- within Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Business & Consumer Services and Insurance industries
Patients who have been diagnosed with tumours or cancers after using pharmaceutical or health products may be able to pursue legal claims against manufacturers when credible scientific or regulatory evidence links those products to increased cancer risks. In such cases, product liability and class action lawsuits typically allege that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about known or foreseeable dangers. Several current and emerging litigations across North America highlight this principle, including cases involving Xeljanz, Depo-Provera, Dupixent, and talcum powder products.
Depo-Provera and the link to meningioma development
Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), a long-acting contraceptive injection also used to treat endometriosis, has been linked to meningiomas—tumours of the brain and spinal cord linings. Scientific studies demonstrate that prolonged exposure to progesterone-based drugs can stimulate the growth of meningiomas, many of which contain hormone receptors. While many meningiomas are benign, higher-grade types can be aggressive or cancerous. Class actions filed in Canada, including by Siskinds, claim that Depo-Provera's manufacturer failed to sufficiently warn of the risks of tumour growth or recurrence, despite emerging medical evidence. Affected patients or their estates are seeking compensation for medical costs, pain, suffering, and wrongful death, highlighting how long-term hormonal therapy may trigger or worsen tumour development.
Talcum powder litigation and corporate accountability
Litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) over its talcum powder products underscores long-term corporate accountability for cancer-linked consumer goods. Thousands of lawsuits allege that J&J knew since the 1970s that its talc-based powders contained asbestos, a known carcinogen, yet continued to market them as safe. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified talc as "probably" carcinogenic when applied to the female perineal area, linking it to ovarian and peritoneal cancers. J&J eventually discontinued talc-based baby powder globally in 2022 after widespread litigation, though it continues to deny wrongdoing. Law firms (including Siskinds) representing cancer victims argue that both asbestos-contaminated and "pure" talc can cause cancer through chronic inflammation and cellular damage.
Dupixent and emerging cancer allegations
Emerging claims also involve Dupixent (dupilumab), a biologic drug marketed by Sanofi and Regeneron for eczema, asthma, and other inflammatory diseases. Though widely regarded as a breakthrough treatment, new studies have suggested a strong association between Dupixent use and the development of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma affecting the skin. A 2024 study found Dupixent users had over four times the risk of CTCL compared to non-users, and a 2025 analysis revealed the drug was disproportionately represented in FDA cancer reports. Potential Dupixent lawsuits—currently in early stages—allege that the manufacturers failed to investigate or disclose these risks adequately. These suits emphasize "failure-to-warn" and "negligence" theories, seeking compensation for injuries, lost income, and loss of quality of life.
Tofacitinib: Alleged cancer risks and failure to warn
Xeljanz (tofacitinib), a drug approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis, has been the focus of international regulatory scrutiny and litigation. Following a large clinical trial of over 4,000 patients, both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada noted that tofacitinib users faced higher incidences of cancer, particularly lung cancer and lymphoma, as well as increased mortality rates. Health Canada mandated label changes in 2021 to reflect this information, acknowledging greater vulnerability in older adults and smokers. Subsequently, various law firms (including Siskinds) launched class action lawsuits alleging that patients and physicians were not adequately warned of potential dangers associated with the drugs, despite ongoing post-market studies showing elevated cancer rates. These cases argue that drug manufacturers breached their duty of care under product safety laws and that users suffered preventable harm due to inadequate warnings.
Broader implications for consumer safety and corporate responsibility
Collectively, these cases illustrate how patients diagnosed with cancers or tumours can pursue legal claims under theories of product liability, negligence, and failure to warn. When scientific research or regulatory reviews establish credible cancer risks—especially where manufacturers ignored, downplayed, or delayed disclosure—affected individuals may be entitled to compensation. Such litigation not only provides financial redress for victims but also pressures corporations to improve transparency, safety testing, and public health accountability.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
