No plaintiff in the United States has ever won a cell phone brain cancer lawsuit at trial. Since the first such suit was filed in 1992, federal and state courts have thrown these cases out for one of two reasons, and often both: the scientific evidence offered to prove that a phone caused a tumor has been ruled unreliable under the standards governing expert testimony, and federal communications law has been held to preempt state-law claims that FCC-compliant phones are unsafe. A major consolidated case is currently on appeal in Washington, D.C., but the legal terrain has not shifted.
The Two Walls Every Plaintiff Has Hit
Understanding why these cases fail matters more than any single verdict, because the same two obstacles have defeated every lawsuit for three decades.
The first is evidentiary. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, federal judges act as gatekeepers who must decide, before a jury hears anything, whether expert testimony rests on reliable scientific methodology. To win a cancer case, a plaintiff needs experts who can credibly testify that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors in general and that it caused this plaintiff’s tumor in particular. Judges have repeatedly found that the experts plaintiffs put forward do not meet that bar.
The second is federal preemption. The FCC sets exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from cell phones. Courts have held that allowing a jury to declare an FCC-compliant phone unsafe would conflict with the federal regulatory scheme, and that state tort law must yield.
How the Evidence Wall Has Played Out
Reynard v. NEC (1992–1995)
H. David Reynard of Madeira Beach, Florida filed the first U.S. tort suit of this kind in late 1992, suing NEC Corp. and GTE Mobilnet after his wife died of a brain tumor. On May 17, 1995, U.S. District Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. dismissed the case, calling the evidence “junk science” under the then-new Daubert standard.1RCR Wireless News. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit That Alleged Relationship Between Phones, Cancer
Newman v. Motorola (2002)
Dr. Christopher Newman, a Maryland neurologist, sued Motorola and several carriers for $800 million, alleging that analog cell phone use in the 1990s caused an anaplastic astrocytoma behind his right ear.2CBS News. Cell Phone Lawsuit Dismissed His team leaned on research by Swedish oncologist Lennart Hardell suggesting analog users had roughly a 30 percent higher risk of brain tumors.3Baltimore Sun. Evidence Denied in Cell Phone Lawsuit
On September 30, 2002, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake dismissed the case. She questioned Hardell’s methodology, citing potential recall bias, and ruled that the plaintiffs’ showing was “overwhelmed by a body of evidence that shows no relationship between cell phone radiation and cancer.”2CBS News. Cell Phone Lawsuit Dismissed Reliable epidemiological evidence was essential, she held, and none meeting Daubert had been produced.4Justia. Christopher Newman v. Motorola Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 769
Murray v. Motorola: The D.C. Consolidation
The largest ongoing U.S. case is Murray v. Motorola, a consolidation of thirteen suits in D.C. Superior Court against defendants including Motorola, Apple, AT&T, LG, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Verizon. It started in November 2001 with Michael Murray, who had developed a malignant glioma he attributed to testing cell phones. By 2015 the combined claims reportedly sought nearly $2 billion.5Microwave News. Judge Bars Expert Witnesses
The case briefly looked more promising for plaintiffs. Judge Frederick Weisberg held four weeks of hearings, took roughly 280 exhibits, and in August 2014 allowed five of six plaintiff experts to testify under D.C.’s then-prevailing Frye/Dyas test, while noting that most would likely be excluded under the stricter federal Daubert standard.5Microwave News. Judge Bars Expert Witnesses
In October 2016, the D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for D.C. courts, replacing Frye/Dyas, and remanded the cases for fresh proceedings under the new standard.6National Center for Judicial Independence. Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 On April 25, 2023, Judge Alfred Irving Jr. barred all six of the plaintiffs’ experts — Igor Belyaev, Michael Kundi, Abraham Liboff, Wilhelm Mosgöller, Dimitris Panagopoulos, and Laura Plunkett — finding their testimony lacked sufficient facts, data, and reliable methodology. Without expert testimony on causation, the plaintiffs had no case, and on August 1, 2023, Judge Irving entered final judgment for the defendants.5Microwave News. Judge Bars Expert Witnesses
The appeal, docketed as No. 23-CV-0700 in the D.C. Court of Appeals, covers Murray and twelve related cases: Agro, Cochran, Schwamb, Schofield, Keller, Marks, Kidd, Prischman, Bocook, Brown, Solomon, and Noroski. In their April 2024 reply brief, the plaintiffs argued the Superior Court committed “clear error” and “abuse of discretion” by excluding expert reports and newer research, and called the exclusion of Dr. Portier “severely prejudicial.”7D.C. Courts. Appellants’ Consolidated Reply Brief, Case No. 23-CV-0700 Roughly 67 related cases remain pending, some with parties who have agreed to be bound by the Murray outcome.5Microwave News. Judge Bars Expert Witnesses
How the Preemption Wall Works
Even a plaintiff with admissible science faces a second barrier. Courts have held that state tort claims attacking the safety of FCC-compliant phones conflict with federal law.
Murray (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2009)
In an earlier phase of the Murray litigation, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that claims alleging FCC-certified phones were unsafe due to radiofrequency radiation were preempted, because jury verdicts of the sort plaintiffs sought would “alter the balance struck by the FCC.” Two categories survived: claims involving pre-1996 phones that were never FCC-certified, and claims under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act alleging false or misleading statements.8Environmental Health Trust. Cell Phone Radiation Litigation
Farina v. Nokia (Third Circuit, 2010)
The leading federal appellate precedent is Farina v. Nokia Inc., a putative class action alleging manufacturers sold unsafe phones without headsets and misrepresented RF risks. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the FCC has “exclusive” authority over the technical aspects of radio communications and that state tort claims challenging the adequacy of FCC-adopted RF standards would “disrupt the expert balancing underlying the federal scheme.”9vLex. Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 The Telecommunications Act’s savings clauses did not override implied conflict preemption.10Bloomberg Law. Federal Preemption of Claims Based on Cell Phone Hazards The Supreme Court declined to take the case.
Cohen v. Apple (Ninth Circuit, 2022)
Eleven plaintiffs sued Apple and Samsung in 2019, alleging certain iPhone and Galaxy models emitted radiation exceeding the FCC’s 1.6 W/kg limit, with the iPhone 7 allegedly reaching 7.15 W/kg and Galaxy S8 models 8.22 W/kg.11Top Class Actions. Apple Samsung Class Action Says Phones Emit Radiation U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted summary judgment for the defendants in October 2020 on preemption grounds.12ClassAction.org. Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Apple iPhone, Samsung Galaxy Increases Cancer Risk, Class Action Alleges On appeal, the plaintiffs conceded the emissions were actually below FCC limits. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in August 2022, holding that even claims involving radiation below the FCC’s maximum were preempted because they conflicted with the FCC’s regulatory objectives.13U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cohen v. Apple Inc., No. 20-17307
What the Science Actually Shows
Judges have not ruled on whether cell phones cause cancer; they have ruled that the evidence offered to prove it in court is not reliable enough. The underlying science is contested.
The Hardell group’s research is the plaintiffs’ most-cited body of work. A 2007 review reported an odds ratio of 2.0 for glioma and 2.4 for acoustic neuroma among ten-year-plus users of mobile phones on the same side of the head as the tumor.14National Center for Biotechnology Information. Long-Term Use of Cellular Phones and Brain Tumours A 2013 analysis reported stronger associations at higher cumulative use.15PubMed. Use of Mobile Phones and Cordless Phones Is Associated With Increased Risk for Glioma and Acoustic Neuroma Courts have questioned Hardell’s methodology and noted that other researchers have not replicated the findings.
In May 2011, a WHO-convened IARC working group classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B), based on “limited” evidence of increased glioma risk from the INTERPHONE study and Hardell’s research. Group 2B means a positive association has been observed but chance, bias, or confounding could not be ruled out.16IARC/WHO. IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans17WHO India. Electromagnetic Fields IARC has flagged RF-EMF for reassessment during 2025–2029.18German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS). Exposure to Radiofrequency
The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s final reports in November 2018, from a $30 million ten-year study, found “clear evidence” of heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to whole-body RF radiation at 1.5 to 10 W/kg, and “some evidence” of brain and adrenal tumors. Results for female rats and both sexes of mice were “equivocal.” NTP researchers cautioned that human cell phone exposure is localized and typically at lower power than the study levels.19National Institutes of Health. High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats Italy’s Ramazzini Institute independently reported a statistically significant rise in heart schwannomas among male rats exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation.20ScienceDirect. Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats
The FCC Standard and the EHT Remand
The FCC’s exposure limit for cell phones is a Specific Absorption Rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, adopted in 1996 and unchanged since.21FCC. Radio Frequency Safety The limit was designed to protect against short-term tissue heating.
The FCC closed a review of those limits in 2019, concluding they remained adequate. On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC that the agency had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously,” having failed to explain why it ignored evidence on non-cancer health effects, children, long-term exposure, and environmental impacts. The court ordered the FCC to conduct a fresh review or adequately explain its existing standards.22FCC. D.C. Circuit Decision, Environmental Health Trust v. FCC23Environmental Health Trust. Federal Court Finds FCC Failed to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence As of August 2025, the FCC has taken no formal action on the remand. On August 7, 2025, the Environmental Health Trust filed a new petition urging the agency to act, citing a 2025 WHO-commissioned scientific review that reportedly found RF exposure “increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals.”24Communications Daily. Environmental Health Trust Seeks FCC Action on RF Safety Remand Because the preemption defense turns on FCC standards, any future change in those standards could reshape the litigation.
Where a Claim Might Still Have Room
The preemption rulings do not sweep everything away. Under the D.C. Court of Appeals’ 2009 Murray decision, claims involving pre-1996 phones that were never FCC-certified were allowed to proceed, and so were claims alleging false or misleading statements under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.8Environmental Health Trust. Cell Phone Radiation Litigation Those categories are narrow, and even in them a plaintiff still has to clear the expert-testimony hurdle.
The few U.S. resolutions favorable to claimants have all been employment-related and small. Sharesa Price received $30,000 in a 2005 workers’ compensation claim for medical expenses linked to RF exposure. Kane v. Motorola (1994) and Wright v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (1996) were settled confidentially and both involved employees rather than consumers.8Environmental Health Trust. Cell Phone Radiation Litigation No consumer suit in the United States has produced a verdict or publicly disclosed settlement for a plaintiff alleging a cell phone caused brain cancer.
Courts abroad have gone differently. Italy’s Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that a businessman’s brain tumor was caused by excessive mobile phone use and ordered workers’ compensation benefits. In 2017, the Court of Ivrea awarded telecom employee Roberto Romeo lifetime damages of 500 euros per month, and a 2019 Monza court recognized a former airport employee’s acoustic neuroma as an occupational disease tied to a decade of mobile phone use.8Environmental Health Trust. Cell Phone Radiation Litigation Those rulings have no force in U.S. courts, but they show that on similar science, different legal systems have reached different conclusions.
For anyone considering a suit in the United States today, the practical picture is this: the pending D.C. Court of Appeals decision in No. 23-CV-0700 will decide whether the plaintiffs’ experts get a second look under Rule 702, and any FCC response to the 2021 remand could change the preemption calculus. Until one of those shifts, the two walls remain standing.