Paragard IUD Lawsuit: Claims, Bellwether Verdict, and Settlement Outlook

The Paragard IUD lawsuit is a federal multidistrict litigation involving more than 4,000 women who allege the copper intrauterine device fractured inside their bodies during removal and caused serious injuries. The cases are consolidated as MDL No. 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia before U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May. As of mid-2026, no global settlement has been reached, and the first bellwether trial ended in a complete defense verdict for the manufacturer in February 2026.¹²

What the Lawsuits Allege

Paragard is a T-shaped, hormone-free copper IUD. Its frame is made of polyethylene mixed with barium sulfate, with copper wire coiled around the vertical stem and copper collars on each horizontal arm. The FDA first approved it in 1984, and it remains the only copper IUD sold in the United States.³

The core allegation is that the rigid polyethylene arms become brittle over time inside the uterus. When a doctor tries to remove the device, one or both arms can snap off instead of folding inward, leaving plastic and copper fragments behind.⁴ One analysis cited in the litigation puts the breakage rate for copper IUDs at 9.6 percent, roughly five times higher than hormonal IUDs.⁵

Plaintiffs bring two main claims. The first is design defect: they argue the polyethylene frame is inherently prone to fracture and that a more flexible or durable material could have been used. The second is failure to warn: they contend the manufacturers knew about the breakage risk and did not adequately warn patients or doctors. The FDA-approved label mentions that breakage and embedment can occur, but plaintiffs argue the warnings were insufficient given the number of complaints.⁶

Reported injuries include retained fragments embedded in the uterine wall or migrated into the abdomen or pelvis, uterine perforation, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, damage to the bladder or intestines, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and infertility from scarring. Many women have required follow-up surgery — hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or in some cases full hysterectomy — to retrieve the pieces.⁴⁷

The FDA’s adverse event database has received over 7,000 breakage-related complaints, up from around 3,000 in 2021. More than 700 breakage incidents were reported in just the first half of 2024. In June 2024, the FDA approved an updated warning label directing providers to check for embedment or perforation if the device does not come out with gentle pulling and to consider imaging such as X-ray or MRI.⁸⁹

Who Is Being Sued

Five defendants are named in the MDL: CooperSurgical, The Cooper Companies, Teva USA, Teva Women’s Health LLC, and Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D. Teva originally developed and manufactured Paragard at a facility in Buffalo, New York. In September 2017, CooperSurgical purchased the Paragard product line from Teva for approximately $1.1 billion and took over the manufacturing plant.¹⁰

Because injuries span both before and after the sale, both companies face liability. Teva may be responsible for injuries during the years it owned the product, and CooperSurgical for those that followed. The court denied plaintiffs’ attempt to add Teva’s Israeli parent company as a defendant.⁴

Where the Cases Stand

The federal cases were centralized on December 16, 2020, creating In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Georgia.¹¹ The litigation is an MDL, not a class action. There is no class action for Paragard. Each plaintiff’s case remains individual, though they share pretrial discovery and rulings.¹²

The MDL has grown steadily. About 3,595 cases were active in October 2025, rising to 3,749 by December 2025. As of June 2026, a total of 4,366 cases have been filed, with 4,071 still active.¹

A smaller group of state-court cases is consolidated separately in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Daniel J. Anders. At least 32 cases have been filed there, and two have reportedly settled.¹³

One development could disrupt the timeline. In April 2026, Teva was granted an interlocutory appeal on federal preemption, the question of whether federal law bars these state-law claims because Paragard went through FDA premarket approval as a Class III medical device. Judge May had rejected that argument in November 2021, but if an appellate court now rules the other way, it could pause the MDL or undermine the entire litigation.¹⁶

The First Bellwether Verdict

The first bellwether trial, Rickard v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., went to a jury in Atlanta in January 2026. Pauline Rickard received a Paragard IUD from a Florida doctor in 2012. The device broke while implanted, and she needed additional procedures to address the fragments. She sued in 2021, alleging Teva failed to warn about the breakage risk and ignored a pattern of complaints.²

After a two-week trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on February 4, 2026. Teva won on every claim: strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, strict liability defective design, negligent design, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent omission. The Cooper Companies had been a co-defendant but was dismissed by Rickard in October 2025.²

Plaintiff counsel Erin Copeland said after the verdict that the result does not change the fact that women have been harmed by device breakage and that “critical risk information… and questionable corporate conduct has long been kept out of the public eye.” Plaintiffs’ leadership described the first bellwether as a test of trial themes rather than a resolution for the MDL as a whole.²

Following the verdict, Judge May pushed the second and third bellwether trials, originally set for spring 2026, back to fall 2026. The next two plaintiffs will be Alisa Robere and Melody Braxton, in that order.²

Settlement Outlook

As of mid-2026, there is no global settlement and no individual settlement amounts have been publicly reported in the federal MDL.¹ Retired judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. was appointed as a mediator to facilitate settlement discussions, but no public progress has been reported. The defense verdict in Rickard gave the manufacturers leverage, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have acknowledged that the defendants have shown a willingness to try cases rather than settle. Plaintiffs’ counsel remain cautiously optimistic, pointing to the relatively manageable size of the MDL as a factor that could make a global resolution easier than in larger mass torts.⁶

Can You Still File a Claim

To qualify, you generally need to show that a Paragard IUD broke, fractured, or was difficult to remove, and that the breakage led to surgery or other medical complications. Qualifying injuries include retained fragments requiring surgical retrieval, uterine perforation, infection, infertility, and organ damage. You will need medical records confirming implantation and removal, imaging or surgical reports showing breakage or retained fragments, and records of follow-up treatment.¹⁴

Timing is the biggest obstacle for late filers. There is no single national deadline. Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically running one to five years, and the clock may start on the date of injury or the date of discovery depending on the state.

On February 12, 2025, Judge May dismissed dozens of cases as time-barred. The court ruled that in Alabama, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, and Virginia, the statute of limitations began running when the device broke, not when the plaintiff later understood the full extent of her injuries. Eighty cases from those states were dismissed. Six more from Tennessee and Texas were thrown out under those states’ statutes of repose. Judge May did allow claims to continue in Illinois, Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina, where plaintiffs successfully argued the manufacturers fraudulently concealed information about the breakage risk.¹⁵

The practical takeaway: if your Paragard broke during removal and you waited years before speaking to a lawyer, your state’s rules may already have foreclosed the case. If you are still within a plausible window, an attorney handling MDL claims can assess whether your state’s discovery rule or fraudulent-concealment doctrine keeps the door open.

1
Drugwatch. Paragard Lawsuits
2
Butler Snow. Teva Wins First Paragard IUD Bellwether Trial
3
FDA. Paragard Prescribing Information
4
Motley Rice. Paragard Lawsuit
5
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. Paragard Lawsuit
6
Miller & Zois. Paragard IUD Lawsuits
7
Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. Paragard Lawsuit
8
ABC News 4. Paragard’s Maker Responds to FDA Inspections
9
Fox 11 Online. Spotlight Inquiry Led to FDA Safety Review of Paragard Breakage
10
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Teva Announces Sale of Paragard to CooperSurgical
11
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
12
Edith Bunny Trial Attorneys. Paragard IUD Lawsuit
13
Ciccarelli Law Offices. Philadelphia Paragard IUD Lawsuit Attorney
14
BB Trial Lawyers. Paragard Lawsuit Update: What You Need to Know
15
Lawsuit Legal News. Paragard Judge Dismisses Dozens of Untimely Claims