions of Americans are currently taking these medications.

The lawsuits allege that the manufacturers — primarily Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly — knew or should have known about the risk of severe, persistent gastroparesis and other serious gastrointestinal complications but failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that while the drug labels mentioned nausea and other mild GI side effects, they did not adequately disclose the risk of stomach paralysis that could persist even after discontinuing the medication.

For other pharmaceutical lawsuits involving allegations of inadequate warnings, see our pages on the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit and the Tylenol autism/ADHD lawsuit.

Which GLP-1 Drugs Are Involved?

The lawsuit encompasses several GLP-1 receptor agonist medications manufactured by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. All of these drugs work through similar mechanisms that affect gastric emptying:

All of these medications work by mimicking the GLP-1 hormone, which helps regulate blood sugar by stimulating insulin release and — critically for the lawsuit — by slowing gastric emptying. This slowing of stomach emptying is part of how these drugs reduce appetite and promote weight loss, but plaintiffs allege it can cross the line from therapeutic effect to dangerous complication when the stomach becomes partially or fully paralyzed.

Health Risks and Side Effects

The lawsuit focuses on several severe adverse effects that go beyond the commonly disclosed mild nausea and digestive discomfort:

Gastroparesis (Stomach Paralysis)

Gastroparesis is a condition where the muscles of the stomach fail to contract normally, preventing the stomach from emptying properly. Symptoms include severe nausea, persistent vomiting, abdominal pain and bloating, feeling full after eating very small amounts, weight loss, and malnutrition. In severe cases, gastroparesis can require hospitalization, feeding tubes, and surgical intervention. The critical allegation in the lawsuit is that GLP-1 medications can cause gastroparesis that persists even after the medication is discontinued.

Bowel Obstruction (Intestinal Blockage)

Some GLP-1 users have developed ileus or bowel obstruction — a condition where the normal movement of food through the intestines is blocked. This can be a medical emergency requiring hospitalization and, in serious cases, surgery. In September 2023, the FDA updated the Ozempic label to include "ileus" as a reported adverse event, which plaintiffs argue was too little, too late.

Gallbladder Disease

GLP-1 medications have been associated with increased risk of gallbladder problems, including gallstones (cholelithiasis) and inflammation of the gallbladder (cholecystitis). Some patients have required cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal surgery).

Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) has been reported in GLP-1 medication users. While this risk is disclosed in some drug labels, plaintiffs allege the extent and frequency of the risk was understated.

Who Qualifies for the GLP-1 Lawsuit?

You may qualify to file a claim in the Ozempic/GLP-1 lawsuit if you meet the following general criteria. Each case is evaluated individually by an attorney:

Lawsuit Timeline

The GLP-1 stomach paralysis litigation is still in its early stages but moving quickly given the number of affected individuals. Here are the key milestones:

Settlement Amounts and Projections

As of early 2026, no global settlement has been reached in the GLP-1 litigation. The cases are still in the discovery phase. However, based on the severity of the alleged injuries and precedent from comparable pharmaceutical mass tort cases, legal analysts have projected potential settlement ranges:

These projections will be significantly shaped by the outcomes of bellwether trials, which are expected as the MDL progresses. The massive number of GLP-1 medication users in the United States — estimated at over 15 million as of 2025 — means the potential scope of this litigation is enormous. For general information, see our guide on mass tort settlement amounts.

How to File an Ozempic/GLP-1 Claim

If you experienced severe gastrointestinal complications from a GLP-1 medication, here is the process for pursuing a legal claim:

For more detailed information about the legal process, read our guide on how to join a mass tort lawsuit. Learn about what to expect regarding timelines in our guide on how long mass tort lawsuits take.

Named Defendants

The GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuit names the following pharmaceutical companies:

• Novo Nordisk A/S — The Danish pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ozempic (semaglutide injection for diabetes), Wegovy (semaglutide injection for weight loss), and Rybelsus (oral semaglutide for diabetes). Novo Nordisk is the primary defendant in most GLP-1 lawsuits given that semaglutide products have the largest market share.
• Eli Lilly and Company — The American pharmaceutical company that manufactures Mounjaro (tirzepatide injection for diabetes) and Zepbound (tirzepatide injection for weight loss). Tirzepatide is a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist with a similar mechanism and allegedly similar risk profile for gastroparesis.

Plaintiffs allege that both companies were aware of the risk of severe gastroparesis based on clinical trial data, post-marketing surveillance, and adverse event reports but prioritized the massive commercial success of their products over patient safety by failing to update their warning labels with adequate information about this risk.

Scientific and Medical Evidence

The scientific and medical evidence in the GLP-1 litigation draws from several sources:

• Mechanism of action: GLP-1 receptor agonists are designed to slow gastric emptying as part of their therapeutic mechanism. The argument is that this mechanism can, in susceptible individuals, cross from a therapeutic slowing to pathological paralysis of stomach muscles.
• FDA adverse event reports: Thousands of adverse event reports have been submitted to the FDA's FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) database documenting gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, and other severe GI complications in GLP-1 users.
• Clinical study data: Plaintiffs' attorneys are examining whether the clinical trial data submitted to the FDA for drug approval showed signals of gastroparesis risk that were not adequately disclosed to the public.
• September 2023 label update: The FDA's decision to add "ileus" to the Ozempic label in September 2023 supports the argument that bowel obstruction was a recognized risk. Plaintiffs argue this update was long overdue and still insufficient.
• Published case reports: Peer-reviewed medical literature contains case reports and case series documenting severe, persistent gastroparesis in GLP-1 medication users, including cases where symptoms continued for months after discontinuing the medication.
• Comparative analysis: Researchers have compared rates of GI complications in GLP-1 users versus patients taking other diabetes or weight-loss medications, finding elevated rates of gastroparesis in the GLP-1 group.

The discovery phase of MDL 3094 is expected to reveal internal pharmaceutical company documents that may shed light on what Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly knew about these risks and when they knew it.