Cooper Genomics Lawsuit: PGT-A Claims, Plaintiffs, and Status

The Cooper Genomics lawsuit is a federal class action accusing the company of falsely marketing its preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, known as PGT-A, as a highly accurate way to identify viable embryos during IVF. Filed in September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the case claims patients discarded embryos that may have been healthy in reliance on test results the plaintiffs say were far less reliable than advertised. The suit is pending as of mid-2026.¹

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint, Weinberg, et al. v. CooperGenomics, Inc., et al. (No. 2:24-cv-09505), was filed on September 27, 2024, and brings claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and related counts against CooperGenomics, Inc., CooperSurgical, Inc., and parent company The Cooper Companies, Inc.²

According to the complaint, CooperGenomics promoted PGT-A as a “proven, accurate, and reliable method” to increase live birth rates, cut miscarriage risk, and shorten time to pregnancy, and specifically represented the test as 97% accurate. Plaintiffs allege the actual accuracy is “significantly lower” and describe the test as “unproven, inaccurate, and unreliable,” pointing to published research and to major insurers including United Healthcare and Aetna that have found “insufficient evidence of efficacy” for the procedure.²

The central factual claim is that PGT-A produces false positives at a meaningful rate, labeling viable embryos as chromosomally abnormal. The complaint estimates the proportion of normal embryos discarded because of faulty results could reach 40%. Plaintiffs allege CooperGenomics knew the scientific literature did not support its marketing but continued promoting the test to “vulnerable and unsuspecting consumers” for financial gain.²

Who Filed the Case

The suit was brought by eight named plaintiffs: Erin Weinberg, E.V. (a pseudonym), Jaime Magnetico-Walsh, Erin Vedrode, Sarah Urbanski, Allison Urbanski, Ryan McElroy, and Charity Billings.² They are represented by Berger Montague, Constable Law, and Justice Law Collaborative, the same group of firms that has filed parallel PGT-A class actions against other genetic testing companies.¹

What Plaintiffs Say Happened

Jaime Magnetico-Walsh, one of the named plaintiffs, learned after a miscarriage that her clinic had retained three “mosaic” embryos without telling her. When those embryos were re-tested at no charge, two came back normal.³

Similar accounts appear across the wider set of PGT-A cases. Shannon Petersen, a plaintiff in a parallel case against Natera, said her clinic refused to transfer five embryos all labeled “abnormal” by PGT-A. She and her husband took out a $15,000 loan for another IVF cycle, and she later became pregnant through a clinical trial using one of the previously flagged embryos and delivered a healthy baby. “I would not have a baby if I had believed the PGT-A test,” she told Time. Alexandra Zuk spent $30,000 across two IVF cycles, was told none of her embryos were suitable for transfer, and eventually discarded them after paying ongoing storage fees, saying she is “haunted by what-ifs.”³

Where the Case Stands

CooperSurgical has moved to dismiss the claims. The motion is pending. In a closely related case against a different testing company, Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the Northern District of Illinois largely denied a parallel motion to dismiss in February 2026, allowing fraud, implied warranty, and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims to proceed. He found the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that PGT-A was not fit for its stated purpose and that RGI’s industry position made it reasonable to infer the company knew its accuracy claims were unsupported.⁴ That ruling is not binding on the Cooper court but signals how at least one judge has treated the same theory of the case.

The Broader PGT-A Litigation

The Cooper Genomics case is part of a coordinated legal campaign. The same firms have filed class actions against several other genetic testing providers:

Reproductive Genetic Innovations (Donamaria v. Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Inc., N.D. Ill.)
Progenesis, Inc. (Cruz, et al. v. Progenesis, Inc., S.D. Cal.)
Natera, Inc. (Petersen, et al. v. Natera, Inc., N.D. Cal.)
Ovation Fertility and affiliates (Klosowski et al. v. FPG Labs, LLC et al., filed October 31, 2024)
Genomic Prediction, now Lifeview (Anderson et al. v. Genomic Prediction, Inc. et al., filed March 19, 2026, in the District of New Jersey), which accuses the company of marketing its PGT-A as “98–99% accurate” while knowing false-positive and false-negative rates were higher.⁵

By early 2025, according to Time, nearly 700 IVF patients had joined the collective legal effort.³ Natera has characterized the litigation as “baseless” and said it stands behind the accuracy of its tests. Genomic Prediction said it is “committed to providing accurate, evidence-based information” but declined further comment on the active case.⁵ Filings on behalf of Cooper Genomics have not been publicly reported beyond its motion to dismiss.

The Science Behind the Claims

PGT-A works by removing a small number of cells from the trophectoderm, the outer layer of an embryo that later becomes the placenta, and analyzing those cells for extra or missing chromosomes. The fundamental limitation cited by critics is that a few cells from the outside may not represent the chromosomal makeup of the embryo itself.³

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine published a committee opinion in 2024 stating that the value of PGT-A as a routine screening test for all IVF patients “has not been demonstrated.” The ASRM found that recent randomized controlled trials showed similar live-birth rates between PGT-A and conventional IVF, and that 17.1% of embryos with reproductive potential would have been discarded due to mosaicism or false-positive results if PGT-A had been used. The committee described the quality of evidence supporting PGT-A’s benefit as “low to moderate.”⁶

Individual studies cited in the litigation and press coverage point the same way. A 2022 study found that 11 of 76 embryos classified as aneuploid resulted in live births. A 2024 study of embryos with six or more abnormalities found that 14% re-tested as normal on a second biopsy.³ One peer-reviewed analysis estimated PGT-A historically caused a roughly 50% loss of potential implantations, with more recent estimates in the 20% to 25% range.⁷

PGT-A has not been authorized by the FDA, and there is currently no federal regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in the United States. The FDA is reportedly working on regulatory frameworks, but none are yet in place.⁸ Even so, PGT-A use in IVF cycles roughly tripled between 2014 and 2021, from about 13% of cycles to approximately 40%, according to figures cited in one of the parallel complaints.⁹

A Different CooperSurgical Case to Know About

If you are researching CooperSurgical, you may encounter a separate set of lawsuits that are not part of the Cooper Genomics PGT-A litigation. Those cases involve a December 2023 recall of three lots of the company’s LifeGlobal “Global Media,” an embryo culture solution that testing revealed was missing magnesium, a nutrient essential for embryo growth. That litigation concerns physical destruction of embryos in the lab, not test results, and CooperSurgical reportedly reached a settlement with a group of plaintiffs in that separate matter in May 2026, with terms not publicly disclosed.¹⁰ The PGT-A case against Cooper Genomics is unaffected by that settlement and remains active.

1
Berger Montague. Cooper PGT-A Embryo Genetic Testing Class Action Lawsuit
2
ClassAction.org. Weinberg et al. v. CooperGenomics, Inc., et al.
3
Time. IVF Patients Say a Test Caused Them to Discard Embryos. Now They’re Suing
4
Courthouse News. Donamaria v. Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Ruling
5
The Independent. Parents Claim They Destroyed Healthy IVF Embryos After Being Misled by NJ Genetic Testing Companies
6
ASRM. The Use of Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: A Committee Opinion
7
PMC/National Library of Medicine. PGT-A Efficiency and Loss of Potential Implantations
8
Cleveland Clinic. Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT)
9
ClassAction.org. Donamaria v. Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Inc.
10
Bloomberg Tax. IVF Patients End Embryo Destruction Suits Over Recalled Solution