Ozempic Faces Growing Blindness Lawsuits

According to one news report, dozens of people are suing after Ozempic reportedly left them blind—including early plaintiff Todd Engel, who filed an Ozempic lawsuit last year—even as NAION has traditionally been considered rare and only loosely associated with the drug.

Plaintiffs across the U.S. allege that semaglutide-based drugs—including Ozempic and Wegovy—are linked to NAION, a condition that can cause sudden and sometimes permanent blindness. Like Engel’s complaint, these lawsuits also claim that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the potential risk of NAION.

NAION is caused by reduced blood flow to the optic nerve and is the leading cause of sudden optic nerve-related vision loss. It typically presents as painless vision loss in one eye, often noticed upon waking. In some cases, it can progress to both eyes, leaving patients permanently impaired. The condition has long been associated with underlying health issues such as diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea—complicating efforts to determine whether medications like Ozempic play a causal role.

Still, emerging research has raised concern. A 2024 study published in JAMA Ophthalmology reported a higher incidence of NAION among patients taking semaglutide compared to those on other diabetes therapies, though it stopped short of establishing causation.

Litigation Gains Momentum

The vision loss lawsuits have now been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL), allowing similar claims to proceed together and enabling plaintiffs to seek internal company documents and testimony about what manufacturers knew regarding potential risks. This structure is commonly used in large pharmaceutical disputes and often signals that litigation has reached a critical mass. The NAION claims are being handled separately from other GLP-1 lawsuits involving gastrointestinal complications, reflecting distinct scientific questions around optic nerve damage.

Some complaints point to clinical trial data and adverse event reports as early warning signs. According to allegations cited in litigation, cases of NAION were identified during clinical development, raising questions about whether stronger warnings should have been issued.

One study referenced in complaints found that semaglutide use was associated with more than double the risk of NAION, even after adjusting for other risk factors.

Earlier filings helped bring attention to the issue. Engel alleged in his lawsuit filed last year that his neuro-ophthalmologist raised the possibility of a connection between Ozempic and his vision loss, reflecting the broader uncertainty within the medical community. His complaint also highlights that some physicians are considering whether GLP-1 drugs may contribute to optic nerve injury in certain patients.

Causation remains the central challenge. Because NAION is already associated with conditions common among GLP-1 users—particularly diabetes—defendants are expected to argue that the injuries reflect underlying health risks rather than a drug effect.

Plaintiffs, meanwhile, will rely on emerging studies, adverse event data, and expert testimony to argue that the drugs increase that baseline risk in a meaningful way.

Regulatory Uncertainty

Regulators have not yet reached a definitive conclusion. The FDA is currently evaluating whether a safety signal exists linking GLP-1 drugs to NAION. At present, NAION is not listed as an adverse reaction in U.S. prescribing information for semaglutide-based medications.

This regulatory gray zone is typical in early-stage litigation, where courts are often asked to weigh evolving science against existing labeling and guidance.

But the stakes are amplified by the widespread use of GLP-1 drugs. Originally developed to treat Type 2 diabetes, these medications are now widely used for weight loss, dramatically expanding the patient population. Even a rare complication can translate into significant legal exposure when millions of people are taking the drug.

What Comes Next

As the MDL progresses, the focus will shift to internal company records, expert testimony, and additional scientific studies. Early bellwether trials may shape how juries interpret the evidence—and whether the cases move toward settlement or prolonged litigation.

For now, the lawsuits reflect a familiar pattern: a widely used drug, emerging safety questions, and a legal system tasked with sorting out whether early warning signs were missed—or ignored.