Mary Jannotta spent decades slicing meat and cheese behind deli counters at Acme and Pathmark supermarkets in the Philadelphia suburbs. A botched back surgery in 2008 left her in chronic pain, and her doctor repeatedly prescribed OxyContin — the high-dose opioid that Purdue Pharma later admitted it criminally marketed and distributed. She soon became dependent on the medication. Cut off by her doctors, she turned to Kensington, Philadelphia's dangerous open-air drug market, to obtain pills. She lost her car, her home — and her grandson.

Tyler Cordeiro first pilfered Jannotta's prescription pills as a teenager. He was 24 when he died of an overdose in 2020. When Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019, Jannotta joined nearly 140,000 other people in filing claims against the company for the harm its drugs caused. After years of waiting, a federal judge approved a new $7.4 billion bankruptcy plan last November that would allow payouts to start.

But ProPublica and The Philadelphia Inquirer found that tens of thousands of those original claimants will be shut out of the settlement entirely. Fewer than half of those who filed claims will receive any compensation under the new plan, despite Purdue marketing it as 'the only opioid settlement to date that meaningfully compensates individual victims.' The plan slashed payment amounts, imposed tougher eligibility requirements and eliminated compensation for teenagers who purchased Purdue drugs on the street.

What the Left Is Saying

Advocates for victims and progressive critics say the revised settlement betrays those who suffered most from the opioid crisis. They argue that removing the affidavit option disproportionately harms families who lost loved ones years ago and cannot produce prescription records from a decade past.

Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., has been among the most vocal critics of settlements that protect the Sackler family. 'These victims have waited years for justice, and now they're being told they don't qualify because they can't find a prescription from 2015,' Manchin said in a statement. 'The system is failing them twice.'

The National Association of Attorney Generals has expressed concern that the tightened eligibility requirements may exclude some of the most vulnerable victims. Consumer advocacy groups have noted that similar sworn statements were permitted in other major bankruptcy cases, including those stemming from sexual abuse claims against the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church.

Victims' rights attorneys argue that the changes effectively reward Purdue for years of litigation. 'Every time victims thought they were close to compensation, the goalposts moved,' said one attorney who represents families in opioid litigation. 'First it was the Supreme Court rejecting the first plan, now it's eligibility requirements that most claimants can't meet.'

What the Right Is Saying

Defenders of the bankruptcy process say the new settlement represents a fair and achievable resolution that will provide meaningful compensation to tens of thousands of victims while avoiding the legal pitfalls that doomed the first plan. They note that the original settlement was rejected precisely because it offered overly broad protections to the Sackler family.

The Department of Justice, which negotiated portions of the settlement, has emphasized that the current plan delivers more money to more victims than would have been possible under a prolonged legal battle. The settlement includes $6.5 billion for state and local governments, $500 million for schools and $200 million for tribes — in addition to the $870 million set aside for individual victims.

Some bankruptcy law experts say the tightened eligibility requirements are necessary to prevent fraud and ensure that settlement funds go to legitimate claimants. 'You can't have a system where anyone can simply claim they were harmed without documentation,' said one legal analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'The courts have an obligation to verify claims.'

Supporters also point out that the Sackler family has agreed to surrender billions in assets and that no future lawsuits can be filed against them — a provision that provides finality for all parties. 'This settlement brings substantial resources to communities devastated by the opioid crisis while ending years of litigation,' the DOJ said in a statement.

What the Numbers Show

The revised settlement represents a dramatic reduction in compensation compared to the original plan. Estimated payouts for families who lost loved ones to fatal overdoses have dropped from $48,000 to as little as $8,000 — an 83% reduction. The previous plan had allocated more than $700 million for individual victims; the new plan sets aside $870 million, but far fewer claimants qualify.

Court records show that approximately 63,000 people met the final deadline to file evidence for their claims by late July 2025. Of those, roughly half are expected to receive compensation under the new eligibility criteria. The original pool of claimants numbered nearly 140,000.

The key change involves documentation requirements. Under the original plan, victims could submit sworn affidavits attesting to their opioid use in lieu of medical or legal records. The new plan eliminated this option, requiring claimants to produce prescription records, pharmacy records or other verifiable documentation. Purdue sold opioids for decades, but most states require doctors, hospitals and pharmacies to keep prescription records for only a few years.

The settlement also changed who qualifies as a victim. The new plan excludes compensation for teenagers who purchased Purdue opioids on the street, narrowing the definition of eligible claimants to those with direct prescriptions or their immediate family members.

The Bottom Line

The Purdue settlement illustrates the tension between delivering compensation to victims and maintaining the integrity of a bankruptcy process that must balance thousands of competing claims. Tens of thousands of people who waited years for resolution will receive nothing, while those who do qualify will receive substantially less than originally promised.

Victims' advocates are urging Congress to explore additional remedies, though no specific legislative proposals have gained traction. The settlement funds are expected to begin flowing to qualified claimants in the coming months, but the experience has left many feeling betrayed by a system they believed would finally hold Purdue accountable.

What to watch: State attorneys general, who negotiated much of the settlement, may face pressure to revisit eligibility criteria. Victims' lawyers are also exploring whether certain documentation problems can be addressed through administrative appeals. The first payments are expected to begin in mid-2026.