A $5.55 Million Metformin Settlement Is Now Open for Claims. Here’s What Diabetes Drug Buyers Should Know
A new class action settlement is now open for people who purchased or paid for certain generic metformin products between July 20, 2015 and June 2, 2020.
A new class action settlement is now open for people who purchased or paid for certain generic metformin products between July 20, 2015 and June 2, 2020. The settlement involves metformin manufactured by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Granules, and Heritage Pharmaceuticals, which later did business as Avet. The case centers on allegations that some generic metformin products were contaminated with NDMA, a chemical impurity that has been classified as a probable human carcinogen.
The companies deny wrongdoing. They have not admitted liability, and the settlement does not mean a court found that they violated the law. Instead, the settlement resolves economic-loss claims brought by consumers and third-party payors who allegedly paid for metformin products that were contaminated, adulterated, or worth less than what they paid.
The total settlement fund is $5.55 million. Teva is contributing $3 million, while Granules and Heritage are contributing a combined $2.55 million. The deadline to submit a claim is July 10, 2026.
This settlement may matter to a large number of people because metformin is one of the most commonly prescribed medications for type 2 diabetes. Many patients take it every day, sometimes for years. Unlike a one-time purchase, a prescription drug like metformin may appear repeatedly in pharmacy records, insurance documents, refill histories, and Explanation of Benefits statements. That is why consumers who think they may qualify should not rely only on memory. The best first step is usually to check pharmacy or insurance records from the class period.
The lawsuit, known as In re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It followed public concerns in 2020 over NDMA contamination in certain metformin products. NDMA stands for N-nitrosodimethylamine. It is a chemical byproduct that can form during some manufacturing or storage conditions. Regulators have treated NDMA seriously because long-term exposure above acceptable limits may increase health risks.
The metformin issue came after similar nitrosamine contamination concerns involving other drugs, including ranitidine and certain blood pressure medications. Those earlier cases helped bring more public attention to the question of how impurities can appear in widely used generic medications and how quickly manufacturers and regulators respond when contamination is detected.
The metformin lawsuits alleged that the settling defendants knew or should have known about the risk of NDMA contamination in their products. The plaintiffs claimed that consumers and third-party payors paid for drugs that were not what they were represented to be. In simple terms, the case was not mainly about whether every person who took the medication became sick. It was about whether people paid money for a product that allegedly should not have been sold in that condition.
That distinction is important. This is an economic-loss settlement. It is not a personal injury settlement. The settlement is designed to compensate eligible claimants for money they paid or reimbursed for qualifying metformin products. It does not directly compensate people for cancer, medical monitoring, pain, suffering, or other health-related injury claims. People who believe they suffered a physical injury after taking metformin would need to speak with an attorney about separate legal options.
For consumers, the main eligibility question is whether they purchased, paid for, or were reimbursed for generic metformin manufactured by Teva, Granules, or Heritage during the class period. The class period runs from July 20, 2015 through June 2, 2020. The settlement does not cover every metformin product sold during that time. It covers only generic metformin products made by the specific settling manufacturers.
That means the manufacturer listed in your records matters. A person may have taken metformin during the class period but still not qualify if their medication was made by a different company. Some metformin prescriptions may list manufacturers such as Amneal, Aurobindo, Sun Pharma, Ascend, Marksans, or other companies. Those manufacturers are not part of this settlement, even if their products were connected to separate recalls or litigation.
Consumers should check old pill bottles, pharmacy labels, refill records, prescription histories, insurance statements, or pharmacy printouts. If the records show Teva, Granules, Heritage, or Avet during the class period, the person may be eligible to file a claim.
The proof requirement is another key part of the settlement. Consumers need documentation showing at least one qualifying purchase during the class period. This may include a pharmacy receipt, prescription history, refill record, Explanation of Benefits, pill bottle label, or similar document. The consumer claim process does not appear to require proof for every single metformin fill across the full five-year period. Instead, consumers need proof of at least one qualifying purchase, although providing more complete information may help the Claims Administrator review the claim.
For many people, the easiest route will be to contact the pharmacy where they filled their prescriptions and request a full prescription history. Pharmacies often keep detailed records showing medication name, dosage, fill date, quantity, and manufacturer. Insurance companies may also be able to provide Explanation of Benefits records showing prescription payments. Even if a person no longer uses the same pharmacy, it may still be worth asking whether older records can be retrieved.
The settlement also includes a Third-Party Payor Class. This class is for entities, not individual consumers. It may include health insurance companies, self-insured health plans, union benefit funds, employee benefit plans, and similar organizations that paid or reimbursed for qualifying generic metformin products on behalf of members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries. These claims are more complicated because they may involve large volumes of transaction data.
Third-party payors with claims of $100,000 or more must submit transaction data. Smaller TPP claims may also be asked to provide transaction data, so payors should keep their records available even if they are not required to submit everything at the beginning. The settlement materials include separate filing instructions for consumer claims and TPP claims.
The deadline for both consumer and Third-Party Payor claims is July 10, 2026. Claims can be filed online or by mail. Online claims must be submitted by the deadline, while mailed claims must be postmarked by the deadline. Missing the deadline can mean losing the right to receive payment from the settlement.
How much individual consumers will receive is not yet certain. In settlements like this, payment amounts usually depend on how many valid claims are filed, the amount of qualifying purchases claimed, and how much money remains after fees, costs, service awards, and administration expenses are deducted. Because the total settlement fund is $5.55 million and may cover both consumer and TPP claims across a multi-year class period, individual consumer payments may be modest.
Still, a modest payment can be worth claiming when the documentation is easy to obtain. Many people ignore settlements because they assume the process will be too difficult, or they forget to check their records before the deadline. In this case, people who used metformin during the class period may already have the proof they need in pharmacy or insurance records.
The timing of payments will depend on the court approval process. Class action settlements generally require final approval from the court before money can be distributed. Even after final approval, claims have to be reviewed, disputes may need to be resolved, and administrative steps must be completed. If appeals are filed, payments can be delayed significantly. That means eligible claimants should not expect immediate payment right after submitting a claim.
Consumers should also be cautious about scams. Pharmaceutical settlements can attract misleading emails, fake websites, and people claiming they can help recover money for a fee. A legitimate class action settlement should not require a person to pay an activation fee, tax fee, release fee, or processing fee in order to receive benefits. Anyone filing should use the official settlement materials and avoid giving unnecessary sensitive information to unknown third parties.
People should also be careful with health information. A claim form may require identifying information and proof of purchase, but consumers should be skeptical of anyone asking for full medical histories, banking credentials, or unrelated personal details. If something looks suspicious, it is better to verify directly through the Claims Administrator before responding.
This settlement also highlights a larger issue that many consumers rarely think about: most people do not know who actually manufactured their generic medications. A pharmacy label may show the drug name and dosage clearly, but the manufacturer name is often small, abbreviated, or easy to overlook. A patient may take the same medication for years while the manufacturer changes multiple times depending on pharmacy supply, insurance contracts, shortages, or pricing.
That creates a practical problem in settlements like this. A person may remember taking metformin, but that alone is not enough. The specific manufacturer matters. That is why old prescription records are so important. They can show whether the product was made by one of the settling defendants during the covered time period.
The settlement also shows how drug contamination cases can be different from ordinary consumer product cases. With a mislabeled food or household product, the consumer may still have the package or remember the exact brand. With prescription drugs, especially generics, the product may have been dispensed in a pharmacy bottle without the original manufacturer packaging. The consumer often relies entirely on pharmacy records to identify the manufacturer.
For anyone who took metformin from 2015 to 2020, the practical checklist is simple. First, confirm whether you purchased or paid for generic metformin during the class period. Second, identify the manufacturer listed in your records. Third, look for Teva, Granules, Heritage, or Avet. Fourth, gather proof showing at least one qualifying purchase. Fifth, file the claim before July 10, 2026.
The settlement will not apply to everyone who took metformin. It will not apply to brand-name metformin products unless the settlement materials specifically identify them as covered. It will not apply to every generic manufacturer. It will not provide personal injury compensation. But for people who purchased qualifying products from the covered manufacturers, it may provide a way to recover part of what they paid.
The bigger takeaway is that consumers should keep prescription records whenever possible, especially for medications taken long term. Pharmacy histories, EOBs, refill records, and medication labels can become important years later when recalls, settlements, or safety issues arise. In many class action settlements, eligibility depends less on whether a person remembers buying a product and more on whether they can prove the purchase.
The metformin NDMA settlement is now in the claim-filing stage. The fund is limited. The deadline is fixed. People who may qualify should not wait until the last week to search for records, especially if they need to request older pharmacy or insurance documents. The earlier those records are gathered, the easier it will be to file correctly and avoid deadline problems.
For consumers who used generic metformin between July 20, 2015 and June 2, 2020, this is the moment to check the paperwork. If the manufacturer was Teva, Granules, Heritage, or Avet, and you can document at least one qualifying purchase, you may be able to submit a claim for a share of the $5.55 million settlement fund.