The Paragard IUD lawsuit: eligibility and current MDL status
The Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) is a T-shaped copper contraceptive that prevents pregnancy for up to 10 years. It's the only non-hormonal IUD approved for use in the United States and has been on the market in some form since the 1980s. The manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals (with CooperSurgical as a co-defendant after a 2017 acquisition), markets it as safe and easy to remove at the end of its 10-year lifespan or whenever the patient chooses.
The lawsuits claim something different. More than 7,000 adverse event reports submitted to the FDA describe the same pattern: a healthcare provider attempts to remove the Paragard, the device's plastic arms fracture during the procedure, and pieces of the IUD remain embedded in the uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, or surrounding tissue. Many of those breakages have led to surgical procedures to retrieve embedded fragments, including hysterectomies in severe cases, and to ongoing complications including pain, infection, infertility, and organ damage.
The federal litigation is centralized in MDL 2974 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Leigh Martin May. As of April 2026, approximately 3,595 cases are pending, making it the 10th-largest MDL currently active in federal court. The first bellwether trial concluded in February 2026 with a defense verdict, but the litigation continues with rescheduled bellwether trials and active discovery.
This is what the lawsuits allege, who qualifies, where the litigation stands after the first trial, and what comes next.
The product and the alleged defect
The Paragard IUD consists of a polyethylene plastic frame in a T-shape, wrapped with copper wire. The plastic frame has two flexible "arms" at the top of the T that flex during insertion and removal. The copper wire provides the contraceptive effect by creating an environment hostile to sperm and fertilization.
The alleged design defect concerns the plastic arms. Plaintiffs allege that the arms can become brittle during the 10-year implantation period, particularly when the device has been in place for several years. When a healthcare provider attempts to remove the device by pulling on the strings (the standard removal procedure), the brittle arms can fracture rather than flex back to the device's body. The broken pieces remain in the uterus or migrate to surrounding tissue.
Removal of broken fragments requires more invasive procedures than standard IUD removal. Depending on where the fragments end up, removal may require hysteroscopy (a procedure to visualize and retrieve fragments from the uterine cavity), laparoscopy (abdominal surgery to retrieve fragments that have migrated outside the uterus), or in severe cases, hysterectomy.
Complications reported in the litigation:
Embedded fragments. Pieces of the broken IUD remaining in the uterine wall, cervix, or fallopian tubes.
Migration. Fragments traveling through the uterine wall into the abdominal cavity or attaching to surrounding organs.
Surgical intervention. Procedures required to locate and retrieve broken pieces, ranging from hysteroscopic retrieval to hysterectomy.
Pelvic pain. Chronic pain related to embedded fragments, infection, or scarring.
Infection and inflammation. Pelvic inflammatory disease related to retained foreign objects.
Infertility. Damage to reproductive organs from broken fragments or from surgical removal procedures.
Organ perforation. Fragments perforating the uterus or other organs during their migration.
The FDA initiated a safety review of IUD breakage in 2021 after the volume of adverse event reports reached a level the agency couldn't ignore. The review produced new labeling for the Paragard but did not result in a recall. Plaintiffs allege the labeling changes were insufficient and that the FDA's regulatory response has trailed the actual safety problem.
The legal theory
The lawsuits proceed on three primary theories.
Design defect. The Paragard's plastic arms become brittle with extended implantation, making fracture during removal a foreseeable and preventable complication. Alternative designs (different plastic formulations, different frame structures) could have addressed the brittleness issue without compromising the contraceptive function.
Manufacturing defect. Quality control issues with the plastic materials or the manufacturing process may have produced devices more prone to fracture than the product specifications would suggest.
Failure to warn. Teva and CooperSurgical failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about the breakage risk during removal. Internal documents in discovery have shown the manufacturers' awareness of fracture incidents going back years before the FDA's 2021 safety review.
The complaints typically allege both negligence and strict product liability under state law. Damages sought include medical expenses for fragment retrieval procedures, lost wages, pain and suffering, future medical care, and in severe cases, damages for lost fertility and the secondary consequences of hysterectomy.
Who qualifies
Qualification criteria for the MDL have stabilized as the litigation has matured.
Paragard IUD use. Documented insertion of a Paragard device. Medical records from the insertion procedure, billing records, and prescribing or insertion physician records.
Breakage during or before removal. Either the device fractured during an attempted removal procedure, or imaging studies showed device fracture or migration before removal was attempted. The case file generally requires:
- The procedure note from the attempted removal documenting that pieces of the device were not retrievable in standard removal
- Imaging studies (ultrasound, X-ray, or other) showing retained fragments
- Operative reports from any subsequent procedures to retrieve fragments
- Pathology reports if fragments were surgically removed
Resulting injury. Plaintiffs need to document specific injuries flowing from the breakage. The strongest cases involve documented retained fragments requiring surgical intervention, ongoing pain or infection, or significant secondary procedures (hysterectomy, fallopian tube removal, organ repair).
Statute of limitations compliance. Statutes vary by state, generally running 2 to 6 years from the date of injury or discovery. The MDL has been active long enough that statute of limitations is a significant gatekeeping issue for new filings; some firms now screen carefully for whether the filing window remains open in the plaintiff's state.
Causal connection. Pre-existing conditions that could explain the symptoms attributed to the IUD breakage may complicate the case but don't automatically disqualify. The strongest cases show a clear temporal connection between the failed removal procedure and the onset of injuries.
The qualification standard is more conservative than the broader injury claims in some pharmaceutical MDLs. Paragard is a device case, not a chemical exposure case; the causal chain runs through a specific failed removal procedure rather than through general exposure to a substance. The MDL has rejected attempts to expand qualification to cases without documented device breakage or to cases where the alleged injuries don't have clear procedural documentation.
Where the litigation stands
The procedural posture as of mid-2026 is post-first-bellwether, with continuing litigation through additional bellwether trials and discovery.
First bellwether: Richard v. CooperSurgical (January 2026 trial, February 2026 verdict). The case proceeded to verdict on a defense theory that the Paragard's design was not defective and that the specific injuries alleged were not caused by the device. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding for the manufacturer.
Significance of the first verdict. A defense verdict in the first bellwether is meaningful but not dispositive. Bellwether outcomes don't bind other cases; they reset settlement expectations for both sides. Defense verdicts tend to harden the defendants' negotiating position and lower projected settlement values. Plaintiff lawyers managing the litigation expressed disappointment but remained committed to continuing through additional bellwether trials.
Rescheduled second bellwether. Originally set for March 3, 2026, the second bellwether was rescheduled to fall 2026 following the first trial's outcome. The case selection has been redone with input from both sides on which fact patterns may produce different outcomes.
Third bellwether. Set for May 11, 2026, this trial may or may not proceed depending on scheduling adjustments after the second bellwether is reset.
Active discovery. Despite the first defense verdict, the MDL continues with active discovery on multiple fronts. Plaintiff leadership has expanded discovery requests on specific fracture incidents not previously documented, internal manufacturing records, and Teva and CooperSurgical's awareness of the breakage issue before the FDA's 2021 review.
FDA regulatory developments. The FDA's ongoing safety monitoring has not produced a recall. Subsequent regulatory action, if it occurs, would strengthen the plaintiffs' case but isn't currently expected.
Settlement discussions. No global settlement has been reached. The defense verdict in the first bellwether substantially reduced settlement pressure on the manufacturers. Plaintiff leadership is focused on producing different outcomes in subsequent bellwether trials to restore settlement leverage.
What the cases are worth
Settlement value projections have shifted downward since the February 2026 defense verdict but remain substantial for qualified cases.
Pre-bellwether projections ran $50,000 to $400,000 per case depending on severity, with the highest-value cases involving hysterectomy or permanent reproductive damage. Post-defense-verdict, projections have tightened, with most analysts now estimating individual settlement ranges of $40,000 to $200,000 if a global settlement materializes after additional bellwether outcomes.
The factors most affecting individual case value:
Severity of the breakage incident. Fragments retrieved through hysteroscopy in a single procedure with full recovery sit at the lower end of the range. Cases involving multiple retrieval procedures, infection requiring extended treatment, or hysterectomy sit at the higher end.
Documentation strength. Clear procedural documentation of the breakage during removal (operative notes, imaging, pathology) supports higher case values than cases where the breakage timing or mechanism is contested.
Permanent injury. Cases involving permanent fertility loss, ongoing chronic pain, or other long-term consequences carry higher value than cases with full recovery.
Age and earning capacity. Younger plaintiffs with lost fertility or extended disability carry higher economic damage components than older plaintiffs.
The defense verdict in the first bellwether is the dominant variable for current valuations. Additional plaintiff verdicts in upcoming bellwethers would restore higher projected ranges; additional defense verdicts would compress them further.
What to do if you may qualify
The path to filing a Paragard claim is well-defined but more time-sensitive than newer MDLs given the litigation's age.
Confirm statute of limitations. Most states' product liability statutes run 2 to 6 years from injury or from discovery of the breakage. If your Paragard breakage occurred more than 3 to 4 years ago and you haven't filed, statute of limitations analysis is the immediate first step. Some states use the discovery rule, which can extend the window for breakage cases discovered later. State-specific analysis is critical.
Gather medical documentation. Records from the original Paragard insertion. Records from the removal procedure documenting the breakage. Operative reports from any fragment retrieval procedures. Pathology reports if fragments were surgically removed. Imaging studies showing retained fragments. Records of ongoing treatment, complications, and lost wages.
Consult a Paragard MDL attorney. Most attorneys handling these cases work on contingency, typically 33% to 40% of recovery plus case expenses. The defense verdict has not stopped active case acceptance, but firms are screening more carefully for cases with strong documentation and clear injury patterns.
Decide on filing venue. Cases can be filed directly in MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia under Judge May's direct filing order, or filed in your home state and transferred to the MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Direct filing is typically faster.
Be realistic about timeline and value. With the first bellwether having produced a defense verdict and subsequent trials pushed into 2026 and 2027, settlement resolution is likely 12 to 24 months away at minimum, possibly longer if additional defense verdicts occur. Individual case values have compressed from earlier projections. The decision to file should account for the realistic settlement timeline and the realistic recovery range, not the early-stage projections that no longer reflect current litigation posture.
Despite the defense verdict, the Paragard litigation continues to be active and viable. The FDA adverse event data is substantial, the breakage pattern is well-documented across thousands of cases, and the legal theory remains sound. The first trial didn't establish that the device wasn't defective; it established that a specific jury, on specific evidence, found for the manufacturer in a specific case. Different juries, different fact patterns, and different evidence presentations may produce different outcomes in subsequent trials.
For women who experienced Paragard breakage with documented complications and who remain within their state's statute of limitations, the procedural path to compensation is open. The expected recovery is lower than pre-verdict projections suggested, but the litigation infrastructure exists, the qualifying criteria are defined, and the standard MDL filing process remains the established mechanism for pursuing these claims.