McKinsey Opioid Consulting Litigation: MDL 2996 Explained

The McKinsey opioid consulting litigation is a federal multidistrict proceeding about the advice a management consulting firm gave to opioid manufacturers, not about a drug or a medical device. It is consolidated as MDL No. 2996 in the Northern District of California before Judge Charles R. Breyer, created by a transfer order on June 8, 2021. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 234 actions pending as of October 1, 2026, against 262 filed in total. Three class settlements approved in 2024 provide $23 million, $207 million and $78 million, and a separate federal criminal and civil resolution in December 2024 totaled $650 million. No court has found that McKinsey caused any individual’s injury.

What the litigation alleges

The transfer order describes the common factual core as “nearly identical questions about McKinsey’s role in providing advice to certain opioid manufacturers, most notably Purdue, in the form of sales and marketing strategies aimed at increasing sales of prescription opioid drugs.” The first 17 actions came from cities and counties (11) and tribal governments and related entities (6), with another 22 potentially related actions in 11 districts. The order records claims for public nuisance, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and consumer protection violations, with federal civil RICO claims in eight actions. Those are allegations in complaints; the panel decided only that the actions should be coordinated.

Why it is separate from the national opioid settlement

Several parties asked the panel to fold the McKinsey actions into MDL No. 2804, the national prescription opiate litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. The panel declined, reasoning that McKinsey would be prejudiced by joining a docket then three and a half years old, and that adding “a relatively unique defendant” could hinder case management. The two dockets remain distinct. The October 1, 2026 report lists 2,877 actions pending in MDL No. 2804 before Judge Dan A. Polster, and 234 in MDL No. 2996. MDL No. 2804 concerns manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies; MDL No. 2996 concerns a consultant’s conduct. The opioid settlement framework covers the state agreements that sit alongside MDL No. 2804.

The three class settlements

Judge Breyer approved two settlements on February 2, 2024. The first provides $23 million for a national class of public school districts, with net proceeds earmarked for opioid remediation through a grant-making trust (ECF 664). The second provides $207 million for a class of political subdivisions, including general purpose governments, special districts and other local government entities, with net proceeds earmarked for remediation consistent with existing national opioid settlement agreements (ECF 665).

On August 5, 2024, the court approved a third settlement of $78 million for a national class of third-party payors, defined in the preliminary approval order as entities that paid or reimbursed for opioid prescriptions or for treatment related to opioid misuse, addiction or overdose on behalf of beneficiaries, insureds or members between June 1, 2009 and October 31, 2023 (ECF 702, 739).

The final approval orders describe the settlement funds as non-reversionary. The classes are public school districts, political subdivisions and health care payors, not individual patients.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the existence and scope of MDL No. 2996; the three class settlements and their amounts; the court’s final approval of each; the dismissal of part of the neonatal abstinence syndrome claims in 2024; the 2024 federal criminal and civil resolution; and the pending-case count of 234 as of October 1, 2026.

Alleged, or admitted only by the company: that McKinsey’s advice helped increase opioid sales, that the advice misled prescribers or regulators, and that it caused harm to any particular government, health plan or person. The settlements resolve class claims without a liability finding. The criminal agreement contains admissions by McKinsey, but it is an agreement with the Department of Justice, not a court judgment after trial.

The federal criminal and civil resolution

In December 2024 McKinsey entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice and signed a related civil settlement. The agreement states a total payment of $650,000,000: $323,020,647.75 under the civil settlement, $231,432,853.25 as a criminal amount, $93,546,499 in forfeiture and $2,000,000 to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

The information charged two offenses: conspiring with Purdue Pharma and others to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, and, through the acts of a McKinsey senior partner, knowingly destroying and concealing records with intent to impede a federal investigation. McKinsey stipulated that the facts were true, accepted responsibility, and agreed to a five-year term. The civil settlement states that it “is neither an admission of liability by McKinsey nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded.”

The civil agreement describes the conduct the United States contended: that between January 2013 and April 2014 McKinsey advised Purdue to intensify OxyContin marketing to certain health care providers, some already prescribing very large quantities, and that between November 2014 and September 2017 it assigned consultants to work for both the Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative and Purdue projects after representing that it would not.

Where the claims stand now

The docket has narrowed through rulings on motions to dismiss. On May 16, 2024, Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part McKinsey’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint brought by plaintiffs alleging neonatal abstinence syndrome. The court dismissed all fraud-based and nuisance-based claims, dismissed the conspiracy claims brought on behalf of one plaintiff, and dismissed all claims of another plaintiff without prejudice. The remaining claims proceeded to discovery (ECF 710).

Activity continued in 2026. On August 4, 2026, the court ordered two pro se plaintiffs to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, with written responses due within 45 days (ECF 983). McKinsey has moved to dismiss those cases under Rule 41(b), and its reply brief was filed on August 25, 2026 (ECF 1013, docket). On September 30, 2026, the court entered a third case management order that sets a schedule for Daubert motions and dispositive motions, tied to the court’s resolution of three motions the parties identified as pending (ECF 1033). That order does not set a trial date. The docket reviewed for this article shows filings through October 23, 2026. The panel still counted 234 actions pending on October 1, 2026, against 262 filed.

Key dates

• June 8, 2021: the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation creates MDL No. 2996 and assigns Judge Breyer (transfer order).
• February 2, 2024: final approval of the $23 million school district settlement and the $207 million subdivision settlement (ECF 664, 665).
• May 16, 2024: the court dismisses the fraud and nuisance claims and parts of the neonatal abstinence syndrome complaint (ECF 710).
• August 5, 2024: final approval of the $78 million third-party payor settlement (ECF 739).
• December 2024: McKinsey signs the deferred prosecution agreement (December 10) and the related civil settlement, totaling $650 million.
• August 4, 2026: order to show cause why two pro se cases should not be dismissed (ECF 983).
• August 25, 2026: McKinsey files its reply in support of dismissal under Rule 41(b) (ECF 1013).
• September 30, 2026: the court enters a third case management order setting Daubert and dispositive motion deadlines (ECF 1033).
• October 1, 2026: the panel reports 234 actions pending of 262 filed.

What this does not establish

The record does not contain a judgment that McKinsey’s consulting caused any person’s opioid use disorder, overdose or death, or that it is liable beyond the sums it agreed to. Class settlement approval is not a finding on the merits, and the criminal agreement is a deferred prosecution, not a conviction. Nothing here creates eligibility for compensation. How multidistrict litigation works explains why a pending count can stay high after settlements.

Frequently asked questions

Did McKinsey admit that its advice caused the opioid crisis?

No court has made that finding. McKinsey admitted specific facts in the agreed statement of facts attached to its deferred prosecution agreement and accepted responsibility for the conduct described there. The civil settlement states that it is not an admission of liability. The class settlements contain no liability finding.

Who received money from the class settlements?

The approved classes were public school districts ($23 million), political subdivisions such as cities, counties and special districts ($207 million), and third-party payors that paid or reimbursed opioid prescription or treatment costs ($78 million). The orders describe the funds as non-reversionary and, for the government classes, earmarked for opioid remediation. The settlements do not set a per-person payment to individuals.

Is MDL 2996 the same as the national opioid litigation?

No. MDL No. 2804 in the Northern District of Ohio is the national prescription opiate litigation against manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. MDL No. 2996 is a separate docket against McKinsey over its consulting work. The panel declined to combine them in 2021 and gave its reasons in the transfer order.

Is the litigation over?

Not according to the panel’s latest statistics. It counted 234 actions pending on October 1, 2026. The court approved three class settlements, dismissed parts of the neonatal abstinence syndrome complaint, and in 2026 issued a show-cause order in two pro se cases and entered a third case management order for expert and dispositive motions. The docket reviewed for this article shows filings through October 23, 2026, and no trial date.

Sources

1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report, Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
2. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “Transfer Order, In re McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, MDL No. 2996 (J.P.M.L. June 8, 2021)” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
3. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order Granting Final Approval of Class Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards (School Districts), In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2024), ECF 664” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
4. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Subdivisions), In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2024), ECF 665” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
5. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Third Party Payor Class Action Settlement and Direction of Notice, In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024), ECF 702” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
6. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards (Third Party Payors), In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2024), ECF 739” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
7. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part McKinsey’s Motion to Dismiss the NAS Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2024), ECF 710” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
8. United States Department of Justice: “Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States (W.D. Va., signed Dec. 10, 2024)” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
9. United States Department of Justice: “Settlement Agreement, United States and McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States (Dec. 2024)” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
10. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Order to Show Cause, In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026), ECF 983” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
11. United States District Court for the Northern District of California: “Stipulation and Order, Third Case Management Order, In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2026), ECF 1033” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)
12. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (RECAP archive): “Docket, In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal.)” (link, accessed 2026-10-24)

Collective Claim publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.