Allegations Against J&J and Eli Lilly: Concealed Cancer Risks in Antipsychotic Drugs
A significant legal case has emerged in Alameda County, California, where a lawsuit alleges that pharmaceutical heavyweight giants Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly concealed critical information regarding the cancer risks linked to their popular antipsychotic medications, Risperdal (risperidone) and Zyprexa (olanzapine). The suit, initiated by the law firm Wisner Baum on behalf of Bridgett Brown, claims that these companies knew for decades that their drugs could trigger breast cancer due to their effect on hormonal imbalances.
Bridgett Brown, the plaintiff, was prescribed both Risperdal and Zyprexa at various points in her medical treatment and was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer in 2024. This lawsuit marks a notable turning point as it is the first of its kind to assert that these specific antipsychotic medications can lead to breast cancer. The legal arguments hinge on the drugs' capability to induce hyperprolactinemia, a hormonal dysregulation directly associated with breast cancer development.
Recent academic studies referenced in the lawsuit bring alarming data to the forefront: a 62% increased risk of breast cancer is associated with high-prolactin medications like Risperdal, while Zyprexa presents a 54% elevated risk according to a large-scale study involving over half a million women (Rahman, 2023). Further investigations also found that Risperdal on its own raises breast cancer risk by 59% across 15 studies with a cumulative sample of more than a million individuals (Bird, 2025). Even more concerning, a Swedish registry study reports a 47% increased risk of breast cancer after over five years of exposure to these prolactin-elevating drugs (Solmi, 2024).
Initially approved to manage severe schizophrenia, these atypical antipsychotics have been repurposed over the years. The lawsuit claims that Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly expanded their market by obtaining approvals for less severe conditions and promoting usage for off-label indications, such as attention deficit disorder (ADD) in children and dementia in the elderly. This strategy reportedly generated billions of dollars in revenue for the companies involved.
Attorney Pedram Esfandiary, representing Ms. Brown, asserted, "These companies transformed narrow-use schizophrenia drugs into multi-billion-dollar per year blockbusters by targeting extremely vulnerable segments of our population, all while hiding a cancer risk they've known about for decades." The lawsuit emphasizes that despite having information since the 1990s indicating the correlation between these drugs and hyperprolactinemia, neither Risperdal nor Zyprexa labels acknowledged any risk of cancer, falsely stating through 2025 that no significant association was identified between these medications and tumor development in humans.
Monique Alarcon, another attorney for Ms. Brown, stated, "The science has been clear on prolactin-elevating antipsychotics for decades. These companies had a duty to inform; they failed, and now individuals nationwide are suffering the consequences. We intend to hold them accountable."
The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, holding the pharmaceutical firms strictly liable for a failure to warn, negligence, and fraud. This high-profile case is officially recorded as Brown v. Johnson & Johnson et al (Case No. 25CV119808). Wisner Baum, the law firm at the helm of this litigation, has earned recognition for tackling cases against major pharmaceutical companies and striving to uphold consumer safety standards. The firm has reportedly recovered over $4 billion in settlements and verdicts since its founding in 1985, demonstrating a commitment to exposing dangerous practices in the corporate landscape.
As this lawsuit progresses, its implications could echo throughout the pharmaceutical industry, emphasizing the necessity for transparency and accountability among those entrusted with public health.
Bridgett Brown, the plaintiff, was prescribed both Risperdal and Zyprexa at various points in her medical treatment and was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer in 2024. This lawsuit marks a notable turning point as it is the first of its kind to assert that these specific antipsychotic medications can lead to breast cancer. The legal arguments hinge on the drugs' capability to induce hyperprolactinemia, a hormonal dysregulation directly associated with breast cancer development.
Recent academic studies referenced in the lawsuit bring alarming data to the forefront: a 62% increased risk of breast cancer is associated with high-prolactin medications like Risperdal, while Zyprexa presents a 54% elevated risk according to a large-scale study involving over half a million women (Rahman, 2023). Further investigations also found that Risperdal on its own raises breast cancer risk by 59% across 15 studies with a cumulative sample of more than a million individuals (Bird, 2025). Even more concerning, a Swedish registry study reports a 47% increased risk of breast cancer after over five years of exposure to these prolactin-elevating drugs (Solmi, 2024).
Initially approved to manage severe schizophrenia, these atypical antipsychotics have been repurposed over the years. The lawsuit claims that Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly expanded their market by obtaining approvals for less severe conditions and promoting usage for off-label indications, such as attention deficit disorder (ADD) in children and dementia in the elderly. This strategy reportedly generated billions of dollars in revenue for the companies involved.
Attorney Pedram Esfandiary, representing Ms. Brown, asserted, "These companies transformed narrow-use schizophrenia drugs into multi-billion-dollar per year blockbusters by targeting extremely vulnerable segments of our population, all while hiding a cancer risk they've known about for decades." The lawsuit emphasizes that despite having information since the 1990s indicating the correlation between these drugs and hyperprolactinemia, neither Risperdal nor Zyprexa labels acknowledged any risk of cancer, falsely stating through 2025 that no significant association was identified between these medications and tumor development in humans.
Monique Alarcon, another attorney for Ms. Brown, stated, "The science has been clear on prolactin-elevating antipsychotics for decades. These companies had a duty to inform; they failed, and now individuals nationwide are suffering the consequences. We intend to hold them accountable."
The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, holding the pharmaceutical firms strictly liable for a failure to warn, negligence, and fraud. This high-profile case is officially recorded as Brown v. Johnson & Johnson et al (Case No. 25CV119808). Wisner Baum, the law firm at the helm of this litigation, has earned recognition for tackling cases against major pharmaceutical companies and striving to uphold consumer safety standards. The firm has reportedly recovered over $4 billion in settlements and verdicts since its founding in 1985, demonstrating a commitment to exposing dangerous practices in the corporate landscape.
As this lawsuit progresses, its implications could echo throughout the pharmaceutical industry, emphasizing the necessity for transparency and accountability among those entrusted with public health.
Topics Health）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.