Mass Tort Lead Qualification: Why Generic Pre-Screens Produce Docket Mismatches That Cost $500+ Per Wasted Lead

Gate 1: Product or Exposure Source — By Exact Name

Not “did you use herbicides.” Did you use Roundup brand glyphosate herbicide — not Ortho, not a store brand, not a different Bayer product.

Not “were you exposed to firefighting foam.” Did you work with AFFF — aqueous film-forming foam — at a military installation or fire department training facility, not just in proximity to any firefighting operation.

Not “did you take a contraceptive injection.” Did you receive Depo-Provera — the brand name — not another injectable contraceptive.

Why this specificity matters: the named defendants in each MDL are specific manufacturers of specific products. A claimant who used a competitor’s herbicide, a different firefighting agent, or a different injectable contraceptive may have a genuine exposure claim — but not to the specific product in the active MDL. You are not generating mass tort leads. You are generating plaintiff leads for a specific defendant. The product confirmation must match the defendant.

The second form disqualifies people before delivery. The first form sends them to your intake team.

Gate 2: Exposure Duration and Dates

Most dockets require minimum exposure periods. This is not background information — it’s a qualifying criterion.

Roundup requires multi-year use, not occasional application. Suboxone film cases require 6+ months of use. Camp Lejeune required 30+ days of residence between 1953 and 1987. Hair relaxer cases are building toward a 4+ year use threshold as the docket matures. NEC cases require that the specific formula was administered in the NICU — the date and context matter.

Why this matters: a one-time user of Roundup who develops NHL has a dramatically weaker causation argument than someone who used it regularly for a decade. MDLs are built around population-level causation — the litigation’s scientific foundation is exposure duration. Cases below the minimum exposure threshold are significantly harder to settle and often don’t meet buyer criteria.

Only “More than 2 years” passes this gate.

Gate 3: Qualifying Diagnosis — Not a Category, a Condition

This is the gate where the highest volume of disqualification happens — and where generic forms fail most catastrophically.

AFFF cases require a PFAS-linked cancer diagnosis: bladder cancer, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, or thyroid cancer. Not lung cancer. Not breast cancer. Not leukemia. Those may be terrible diagnoses. They are not qualifying diagnoses for AFFF as the MDL currently stands.

Roundup requires non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Not Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Not other lymphomas. Not leukemia. NHL specifically.

Depo-Provera requires meningioma — a specific type of brain tumor. Not glioblastoma, not astrocytoma, not other brain tumors. Meningioma.

Hair relaxer cases require uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer. Not breast cancer. Not cervical cancer. The NIH study that drove this litigation identified specific cancer types linked to chemical straightener use.

The second question disqualifies every claimant with any other cancer — including dozens of cancers that are genuinely terrible but are not part of the Roundup MDL. Your intake team cannot do anything with those cases.

Gate 4: SOL Verified Under the Discovery Rule

Mass tort SOL does not work like PI SOL. This is the gate most generic vendors skip entirely.

In personal injury, the SOL window runs from the incident date. Two years from the car accident. Straightforward.

In mass tort, most dockets operate under the discovery rule: the SOL window runs from the date the claimant knew — or reasonably should have known — that their injury was caused by the product. Not from the exposure date.

A claimant exposed to AFFF in 1995 who received a PFAS-linked cancer diagnosis in 2023 and only recently learned the connection to firefighting foam exposure is not SOL-barred despite exposure 28 years ago. Their window runs from when they discovered — or should have discovered — the causal connection.

A claimant who received a mesothelioma diagnosis in 2019 and knew immediately it was asbestos-related may have a different SOL calculation than a claimant who received the same diagnosis and only recently connected it to a specific occupational exposure.

Additionally, some dockets carry federal filing deadlines established by MDL courts that are separate from — and sometimes earlier than — state SOL rules. These are hard cutoffs that override state law for claims within the MDL.

A vendor who doesn’t understand the discovery rule is delivering SOL-expired leads wrapped in docket labels.

Gate 5: Representation Status — Full Stop

This gate is the same as PI: already represented = do not deliver.

But in mass tort, it requires one additional question that standard PI forms don’t ask: Has this claim been submitted to any settlement fund, class action notice process, or mass tort litigation network?

Some claimants have submitted claims through advertising they saw years ago, without understanding what they submitted to. They may say “no attorney” but have existing claims registered with aggregation operations or settlement administrators. Those submissions complicate or foreclose new representation.