Insulin Pricing Lawsuits (MDL 3080): What the Record Shows

The insulin pricing lawsuits are not claims that insulin injured anyone. They are claims about how insulin and other diabetes medicines were priced. The federal cases are consolidated as MDL No. 3080, In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the District of New Jersey before Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the proceeding by a transfer order filed August 3, 2023, and its statistics report dated October 1, 2026 lists 516 actions pending. The plaintiffs allege a scheme between insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers to inflate list prices through confidential rebates. The court resolved part of the case as a matter of law in opinions dated September 5 and December 30, 2025, dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed. No settlement has been approved, no trial has been held, and no court has found that any price was unlawful.

What is established versus what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the identity of MDL No. 3080; the Panel’s transfer order of August 3, 2023 and its description of the alleged scheme; the defendants it identifies; the three litigation tracks the court created in December 2023; the court’s rulings on motions to dismiss in September and December 2025, and the categories of claims those rulings dismissed as the court summarized them in May 2026; and the pending-case count of October 1, 2026.

Alleged, and not decided: that manufacturers paid secret rebates to obtain favorable placement on drug formularies; that they raised list prices to cover those payments; that published list prices were therefore fraudulent rather than the product of market forces; and that this conduct violated state consumer protection statutes or unjustly enriched the defendants. The Panel recorded all of that as the plaintiffs’ allegations. No court has found that the alleged scheme occurred, and no court has determined that any plaintiff suffered a loss that must be compensated.

The Panel also recorded a detail that is easy to miss: the five actions before it were state parens patriae actions, they asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of state consumer protection statutes, four also asserted civil conspiracy, and none asserted antitrust claims. Later actions folded into the MDL, including cases brought by counties, self-funded payers and classes of third-party payers, are organized into the tracks described below.

Where the claims stand procedurally

MDL No. 3080 is pending on master docket 2:23-md-3080 in the District of New Jersey. The district’s page for the litigation lists Judge Brian R. Martinotti and Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh as the presiding judges. The transfer order assigned the actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407: it centralizes discovery and pretrial motions but does not merge the individual claims into one lawsuit or decide whether any claim has merit. Case Management Order #1, signed August 18, 2023, consolidated the transferred actions for pretrial purposes and referred discovery to the magistrate judge.

Case Management Order #3, signed December 5, 2023, divided the MDL into three tracks. The State Attorney General Track covers actions brought on behalf of states. The Self-Funded Payer Track covers individual actions by self-funded payers, a category the order defines to include local governments and their subdivisions, unions, schools, and for-profit and nonprofit organizations that pay for prescription drugs for their members. The Third-Party Payer Class Track covers putative class actions by third-party payers, and the order subdivided it for the manufacturer defendants and the pharmacy benefit manager defendants.

The court ruled on the motions to dismiss in opinions dated September 5, 2025 and December 30, 2025. Case Management Order #25, signed May 8, 2026, implements those rulings and records what they decided. Among the grounds it lists: dismissal under the indirect purchaser rule, applied to the federal RICO claims, to claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and to unjust enrichment under Washington law, with reconsideration of the RICO ruling denied; dismissal of Lake County’s claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act because that statute does not authorize suits by entities like the plaintiff; dismissal of Albany County’s claim under New York General Business Law § 349; dismissal of King County’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; dismissal of Albany County’s unjust enrichment claims under New York law as duplicative; and dismissal of King County’s unjust enrichment claim under Washington law because no direct benefit was conferred on the defendants. Plaintiffs keep their appellate rights, and the order sets a procedure for applying the same rulings to later-filed claims.

The court also decided motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In opinions dated September 5, 2025, it addressed motions by Evernorth Health, Inc. and by UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and OptumInsight, Inc. In each, it found general jurisdiction was not established, held that the plaintiff state had not shown specific jurisdiction on the record as it then stood, granted jurisdictional discovery, and denied the motion with leave to refile at the close of that discovery. Those decisions concern which corporate parents can be sued in a given state, not whether the pricing allegations are true.

Most recently in the documents reviewed here, Case Management Order #26, signed July 14, 2026, sets the schedule for consolidated motions to compel arbitration or to dismiss under the Federal Arbitration Act as to selected self-funded payer plaintiffs. Under that order, the opposition is due September 14, 2026 and the reply is due October 14, 2026.

Key dates

• August 3, 2023: the Panel files the transfer order creating MDL No. 3080 and assigning it to Judge Brian R. Martinotti in the District of New Jersey (JPML transfer order).
• August 18, 2023: the court enters Case Management Order #1, consolidating the transferred actions for pretrial purposes (Initial Case Management Order).
• December 5, 2023: Case Management Order #3 creates the State Attorney General, Self-Funded Payer and Third-Party Payer Class tracks (Case Management Order #3).
• September 5, 2025: the court issues opinions on the Rule 12(b)(6) motions and decides Rule 12(b)(2) motions on personal jurisdiction (Case Management Order #25; opinions in No. 2:23-cv-04242).
• December 30, 2025: the court issues further opinions on Rule 12(b)(6) motions (Case Management Order #25).
• May 8, 2026: Case Management Order #25, the motion-to-dismiss rulings implementation order, is signed (Case Management Order #25).
• July 14, 2026: Case Management Order #26 sets the schedule for arbitration and dispute-resolution motions (Case Management Order #26).
• September 14, 2026: opposition to the consolidated arbitration motion due (Case Management Order #26).
• October 1, 2026: the Panel’s statistics report lists 516 actions pending in MDL No. 3080 (JPML statistics report).
• October 14, 2026: reply in support of the consolidated arbitration motion due (Case Management Order #26).

What this does not establish

Nothing in the documents reviewed here shows a finding that the alleged rebate scheme happened, that any list price was illegal, or that any reader, patient, employer or government is owed money. The rulings described above decided whether particular claims could proceed as pleaded, not whether they are true. A dismissal under the indirect purchaser rule is a ruling about who may sue over an alleged overcharge, not a finding about how prices were set. The Third-Party Payer Class Track is a track for putative class actions; nothing reviewed here shows that a class has been certified. The record reviewed here contains no trial verdict, no approved settlement and no admission of liability by any defendant.

Frequently asked questions

Is there an insulin lawsuit settlement?

No settlement appears in the documents reviewed here. MDL No. 3080 remains in pretrial proceedings, and the most recent scheduling order in this record concerns motions to compel arbitration rather than a settlement.

Is this a product liability case about injuries caused by insulin?

No. The Panel’s transfer order describes the litigation as concerning an alleged scheme between insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers to inflate prices, not any claimed injury from using insulin. The five actions before the Panel asserted unjust enrichment and state consumer protection claims, and the Panel recorded that none of them asserted antitrust claims.

Which companies are named?

The transfer order identifies the insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, and, among pharmacy benefit managers, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Optum Rx and their corporate affiliates. It also records that the complaints before it named non-insulin medicines, including Ozempic, Victoza, Trulicity and Soliqua.

Which claims have been dismissed?

Case Management Order #25 records that the court’s September 5 and December 30, 2025 opinions dismissed claims including the federal RICO claims (with reconsideration denied), claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment claims under Washington and New York law, Lake County’s Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim, Albany County’s claim under New York General Business Law § 349, and King County’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs’ appellate rights were preserved.

Does an MDL make all the cases one lawsuit?

No. An MDL consolidates federal cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings before one judge, but each plaintiff keeps an individual claim unless a class is certified or a settlement resolves the claims together. Background on the difference appears in MDLs compared with class actions and in how mass tort litigation works, alongside the pharmaceutical lawsuits hub, the GLP-1 litigation and the Zantac ranitidine litigation.

Sources

1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, MDL No. 3080, Transfer Order (August 3, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, Report Date 10/1/2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
3. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Insulin Pricing Litigation (District of New Jersey, MDL Cases)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
4. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Case Management Order #1 (Initial Case Management Order), In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, August 18, 2023” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
5. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Case Management Order #3, In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, December 5, 2023” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
6. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Case Management Order #25 (Motion to Dismiss Rulings Implementation Order), In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, May 8, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
7. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Case Management Order #26 (Order Governing Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Motions), In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, July 14, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
8. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Opinion on Evernorth Health, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-04242 (D.N.J. September 5, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
9. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Opinion on UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and OptumInsight, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-04242 (D.N.J. September 5, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)

CollectiveClaim.us 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.