Vaginal mesh implants, often used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, have unfortunately been linked to serious complications like erosion, pain, and infections. Thousands of women sued the manufacturers. They claim the companies didn’t properly test these products or provide enough warning about the risks involved. As of 2024, vaginal mesh lawsuits have led to settlements totaling millions of dollars across 48 states, with around $8 billion paid out in verdicts and settlements. While most transvaginal mesh lawsuits—about 95%—have been settled, new cases continue to be filed. At Ethen Ostroff Law, we’ll walk you through what a vaginal mesh lawsuit involves, expected settlement amounts, the common complications tied to these devices, and more.
Transvaginal mesh, also referred to as vaginal mesh, is a device used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). These conditions happen when the pelvic muscles become weak, causing organs like the bladder or uterus to shift into the vagina. In the 1970s, doctors used surgical mesh for abdominal repairs. By the 1990s, they started using a similar mesh inserted through the vagina to treat SUI. The FDA approved the first transvaginal mesh in 1996, allowing it on the market because it was just like existing devices. This led to several companies producing their versions by the 2000s.
Soon after, patients and doctors started noticing serious issues with the mesh. Problems like mesh erosion, organ perforation, infections, chronic pain, and urinary issues became common. Many women needed additional surgeries to fix these problems, causing significant physical and emotional distress.
Here’s a look at some of the key players in the country’s vaginal mesh market:
Many women have faced serious problems because of defects in vaginal mesh products. These issues can affect both physical and emotional health. Here are some common complications:
In 2008, the FDA warned about transvaginal mesh, highlighting risks like erosion, pain, infections, and organ damage. They urged companies to better inform patients about these dangers.
By 2011, the FDA intensified their warnings, noting that serious complications with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were common and that mesh didn’t show clear benefits over non-mesh treatments. This spurred national attention, with media coverage fueling concerns. They also discovered that mesh shrinkage could cause severe pain.
In 2012, the FDA required companies to conduct studies on mesh safety and effectiveness. By 2016, they reclassified transvaginal mesh for POP as a high-risk device, demanding proof of safety before it could be sold. By 2019, the FDA banned the sale and distribution of transvaginal mesh for POP repair, finding it wasn’t proven to be safe or effective.
Since the first lawsuit in 2009, thousands of cases have been filed against companies like Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems, and Coloplast over transvaginal mesh issues.
The lawsuits claim:
Complications reported include:
In short, the lawsuits argue that the manufacturers:
These issues continue to drive transvaginal mesh litigation to hold these companies accountable.
Several companies have faced legal action over vaginal mesh implants, resulting in major settlements for affected women. Companies and products involved include:
These companies have been held responsible for problems with their vaginal mesh products.
As more vaginal mesh lawsuits piled up, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined federal cases into several multidistrict litigations (MDLs) starting in 2012. Each MDL focused on a specific manufacturer to make handling the cases more efficient.
The lawsuits were grouped into seven MDLs, covering these manufacturers: C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Ethicon, Coloplast, Cook Medical, and Neomedic. This created one of the largest mass tort cases in U.S. history, with over 100,000 cases.
District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, oversaw these MDLs. Although many cases have been resolved, new lawsuits are still being filed in 2024. Several bellwether trials were held.
As noted, the transvaginal mesh lawsuits were grouped into seven major MDLs in federal court. Each MDL focused on a different manufacturer:
At their peak, these MDLs involved around 100,000 cases. Here’s a breakdown of the four largest:
As of 2024, approximately 95% of the cases in these MDLs have been resolved, with billions paid out in settlements. While new vaginal mesh lawsuits continue to be filed, they are not being processed through these MDLs.
As of September 2024, around 95% of transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been settled or resolved through verdicts. However, lawyers are still taking on new cases. Manufacturers have paid over $8 billion in settlements and verdicts to date. Key developments include:
American Medical Systems:
In 2014, American Medical Systems settled 20,000 claims for up to $830 million.
The company set aside $775 million in 2017 to settle 22,000 claims.
Total settlement costs have reached approximately $2.6 billion.
No new settlements have been announced as of September 2024, though liabilities of about $50.7 million for pelvic mesh cases remain.
Boston Scientific:
C.R. Bard:
Coloplast:
Ethicon:
September 2, 2024. In Oregon, a state court jury is reviewing a malpractice case involving a urologist and a hospital. They’re accused of implanting a Boston Scientific “Uphold Lite” mesh despite FDA warnings, leading to severe complications for the plaintiff. Boston Scientific is no longer involved in the case.
August 24, 2024: An Alabama woman has sued Coloplast in Minnesota, claiming their pelvic mesh devices caused chronic pain and complications. She alleges negligence and fraudulent practices, saying Coloplast didn’t adequately warn about the risks of their products.
August 19, 2024: In England, 140 women who suffered severe complications from vaginal mesh implants have reached a settlement, estimated in the millions, with Johnson & Johnson, Bard, and Boston Scientific. The complications included chronic pain and infections, with many needing further surgery.
August 9, 2024: Great Britain is introducing a compensation system for women harmed by faulty pelvic mesh implants. Starting in 2025, affected women will receive a fixed amount of £20,000, with additional compensation available for severe cases.
July 26, 2024: A Massachusetts federal court case against Boston Scientific involves a defective mesh implant. The plaintiff experienced severe pain and symptoms after surgery, leading to ongoing medical issues and the need for further surgery.
July 22, 2024: A federal appeals court reinstated a transvaginal mesh lawsuit after clarifying that plaintiffs only need to show that an alternative design could reduce injury risk, not eliminate it. The court found the initial trial had wrongly restricted expert testimony.
June 21, 2024: The Eleventh Circuit upheld a $2.5 million verdict against Coloplast Corp. for a defective pelvic mesh. The court found the claim was filed within the statute of limitations, rejecting Coloplast’s argument that the claim was too late.
June 4, 2024: A study found that mid-urethral sling surgeries for stress urinary incontinence have risks, especially for older women and those on hormone replacement therapy. The study highlighted the importance of considering individual patient histories when recommending these devices.
May 26, 2024: A new lawsuit in Minnesota targets Coloplast over its Supris mesh device. The plaintiff claims the mesh caused severe complications and requires ongoing treatment, alleging Coloplast failed to warn of the risks associated with the device.
March 14, 2024: A federal court in Massachusetts has allowed a woman’s lawsuit against Boston Scientific to proceed. She claims pain and disfigurement from the Obtryx pelvic mesh, which was implanted to treat pelvic disorders.
February 26, 2024: A couple from West Virginia has filed a lawsuit against Boston Scientific over a defective pelvic mesh. They allege that the mesh caused severe pain and complications, and that Boston Scientific misled patients about its safety.
February 4, 2023: A study comparing robotic sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery found that while both improved voiding function, robotic surgery was linked to a higher risk of new stress urinary incontinence.
January 22, 2023: A small study in the Czech Republic found that most women had improved sexual function after transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. However, the study’s small size means more research is needed.
December 7, 2023: A new lawsuit against Boston Scientific involves a Solyx BlueSling implant. The plaintiff claims it caused significant pain and complications, with parts of the mesh remaining after removal surgery.
October 27, 2023: In 2015, Boston Scientific settled with 1,200 victims for $53 million. A point allocation formula was used to distribute the funds, and some claimants later sued their attorneys for mishandling their cases, but these claims were dismissed.
October 24, 2023: Over the past year, 27 new vaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed against Boston Scientific, with most still pending. Some cases have already been settled.
October 20, 2023: A Maryland woman has filed a lawsuit against Boston Scientific over an Advantage Fit mesh implant. She experienced ongoing pain and urinary issues and is suing for design defects and failure to warn.
September 1, 2023: Boston Scientific settled a Georgia lawsuit over its Obtryx mesh, which caused chronic pain and complications. The settlement terms were undisclosed, but the case highlights ongoing issues with mesh products.
August 14, 2023: The 8th Circuit Court dismissed a vaginal mesh lawsuit because the expert report was submitted late. The case could have been viable with timely expert testimony.
July 25, 2023: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Bard’s exclusion of FDA 510(k) clearance evidence deprived it of a fair trial. The court called for a new trial, allowing this evidence in the punitive damages phase.
March 24, 2023: The 11th Circuit upheld a $500,000 verdict against Coloplast for a pelvic mesh case. The court supported the jury’s finding that the mesh caused the plaintiff’s injury and rejected Coloplast’s arguments.
April 12, 2022: Coloplast was ordered to pay $2.5 million in a lawsuit over defective pelvic mesh. The jury found Coloplast had misrepresented the mesh’s safety and failed to provide adequate warnings.
Stay informed with the latest transvaginal mesh lawsuit update to understand your legal options and potential compensation for mesh-related injuries.
Vaginal mesh lawsuits are still active. Many cases are still pending against different manufacturers. While a lot of these cases have been settled, some companies are still fighting them in court, and new lawsuits keep coming in.
In 2024, there’s a trend towards handling these cases individually rather than through class actions. Lawyers believe that filing cases one by one can lead to higher settlements or verdicts, as the potential compensation is often greater compared to what might be achieved in a MDL setting.
The legal claims in today’s vaginal mesh lawsuits are pretty much the same ones that have been central to these cases from the beginning. Here’s a quick look at the main types of claims people are making in most vaginal mesh injury lawsuits these days.
If you’ve had issues with a transvaginal mesh implant, knowing your legal options is key. Here’s a simple guide to filing a transvaginal mesh lawsuit:
Navigating a transvaginal mesh lawsuit can be complex. If you’re dealing with complications from these implants, Ethen Ostroff Law can help you understand your options and seek justice.
To qualify for a vaginal mesh lawsuit, the following criteria must be met:
For further guidance, consult a transvaginal mesh lawsuit attorney.
To back up your vaginal mesh lawsuit, you’ll need to gather several types of evidence. Here’s what you might need:
Gathering this evidence can help build a stronger case and show the full impact of the vaginal mesh on your life.
If you win a vaginal mesh lawsuit, you could receive various types of damages to make up for your suffering. Here’s what you might potentially receive:
Understanding these damages can help you know what to expect and what you might be able to claim in your lawsuit.
Having a vaginal mesh lawyer is crucial for your lawsuit. Here’s why:
When it comes to your vaginal mesh case, choosing Ethen Ostroff Law ensures that you’re in good hands. We’ll walk you through each step of the procedure and get you the compensation you deserve. With us, you’ll have a reliable partner dedicated to reaching the best possible outcome for your lawsuit. Contact Ethen Ostroff Law for a free case review.
JUUL was accused of marketing its vape products to kids and teens using fruity flavors and flashy ads. They downplayed how much nicotine their pods actually contained, making them more addictive than people realized. The lawsuits say JUUL helped fuel a youth vaping crisis and didn’t do enough to keep their products out of underage hands.
Yes, you can still file if you used JUUL before December 7, 2022, and ended up with health issues, addiction, or other vaping-related harm. This applies to individuals, parents filing for minors, and even schools or government groups. If you’re not sure whether you qualify, it’s worth asking a lawyer at Ethen Ostroff Law who’s handled JUUL claims.
Some deadlines have passed, but a few settlements are still open depending on your situation. If you qualify and haven’t filed yet, check the official JUUL settlement site as soon as possible. Once a deadline closes, late claims usually aren’t accepted.
Payouts vary—a typical consumer might get around $240, but it can range from $30 to $10,000 depending on your case. Having proof of purchase helps, but you can still file without it. Bigger amounts usually go to people with serious injuries or strong documentation.
Aside from JUUL, brands like Puff Bar, Elf Bar, Vuse, MYLE, and several others are facing lawsuits for marketing to kids and selling flavored vapes. Some are being sued by states like New York and California for breaking tobacco laws and ignoring FDA rules. The vaping industry as a whole is under serious legal pressure right now.
Nicholas began his post-graduate career clerking for the Honorable Linda Rovder Fleming in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas. From there, he quickly found his calling in workers’ compensation, personal injury, and Social Security disability law—areas where he could directly impact people’s lives in moments of crisis. He’s helped clients navigate complex legal claims, including securing a settlement exceeding $300,000.
Nicholas brings clear communication, genuine empathy, and an unrelenting drive to achieve the best outcomes for his clients. Whether he’s navigating a complex workers’ comp claim or pushing for a major settlement, he brings focus, dedication, and deep legal knowledge to every case.
He’s also a proud member of Pennsylvania Advocates for Justice and remains active in various professional legal organizations. Nicholas is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.
When he’s not fighting for the injured, Nicholas is enjoying time with his family, kicking a soccer ball around, hitting the golf course, or cheering on Pittsburgh’s local teams.
Joe Ring heads the workers’ compensation department at Ethen Ostroff Law, where he takes pride in fighting for injured workers.
Joe is a Philadelphia native and maintains deep roots in the area. As the grandson of a Philadelphia Firefighter, son of a Philadelphia public school teacher, and veteran of the United State Marine Corps, he was taught to value service, dedication, and hard work. He applies these values to every case and takes great satisfaction in representing hard-working clients with those same traits.
After obtaining his bachelor’s degree in history from St. Vincent College in Western Pennsylvania, he graduated from Villanova Law School in 2012 and, since then, has litigated hundreds of workers’ compensation hearings and trial depositions on behalf of both employers and injured workers. During this time, Mr. Ring has written articles and presented Continuing Legal Education courses on developments in Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law. He is active in local professional organizations, and, in 2022, he served a Co-chairperson of the Philadelphia Bar Associations Workers’ Compensation Section.
Since coming to EOL in 2024, he has dedicated his practice entirely to helping injured workers navigate the system and obtain their rightful benefits.
Joe is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.
Brandon Zanan heads the personal injury claim department with Ethen Ostroff Law.
Brandon’s education in both law and medicine assist him in expertly representing badly injured victims. Brandon has a Master’s Degree in Forensic Medicine from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, with a concentration in anatomy and pathology. With this knowledge, Brandon is skilled at analyzing medical records and understanding injuries that are common in personal injury claims. He uses this expertise in conjunction with listening carefully to each client’s needs, in order to fiercely advocate for clients and tell their stories when they would not otherwise have a voice.
Brandon’s background includes a variety of experience and skills in various areas of civil practice. He is the author and editor of numerous books for the George T. Bisel Publishing Company, including “Pennsylvania Damages” and the “Pennsylvania Vehicle Code Annotated,” two texts that are frequently relied on by lawyers and judges across Pennsylvania as authoritative resources on personal injury law.
Brandon is a member of the Pennsylvania and Montgomery Bar Associations. He is also a member of Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and has served as an executive board member of the Montgomery American Inn of Court.
He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Middle District of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Brandon has represented many clients in motor vehicle, premises liability, animal bite, and products liability cases across Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has obtained outstanding results with millions of dollars recovered for his clients.
He has been named a Pennsylvania Rising Star from 2021 onward. The “Super Lawyers-Rising Star®”, list recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state
Brandon currently lives in Malvern with his wife Rachel and their son Max.
Effective Date: July 10, 2024
General Information
Welcome to the website of Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC (“EO”). By accessing or using our website, you agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions (“Terms”). If you do not agree with these Terms, please do not use our website.
Use
EO hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, limited right and license to access and use the Site solely for your personal use in accordance with these Terms of Use. You shall not, in any way, otherwise copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, modify, create derivative works from, sell, or exploit the Site.
EO may at any time, for any reason, and without notice or liability: (a) modify, suspend, or terminate operation of or access to the Site and related services, or (b) change, revise, or modify the Site and affiliated services.
Messaging and Automated Calls
When you opt-in, you will receive text messages (SMS/MMS) on your mobile number. These messages may contain information about your case, and the message frequency may vary from user to user. Please note that message and data rates may apply. If you wish to opt out of this service, you can do so anytime by simply texting “STOP” to the phone number. Once you text “STOP” to us, we will send you an SMS to confirm that you have been unsubscribed. If you encounter any issues, you can reply with the keyword “HELP” to get assistance. Please be aware that carriers are not responsible for any delayed or undelivered messages.
By providing your phone number and submitting a form on our website, you consent to receive communications, including automated calls, texts, and pre-recorded messages, from EO and its affiliates. These communications may include updates about your case, promotional offers, and other information. You understand that these calls may be generated using automated technology, and that standard message and data rates may apply.
Your consent to receive automated calls is not a condition of any purchase or service. By checking the consent box on our contact form or by calling our firm, you agree to these Terms and Conditions and provide your written consent to receive these communications. You may opt out of these communications at any time by replying STOP to any text message or by contacting us at [insert contact information].
State-Specific Compliance
EO complies with all federal and state laws regarding automated calls and telemarketing practices. Certain states have additional restrictions on the use of automated dialing systems and pre-recorded messages. The following states have more restrictive regulations:
If you are a resident of one of these states, EO will obtain your prior express written consent before making any automated calls or sending pre-recorded messages to you.
By submitting a form inquiry or calling our firm, you agree to us contacting you, and your checking the box when submitting your form inquiry serves as written consent.
Information and Legal Disclaimer
The information contained in this website is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Testimonials and case results contained in this website are for demonstrative purposes only, and do not constitute a guarantee of any particular outcome in a specific case.
By requesting a free consultation with Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC, you agree to the following:
The law differs in every jurisdiction, and you should not rely on any opinion except that of an attorney you have retained, who has a professional duty to advise you after being fully informed of all the pertinent facts, and who is licensed in the applicable state, and is familiar with the applicable law. Internet subscribers, mobile application users, and online readers should seek professional counsel about their legal rights and remedies. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information found on the Site. Any actions or decisions about your legal rights should be based on the particular facts and circumstances of your situation, and appropriate legal advice from an attorney retained directly by you. EO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BASED UPON ANY INFORMATION OR OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS SITE. Viewing the Site, or communicating with EO by Internet e-mail or through the Site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with anyone. The content and features on the Site do not create, and are not intended to create, an attorney-client relationship, and shall not be construed as legal advice. The content and features of the Site, including means to submit a question or information, do not constitute an offer to represent you or otherwise give rise to an attorney/client relationship.
THE SITE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”. EO MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE SITE AND ONLINE SERVICES AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, EO DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE ONLINE SERVICES OR PRODUCTS WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR WILL BE ERROR-FREE, UNINTERRUPTED, OR FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS, OR THAT ANY DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED.
Accounts
To use some features of the Site, you may be required to create an account. In connection therewith, you agree to provide and maintain true, accurate, current, and complete information about yourself. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the information you hold for your account login, including your password, and for all Submissions made from your account. You agree to notify us immediately of any unauthorized use of your login. EO may suspend access to your account if it suspects illegal or improper use, or for other reasons, such as for account management purposes, at its sole discretion.
Confidentiality is Not Guaranteed
Information sent to Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC. via Internet e-mail or through the Site is not secure and is done on a non-confidential basis. EO may make reasonable efforts to keep communications private, but because of the nature of Internet communications and the absence of an attorney/client relationship, we cannot promise or guarantee confidentiality.
DISCLAIMER – This Site Does Not Provide Medical Diagnosis or Advice
The content provided on the Site, such as documents, text, graphics, images, videos, news alerts, pharmaceutical drug recalls, prescription medication history, or information on litigation concerning the foregoing topics, or other materials, is for informational purposes only. The information is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a physician for diagnosis and treatment of any medical condition or for any questions you may have regarding a health concern. Never disregard professional medical advice, alter a prescription plan in any way, or delay or refrain from seeking medical advice because of something you have read or seen on the Site. Links to other sites are provided for information only. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by EO.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Site may present information about pharmaceutical drug recalls, which is for information purposes only. Such information is not necessarily the most current information on the subject and may or may not be updated based on the last information concerning such recalls. Do not make any decisions regarding medication or medical providers based on information from the Site, including but not limited to information we provide about drug recalls.
EO Is Not Responsible for Content; Limitation on Liability
EO may periodically change, remove, or add the material on the Site without notice. This material may contain technical or typographical errors. EO DOES NOT GUARANTEE ITS ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR SUITABILITY. EO assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the contents of the Site. Your use of the Site is at your own risk. Under no circumstances shall EO or any other party involved in the creation, production, or delivery of the Site be liable to you or any other person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind arising from your access to, or use of, the Site. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN NO EVENT SHALL EO BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATING TO THIS MATERIAL, FOR ANY USE OF THIS WEBSITE, OR FOR ANY OTHER LINKED WEBSITE.
Third-party Web Sites
The Site contains links to third-party websites for the convenience of our users. EO does not endorse any of these third-party sites and does not imply any association between EO and those sites. EO does not control these third-party websites and cannot represent that their policies and practices will be consistent with these Terms of Use. If you use links to access and use such websites, you do so at your own risk. EO is not responsible for the contents or availability of any linked sites. These links are provided only as a convenience to the recipient. These Terms only apply to the Site and do not apply to any linked sites. We encourage you to read and understand the terms of use of any linked sites that you visit. Links do not imply that we sponsor, endorse, are affiliated with or associated with, or are legally authorized to use any trademark, trade name, service mark, design, logo, symbol, or other copyrighted materials displayed on or accessible through any linked site.
EO Clients
Only individuals who have entered into a mutually signed retainer agreement with EO are EO clients (“EO Clients”).
Legal and Ethical Requirements
EO has tried to comply with all legal and ethical requirements in compiling the Site. We welcome comments about our compliance with the applicable rules and will update the Site as warranted, upon learning of any new or different requirements.
Ethen Ostroff Law reserves the right to refer or sell leads that come through any of Ethen Ostroff Law’s marketing.
Ethen Ostroff Law also may sell leads on certain campaigns generated in association with third party marketing companies.
Governing Laws in Case of Dispute; Jurisdiction
These Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, USA, without regard to any choice of law principles. Any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed as set forth in the Arbitration section below.
Submissions
You are solely responsible for any information, content, or material you transmit to or through the Site (“Submissions”). You understand that Submissions are considered non-confidential and non-proprietary. Furthermore, you grant EO an unrestricted, irrevocable, perpetual, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-free license to use, copy, reproduce, display, publish, publicly perform, transmit, and distribute any Submission, without compensation or accounting to you or anyone else. You represent and warrant that: (a) you have the right to submit the Submission to EO and grant the licenses as described above; (b) EO will not need to obtain licenses from any third party or pay royalties to any third party for its use of the Submission; (c) the Submission does not infringe any third party’s rights, including intellectual property rights and privacy rights; and (d) the Submission complies with these Terms of Use and all applicable laws and regulations.
EO takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Submission.
Arbitration
Any and all claims by you arising out of or related to the Site or your use thereof may be resolved only through a binding arbitration proceeding to be conducted under the auspices of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Both your agreement to arbitrate all controversies, disputes and claims, and the results and awards rendered through the arbitration, will be final and binding on you and may be specifically enforced by legal proceedings. Arbitration will be the sole means of resolving such controversies, disputes and claims, and you waive your rights to resolve such controversies, disputes and claims by court proceedings or any other means. You agree that judgment may be entered on the award in any court of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, any award rendered shall be binding. The arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding. You understand that by agreeing to arbitration as a mechanism to resolve all controversies, disputes and claims between us, you are waiving certain rights, including the right to bring an action in court, the right to a jury trial, the right to broad discovery, and the right to an appeal. You understand that in the context of arbitration, a case is decided by an arbitrator (one or more), not by a judge or a jury.
International Use
The Site is controlled, operated, and administered by EO from offices within the United States of America and is only intended for use therein. We make no representation regarding use of the Site outside of the United States.
Other Terms
If, for any reason, our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, or any portion thereof to be unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give the intended effect thereof, and the remainder of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy shall continue in full force and effect. EO’s failure to act with respect to a breach by you or others does not waive our right to act with respect to that breach or subsequent or similar breaches. No consent or waiver by EO hereof will be deemed effective unless in writing. These Terms of Use, together with our Privacy Policy, as each is currently posted, constitute the entire agreement between EO and you with respect to your use of the Site and supersede all previous written or oral agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, that this agreement shall not supersede, restrict, or replace any agreements governing the attorney-client relationship between EO and EO Clients.
EO may, in its sole discretion and without prior notice, block and/or terminate your access to the Site and if we determine that you have violated these Terms of Use or other terms or agreements or that may be associated therewith or if you use the Site in a way that we deem, in our sole discretion, to be an unacceptable use.
