Table of contents
The attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer are actively pursuing Paragard IUD removal lawsuits nationwide. Over 3,500 women have filed suit, alleging injuries caused by a design flaw in the Paragard IUD that leads to device fracture during removal, leaving fragments within the body.
These lawsuits contend that the Paragard intrauterine device is prone to breakage because of its inflexible plastic composition, which degrades prematurely. More than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical and CooperSurgical by women who experienced breakage during removal or implantation, as well as other complications associated with the Paragard birth control device.
This page offers the latest updates on the Paragard litigation as of 2026. Our attorneys also offer our perspective on potential settlement values if the litigation reaches a global resolution with the manufacturers. When could a settlement occur? Possibly soon. These cases might be resolved by the close of 2026, with victims potentially receiving compensation in the same year if a settlement is reached quickly. While we remain cautiously optimistic, the initial trial loss in February 2026 serves as a reminder of the challenges ahead.
Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer today at XXX-XXX-XXXX, or submit your case details through our free online consultation form: https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact. You owe us nothing unless we secure a recovery for your injuries related to Paragard breakage during removal.
Another lawsuit to watch: Depo Provera is alleged to increase the risk of brain tumors fivefold.
Paragard Class Action Lawsuit Updates – 2026
MDL Case Count
March 15, 2026: The Paragard MDL currently includes 3,877 pending lawsuits. We continue to receive new cases regularly. One unfavorable verdict does not deter us.
Trial Pushed Back
March 2, 2026: Following the defeat in the first Paragard IUD MDL bellwether trial last month, the second bellwether trial, initially scheduled for this month, has been postponed until the fall of 2026 by Judge May.
We Lost the First One
February 5, 2026: Teva obtained a victory in the first bellwether trial in the federal Paragard IUD litigation. This outcome is undoubtedly disappointing for the injured women and their legal representatives.
After a two-week trial, the jury rejected claims that Teva failed to adequately warn about Paragard’s propensity to break or that the device was defectively designed.
This trial marked the first instance where a jury heard evidence concerning a product that thousands of women claim broke during removal, often resulting in retained fragments, surgical intervention, and lasting reproductive consequences. While the verdict was not in our favor, it does not negate the harm experienced by women, nor does it resolve the overarching scientific and safety concerns surrounding Paragard.
This single trial does not define the entire litigation, and we will have further opportunities. The next bellwether cases are already on the schedule.
Punitive Damages
January 30, 2026: We are one week into the first trial in the MDL. We have emphasized the importance of punitive damages as leverage against defendants like Teva.
Teva filed a mid-trial motion, asking the Georgia federal judge to dismiss punitive damages. Their primary argument is that the warnings were adequate as a matter of law, highlighting that even plaintiff experts acknowledged the label mentioned breakage risks. Teva argues that this acknowledgment alone should invalidate the failure-to-warn claim.
Teva is attempting to lower the standard. The critical question is not whether the label mentioned breakage, but whether the warning effectively conveyed the genuine risk. Plaintiffs argue that a passing or buried reference is insufficient when the company knew breakage was a recurring, foreseeable problem that could necessitate surgery. This is a matter for the jury, not the court, to decide mid-trial.
Regarding punitive damages, this is not based on hindsight. Evidence indicates that Teva was aware of breakage issues from adverse event data and internal information, occurring with sufficient frequency to be material. Despite this knowledge, they continued to market Paragard as safe and easy to remove without enhancing warnings or modifying the design. Teva’s deliberate inaction is precisely the type of conduct that punitive damages are intended to address.
This motion arises during the first significant challenge in the Paragard MDL, where thousands of claims allege that the copper IUD has an undisclosed tendency to break during removal, leading to invasive procedures and long-term harm. Teva has already successfully eliminated warranty, gross negligence, and direct misrepresentation claims before trial, and this filing represents the next step in their strategy: to narrow the case to the point where the jury has limited meaningful choices.
From the plaintiffs’ perspective, this is precisely what bellwethers are meant to reveal. Teva is requesting the judge to determine the credibility, weight, and real-world implications of warnings as a legal matter, rather than a factual one. If the court allows the jury to consider the full case, the central question will be whether the risk was minimized, normalized, or obscured in a way that affected doctors and patients.
In essence, Teva is wagering that warning language alone serves as a shield. The plaintiffs are betting that context, conduct, and consequences still matter. The ruling will significantly influence the trajectory of the remaining Paragard cases.
Teva’s Confusing Positions
January 22, 2026: During the opening of the first Paragard IUD bellwether trial, Teva faced strong criticism from the judge for “very troubling” inconsistencies in its opening statements. Judge May noted that Teva’s lawyers presented arguments to the jury that the company had previously urged the court to exclude.
Judge May stated that she had dedicated hours to striking comparisons to other IUDs, claims about overall contraceptive effectiveness, and broad assertions that all IUDs carry similar risks, only to hear those same themes reappear in Teva’s opening. She warned that this could create an improper impression, potentially requiring corrective instructions to the jury.
What This Trial Is About
January 21, 2026: Teva successfully dismissed some peripheral claims before the Paragard bellwether trial. However, the core of the case remains intact and will be presented to a jury.
The judge permitted the most critical claims to proceed: failure to warn, design defect, and punitive damages. The judge determined there was sufficient evidence that Teva failed to adequately warn physicians about the risk of the IUD breaking inside a patient and requiring surgical removal, and that doctors would have acted differently had they been properly warned.
The design defect claim also survived, supported by expert testimony that changes in the device’s materials increased the risk of breakage and that the IUD failed to perform as safely as consumers would expect. This evidence directly addresses whether the product was unreasonably dangerous.
The dismissed claims are also telling. The court dismissed misrepresentation claims based on technical proof issues and a breach of warranty claim over notice requirements, not because the device was safe or the warnings sufficient. These rulings narrow the case, but they do not weaken it.
Perhaps most significantly, the court allowed punitive damages to remain under Florida law, finding that a jury could conclude Teva acted with gross negligence. In a bellwether trial, this exposure fundamentally changes the stakes.
In short, this ruling eliminates side issues and leaves Teva facing a jury on the central allegations that Paragard was defectively designed, inadequately warned, and caused avoidable harm.
Trial Is Coming
January 19, 2026: Teva is facing its first bellwether trial in the Paragard multidistrict litigation, which involves thousands of claims that the copper IUD was prone to breaking and leaving fragments inside patients’ uteri.
As most readers are aware, the case centers on alleged failures by Teva to acknowledge and address a pattern of breakages. The first plaintiff to go to trial experienced a breakage during routine removal in 2021, requiring invasive follow-up surgery, lost wages, and emotional distress. Her experience mirrors thousands of pending claims and sets the stage for a trial likely dominated by competing expert analyses.
The focus of this trial will be whether Teva adequately analyzed adverse event reports and updated warning labels. Experts such as former FDA Commissioner David Kessler argue that the company failed to properly code and flag breakage events, creating a gap in patient warnings. Materials experts for the plaintiffs contend that the polyethylene and copper composition of Paragard is prone to oxidation and degradation in the uterine environment, making breakage more likely than the defense’s pre-implant testing suggests. Clinicians emphasize that these breakages are not minor inconveniences. They require invasive procedures, contradict marketing claims, and carry significant emotional and physical consequences.
This trial is likely to evolve into a prolonged, science-heavy battle over causation and regulatory obligations. Plaintiffs will assert that the evidence, when viewed collectively, demonstrates a causal relationship between Teva’s design and warning failures and the harm suffered by patients. Defense arguments will focus on testing, regulatory compliance, and purportedly low incidence rates. For the plaintiff bar, this is both a test case and a roadmap: proving to a jury the risks and harms of Paragard and why those harms warrant a large award.
January 6, 2026
As of January 2026, the Paragard class action MDL includes 3,800 pending cases, with 4,071 total cases.
Settling these cases is proving to be more challenging than initially anticipated.
Get More Paragard IUD Lawsuit Updates
MDL Adds 91 New Cases
December 9, 2025: The Paragard class action MDL continues to grow, with 91 new cases added last month, bringing the total in the MDL to 3,749.
The Paragard bellwether trials are scheduled to begin in early 2026, with the first trial on January 20, 2026, and the second and third in March and May 2026, presided over by Judge Leigh Martin May. The jurors will hear evidence regarding the device’s potential defect, which can cause the plastic arms to fracture and result in severe injuries. These trials will help determine the settlement value of these cases moving forward.
MDL Adds 63 New Cases
November 4, 2025: 63 new cases were added to the Paragard class action MDL during the month of October, bringing the total number of pending cases in the MDL up to 3,658.
What Is the Richard Trial About?
October 2, 2025: The Richard trial is the first trial. What is the Richard case about?
Ms. Richard had a Paragard intrauterine device inserted around 2012 in Springhill, Florida. Nearly a decade later, on August 11, 2021, the same provider attempted to remove the device, and it broke on removal. A second removal procedure was needed 12 days later. She claims significant pain and suffering and loss of reproductive health.
The Path to January 20
September 23, 2025: The latest scheduling order in the Paragard MDL outlines a clear path toward the first bellwether trial.
Daubert and dispositive motions are due by October 6, 2025, with responses at the end of October and replies in early November. From there, the schedule shifts into classic trial prep. Motions in limine are due by mid-November. The exchange of exhibit and witness lists occurs on November 21, 2025. The Joint Pretrial Order is due immediately after the holidays, on January 6, 2026.
The big thing is the Daubert motion. This is a legal challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony. Named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
Daubert Motions and Expert Testimony
In product liability cases like the Paragard litigation, a Daubert motion can be a critical tool. Based on the Daubert Standard, it challenges the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony, arguing their methods lack reliability or scientific support. Excluding an expert through a Daubert motion could severely weaken a plaintiff’s case. However, Nguyen Injury Lawyer is confident that the plaintiffs’ experts in the Paragard cases, and the scientific evidence they rely on, will be deemed credible and their testimony admissible.
The initial bellwether trial is rapidly approaching on January 20, 2026. With deadlines now firmly established, the extensive discovery phase has concluded, and final preparations for trial are underway. After considerable preparation, Paragard plaintiffs are about to have their day in court.
Plaintiffs Aim to Restrain Defense Tactics
August 18, 2025: The plaintiffs have lodged a formal objection to the defense’s attempt to obtain 23 categories of documents related to the deposition of Dr. David Kessler, a key expert witness for the plaintiffs. The defendants’ demands were made under Rule 34, but the plaintiffs contend that this rule does not extend to non-party witnesses. They further assert that the requests exceed the bounds of the Federal Rules, the court’s expert protocol, and existing scheduling orders.
The plaintiffs emphasize that Dr. Kessler’s expert report, which includes comprehensive appendices of reviewed materials, his qualifications, and compensation details, has already been provided. They argue that many of the requested documents are either already disclosed, publicly available, or in the defendants’ possession. The objection also raises concerns about privilege and alleges that the defense is seeking materials beyond the scope of appropriate expert discovery.
This filing demonstrates the plaintiffs’ commitment to adhering to the court’s regulations and resisting discovery requests that impose unnecessary burdens or divert attention from the core issues. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes that expert discovery should concentrate on the substance of opinions, not redundant or improper document demands.
Miudella as an Alternative to Paragard?
August 13, 2025: For years, Paragard was the sole hormone-free contraceptive option for women. However, it has been associated with reports of pain, perforation, breakage, and difficult removals, resulting in numerous lawsuits across the country.
A new copper IUD, Miudella, is now available, promoted as a more gentle, hormone-free alternative. It is seen as a potential breakthrough for women desiring birth control without hormones. Preliminary reports suggest that Miudella may have fewer side effects, particularly during insertion and removal. However, its long-term performance remains to be seen.
The history of contraceptive litigation indicates that manufacturers often fail to meet the “safe and effective” standard. Only time will tell if Miudella can avoid the problematic history of Paragard. However, the prospect of a better option is encouraging.
Expert Testimony Guidelines
August 12, 2025: The judge overseeing the Paragard IUD MDL has issued a Case Management Order outlining the procedures for expert witnesses in the upcoming bellwether trials.
The order provides a structured framework for both sides, requiring disclosure of expert invoices 72 hours before depositions and shortly before trial. Each expert deposition is limited to seven hours, with the possibility of requesting additional time if justified.
The order also specifies that plaintiffs’ experts will be deposed before the defense’s in each subject area. Expert reliance lists can be supplemented up to the pretrial conference, allowing for flexibility in light of new evidence. The court also protects attorney-expert communications from discovery, except for those concerning compensation, key facts, or assumptions used in forming opinions.
Following the order, Teva scheduled the depositions of experts Dr. Jimmy Mays and David Kessler.
Plaintiffs Prevail in Discovery Dispute
June 26, 2025: Judge May recently addressed ongoing discovery disputes in the Paragard MDL, focusing on the deposition testimony of William Senatore. The plaintiffs sought to reopen Senatore’s deposition after CooperSurgical and other defendants repeatedly blocked questioning about a 2023 internal audit. The judge agreed that there was no privilege and granted the request.
The judge clarified that the plaintiffs are not limited to simply revisiting the previously obstructed questions. Judge May emphasized that the scope of privilege is narrow and must be properly applied, protecting only confidential legal communications, not facts, logistics, or the circumstances surrounding the audit.
The court stated that questions regarding who attended the mock FDA inspection, the frequency of meetings with counsel, observations during the audit, and the nature of related documents are permissible. These topics do not fall under attorney-client or work-product protection, despite the defense’s attempts to broaden the scope of privilege.
The court warned that if CooperSurgical again blocks permissible questions, particularly under the guise of privilege objections, it will impose sanctions, including costs.
New Lawsuit Filed in MDL
June 18, 2025: A woman from Delaware has filed a new lawsuit against multiple pharmaceutical companies in the Paragard MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint names Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, LLC, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc. as defendants.
The plaintiff had the Paragard IUD inserted in May 2014. In February and March 2021, she underwent attempted and subsequent removal procedures. During these efforts, one arm of the IUD broke off and remained inside her body. The retained fragment was detected via imaging. Following the breakage, the plaintiff experienced heavy menstrual bleeding and ultimately required a hysteroscopy to address the complications.
Cases involving surgical interventions, such as hysterectomies, are likely to result in higher settlement payouts due to the permanence and severity of the injuries involved. A hysterectomy, resulting in the loss of fertility, is considered a life-altering procedure with significant emotional, physical, and psychological consequences. Juries recognize the seriousness of such harm, particularly when it arises from complications of a device marketed as safe and reversible, which is reflected in settlement amounts.
Younger plaintiffs typically receive greater compensation in Paragard settlements because the impact on their reproductive future is more significant. Women in their twenties and early thirties who lose their ability to conceive face decades of emotional and psychological distress, leading to substantial non-economic damages for pain and suffering. If you have experienced similar complications, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX or visit our contact page for a free consultation.
Plaintiffs Secure Victory in Deposition Dispute
June 10, 2025: In a recent order in the Paragard IUD MDL, Judge Leigh Martin May ruled that plaintiffs may reopen the deposition of key corporate witness William Senatore.
The dispute centered on a 2023 IPS (Inspection Preparedness Services) audit, a review process often used to help companies anticipate and respond to regulatory scrutiny by identifying internal quality control issues and potential compliance risks. The defendants attempted to block questioning about this audit by vaguely citing privilege and claiming it was outside the scope of the deposition. However, the court noted that they failed to specify which privilege they were asserting—attorney-client or work-product—and provided no meaningful legal support or evidence that the audit was truly conducted for litigation purposes.
Judge May also addressed the defense’s scope objection, ruling that the audit clearly fell within the deposition topics, particularly since it related directly to changes made to improve oversight of the Paragard manufacturing facility.
This type of baseless objection is a common defense tactic: lawyers instruct witnesses not to answer, not necessarily expecting to win in court, but betting that the plaintiffs’ counsel will not push back. In this case, that tactic failed. The plaintiffs followed through, and the court granted a two-hour deposition limited to the IPS audit, to be completed within 10 days.
The Braxton Trial: An Overview
May 12, 2025: Last week, we discussed the judge’s decision to prioritize the Braxton trial. What is the Braxton case about?
Braxton had a Paragard IUD implanted in November 2014. During removal in late 2019, the device fractured, leaving pieces that required an additional surgical procedure to extract. According to the lawsuit, Braxton sustained permanent injuries, including reproductive harm, lasting impairments, and disfigurement.
First Case Set for Trial
May 9, 2025: The Paragard IUD litigation is progressing, with developments favoring the plaintiffs. With nearly 3,000 cases pending, momentum is building toward accountability. While the manufacturers have fought to dismiss claims, judges have upheld key arguments, and bellwether trials are approaching. This litigation is not disappearing quietly; it is building toward a settlement resolution.
The Paragard IUD lawsuits have revealed serious design flaws and a failure to warn, putting thousands of women at risk. Despite the defense’s efforts to delay, dismiss, and minimize liability, the legal process is advancing. More cases are being filed, critical discovery is underway, and early trial results could pressure the defendants to settle. As the litigation continues, it becomes increasingly clear that Teva and CooperSurgical will have to answer for the harm their product has caused.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer provides ongoing updates on new case filings, rulings on key legal issues, and the status of settlement discussions. If you are considering filing a claim, now is the time to act, as the window for compensation may not remain open forever. Contact us at XXX-XXX-XXXX or visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com.
The first bellwether trial in the Paragard intrauterine device multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been officially scheduled. The selected case is Braxton v. Teva. Importantly, Braxton is a defense pick.
In an MDL, bellwether trials are selected as test cases to provide insight into how juries might respond to the claims and defenses involved. The court typically allows both plaintiffs and defendants to nominate cases. Plaintiff picks are typically strong cases with clear examples of harm, favorable facts, and sympathetic plaintiffs. Defense picks, on the other hand, are cases the manufacturers believe are weaker, contain inconsistencies, or involve plaintiffs with less persuasive stories or causation arguments.
The defense’s selection of Braxton indicates that Teva and CooperSurgical believe this case puts them in a stronger position to challenge liability or damages. A defense win could give them leverage in settlement discussions, but there is also a risk. If the plaintiffs prevail even in a defense-chosen case, it sends a clear message about the strength of the underlying claims.
February 19, 2025: Dozens of Paragard Lawsuits Dismissed Due to Statute of Limitations
Paragard Lawsuit Updates
In a decision that impacted many plaintiffs, Judge May ruled in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical, dismissing several Paragard lawsuits across multiple states based on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the statute of limitations began when the IUD fractured, regardless of whether the full extent of the injury, such as infertility or chronic pain, was immediately known. This ruling has reduced the size of the MDL, but cases within the applicable statute of limitations remain active.
January 28, 2025: Settlement Payouts to Reflect Severity of Injuries
As settlement talks progress, the extent of injuries will significantly affect the payout amounts. Cases involving emergency surgeries, chronic pain, or infertility are anticipated to yield higher compensation compared to those with less severe complications. The legal process includes a thorough assessment of medical costs, lost income, and emotional suffering.
January 13, 2025: Mediator Appointed to Facilitate Paragard Settlement Talks
Retired Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. was appointed as a mediator to oversee settlement negotiations for the Paragard lawsuits. This appointment underscores the court’s commitment to achieving a fair and efficient resolution, with hopes of reaching a global settlement regarding the copper IUD before the first bellwether trial commences.
September 13, 2024: Statute of Limitations Dismissal
Teva argued that 236 lawsuits within the Paragard MDL were clearly filed after the statute of limitations had expired and should be dismissed.
The cases in question fall into three primary categories:
- Lawsuits where the statute of limitations is calculated from the date of the Paragard removal surgery.
- Cases barred by the statute of repose, which prevents claims after a certain period from the product’s sale or use.
- Claims where strict liability is prohibited under state law.
However, the plaintiffs contend that fraudulent concealment claims exist, which should make the statute of limitations a question for the jury. Even if these cases are dismissed—which is unlikely—they may still have some settlement value because Teva/Cooper will not want to deal with an appeal at that point. Dismissal would likely reduce the settlement payout of these claims.
If you are not one of these 236 plaintiffs, Teva’s strategy appears to be aimed at resolving these cases before a broader Paragard settlement. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes that a Paragard settlement is likely near and everyone is trying to tie up loose ends before a settlement.
October 2, 2023: Paragard MDL To Focus On Factual Discovery For Bellwether Candidate Pool Cases
According to a recent Case Management Order, the focus in the Paragard MDL for the next few months will be on case-specific factual discovery in the bellwether candidate pool cases. Depositions of the plaintiffs in these cases will occur over the course of this month. The purpose of this discovery phase is to give the parties more information about bellwether pool cases so they can assess their strengths and weaknesses.
June 30, 2023: CMO Requires All Plaintiffs To Submit Plaintiff Fact Sheet
The Court’s PFS CMOs required all plaintiffs involved in MDL No. 2974 to submit a completed Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) and signed authorizations to the Defendants by November 4, 2022. In this case, 132 Paragard plaintiffs did not comply.
The deadline to submit the required information or provide an explanation for not doing so has passed, and the MDL judge will likely dismiss those claims. This allows a greater focus on those with serious cases, which may pave the way for a future global settlement.
May 1, 2023: Judge May Expresses Optimism Towards Possible Settlement
During a recent court conference, Judge May expressed optimism that the Paragard settlement mediator, Gino Brogdon Sr., will be able to push settlement talks forward and encouraged the parties to get moving toward that end. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is also optimistic, but that optimism is tempered by how far away the first trial is, because trial dates put pressure on defendants to offer reasonable settlement amounts.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Paragard IUD Lawsuit
Who qualifies to file a Paragard IUD lawsuit?
Women who experienced Paragard IUD breakage during removal, suffered complications due to embedded fragments, or required additional medical procedures due to a defective Paragard intrauterine device may qualify for a claim. The primary allegation in the Paragard IUD class action lawsuit is that the device fractures because it is made with inflexible plastic that degrades over time, increasing the risk of breakage and complications. If your doctor struggled to remove your copper IUD, if it broke inside your body, or if you needed surgery to retrieve broken pieces, you may have grounds to file a Paragard compensation claim. Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer for assistance: XXX-XXX-XXXX.
What is the status of the Paragard MDL lawsuit?
The Paragard lawsuit has been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia. As of February 2026, there are over 3,700 cases pending in the MDL.
The first Paragard bellwether trial began in January 2026 (trial is ongoing at the time of this writing) with additional trials planned for later that year. While a global settlement could resolve these cases before trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys prepare for litigation. Our attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer believe there will be a global Paragard settlement in 2026.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer cannot be sure of this. This defendant is known for being willing to try cases rather than settle them. Our attorneys believe this would be unwise in this case because bellwether verdicts will increase the overall settlement payout, both in final amounts and in the number of new plaintiffs who will come forward upon hearing the verdicts. But we will have to see how it plays out.
What is the potential settlement amount for a Paragard IUD lawsuit?
The main reason these lawsuits have not been settled is that the parties disagree on the value of the claims. While no Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement amounts have been determined, historical settlements in defective medical device lawsuits provide insight into what plaintiffs might expect. Based on similar mass tort cases, estimated Paragard IUD settlement payouts could fall within these ranges:
- Severe cases (hysterectomy, infertility, major surgery): $100,000 – $380,000
- Moderate cases (multiple procedures, chronic pain, partial removal): $40,000 – $75,000
- Mild cases (fragment removal without major complications): $10,000 – $30,000
A Paragard compensation claim will likely be evaluated based on the severity of injuries, medical expenses, and the long-term impact on reproductive health.
What are the main allegations in the Paragard litigation?
The Paragard copper IUD lawsuits allege that:
- The Paragard IUD is defective, prone to breakage during removal, and unsafe for long-term use despite being marketed as a 10-year birth control device.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical failed to warn patients about the risks, misleading doctors and consumers about the device’s propensity to fracture.
- The manufacturers concealed safety concerns despite thousands of adverse event reports and an FDA warning about copper IUD breakage.
- Women suffered perforated uteruses, chronic pain, infections, and permanent infertility due to broken Paragard fragments that migrated into surrounding organs.
The Paragard litigation is centered on claims of product liability, failure to warn, and negligence.
What should I do if my Paragard IUD broke during removal?
If your Paragard IUD broke during removal, seek medical attention immediately. Many women require hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or full abdominal surgery to remove embedded fragments. Some are advised to wait and monitor the remaining pieces, leading to long-term anxiety and potential complications. If you have suffered from Paragard IUD breakage, consult Nguyen Injury Lawyer to discuss your eligibility for a Paragard compensation claim: XXX-XXX-XXXX.
What is the deadline to file a Paragard lawsuit?
The Paragard lawsuit statute of limitations varies by state, but most product liability claims must be filed within two to four years from the date of injury or the date you discovered the injury. Some states apply the discovery rule, allowing lawsuits to proceed if plaintiffs only recently became aware of the extent of their injuries.
However, recent court rulings in 2025 have dismissed cases based on strict statute of limitations interpretations. In some states, the judge ruled that the clock starts the moment the IUD breaks—even if a woman did not experience immediate complications. This has led to dismissals in certain states where plaintiffs were unaware of their injuries until years later.
If you are considering filing a Paragard IUD lawsuit in 2026, it is crucial to contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer immediately to ensure you do not miss your filing deadline: XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Is there a Paragard class action lawsuit?
While often referred to as a Paragard class action, the litigation is actually an MDL (multidistrict litigation). This means cases are grouped in one court but remain individual lawsuits. Unlike a traditional class action lawsuit for Paragard, where all plaintiffs receive the same payout, each Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement amount will depend on the specific injuries, medical costs, and long-term impact of the breakage.
Has there been a Paragard IUD recall?
No, there has not been a Paragard recall despite thousands of reports of copper IUD breakage. The FDA updated the warning label in 2019, but the device remains on the market. Many plaintiffs argue that a recall should have been issued years ago to protect women from avoidable medical trauma. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes that defendants could have avoided this litigation with a strong warning to let women and doctors decide whether to take on the risk of breakage.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for a Paragard lawsuit?
Most Paragard attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing up front. Lawyers only collect fees if you receive a settlement or jury verdict. If you do not win your case, you owe nothing.
What should I do if I believe I have a Paragard claim?
If your Paragard IUD broke during removal, caused pain, infertility, or required additional surgery, you may be entitled to significant compensation. The best way to protect your rights is to contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer immediately: XXX-XXX-XXXX.
To discuss your case with an attorney, call XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation or fill out an online form. Your time to file a Paragard IUD lawsuit may be limited.
Paragard IUD Lawsuits
The Paragard, often miswritten as Paraguard, is a type of birth control known as an intrauterine device (IUD). The Paragard is a Y-shaped device about the size of a quarter with a copper coil around the center. It has a plastic frame made of polyethylene and barium sulfate. Paragard, the only hormone-free IUD in the U.S., controls 17% of the U.S. IUD market.
The IUD is placed at the base of the uterus by a doctor, and it remains there for as long as ten years, providing continuous protection against pregnancy. The Paragard was designed to be easily removed by pulling on a removal cord at the doctor’s office. Unfortunately, the Paragard copper IUD design has a hidden defect that has led to problems during the removal process for many women.
The plastic arms at the base of the Paragard are supposed to flex upwards when the device is pulled out for removal. In many cases, however, the plastic arms become rigid and break off inside the patient during removal. This results in sharp pieces of plastic inside the woman’s uterus.
Paragard IUD Lawsuits: Defective Design and Failure to Warn
The plaintiffs involved in the Paragard class action lawsuit are women who experienced IUD breakage while the device was still inside their bodies. The primary allegation is that the IUD’s design is inherently flawed, lacking the necessary flexibility to prevent fractures. These lawsuits specifically claim that the raw plastic T units used in Paragard failed to meet minimum flexibility standards within the IUD’s approved expiration date before the copper sleeves were installed. This leads to the arms becoming increasingly rigid over time, despite the device being marketed as a long-term birth control solution.
Failure to Warn of Paragard Complications
Another significant aspect of the Paragard class action lawsuit is the claim of failure to warn. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants were aware of the potential for serious harm to women due to the device’s tendency to break during removal or while still inside the uterus. Despite this knowledge, they allegedly failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about the risks. The focus is not on demanding a Paragard recall, but rather on ensuring that doctors and women are fully informed about the known dangers associated with the device.
Defendants in the Paragard lawsuits, including Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical, may have been aware of the risks associated with the device breaking during removal based on numerous reports filed between 2009 and 2021. During this period, over 2,000 incidents of Paragard breakage were reported, highlighting a persistent problem. Despite these reports, this information was not translated into improved warnings for doctors or patients. This inaction raises serious concerns, as plaintiffs argue that the companies had ample opportunity to update the product’s labeling or issue stronger safety warnings to prevent harm.
Instead, the manufacturers allegedly continued to market Paragard without adequately disclosing the risks associated with the device’s fragility, particularly during removal. Breakage of the Paragard device can lead to severe complications, such as pieces of the IUD becoming embedded in the uterus, requiring surgical intervention. The plaintiffs argue that if the risks had been clearly communicated, many women might have chosen alternative birth control methods or taken extra precautions during the removal process.
This alleged lack of transparency about known risks is a key factor driving the litigation. Paragard lawsuits claim that the defendants intentionally concealed the severity and frequency of the risks associated with Paragard’s removal. The alleged motivation behind this concealment is the same reason any medical device company might hide the risks of their product: a warning could decrease sales and profits.
Eventually, in 2019, the warning label on the Paragard IUD was updated to include the risk of breakage during removal. The label now cautions that the device may break, making removal difficult, and that fragments, such as the arms, can become embedded in the uterus. However, many argue that this warning came too late for many women already affected.
Resolution of Paragard IUD Lawsuits Through Global Settlement
The Paragard lawsuits are expected to be resolved through a global settlement, a common outcome in mass tort cases involving defective products. The Paragard MDL (Multi-District Litigation) was formed in late 2020, and new cases have continued to be filed and added to the MDL. The MDL judge will oversee a consolidated “group discovery” process between the plaintiffs and defendants. This discovery process will focus on the alleged design flaw in the Paragard and the defendants’ knowledge of it.
After the consolidated discovery process in the Paragard MDL is complete, the litigation will move into the bellwether trial phase. This involves conducting jury trials in a select group of individual Paragard cases chosen by both sides. The outcomes of these initial “test trials” can significantly influence the litigation, often dictating how quickly the defendants will negotiate a global settlement and the potential settlement amounts.
Potential Structure of a Global Paragard Settlement
Over 3,000 women have filed Paragard IUD lawsuits, alleging that the copper IUD is prone to breaking during removal, resulting in serious internal injuries. These claims have been consolidated into a federal Paragard MDL in Georgia, where coordinated pretrial proceedings are underway. What might a global settlement in this litigation look like?
If the Paragard MDL follows the pattern of previous defective medical device cases, any settlement will likely be resolved through a structured, points-based compensation system rather than equal payouts. This system aims to account for the varying degrees of harm suffered by each plaintiff. The use of a points matrix allows for more individualized compensation while still resolving a large number of cases through a single negotiated settlement.
Therefore, a potential settlement in the Paragard IUD lawsuit would likely not involve flat-rate payouts. Instead, each plaintiff’s compensation would be determined using a points system. This method assigns point values based on factors such as the type and severity of the injury, the medical procedures required (such as surgery to remove broken IUD fragments), the duration of pain and recovery, loss of fertility or other long-term effects, and the strength of the medical documentation supporting the claim.
Estimated Settlement Payouts in Paragard Lawsuits
Nguyen Injury Lawyer cannot predict the exact settlement payout in the Paragard lawsuit. The trial scheduled for January 2026 will provide a clearer idea of potential compensation. However, we can make an educated guess based on settlement payouts in similar prior mass tort cases.
Based on global settlements in previous mass tort cases involving defective medical devices and internal injuries, we estimate that Paragard cases in the highest tier could be valued between $100,000 and $380,000. Plaintiffs in the second tier might expect payouts between $40,000 and $75,000. A lower, third tier of plaintiffs would likely receive smaller payouts, ranging from $10,000 to $30,000.
Estimated Paragard Settlement Tiers
| Settlement Tier | Estimated Settlement |
| Tier I | $100,000 – $380,000 |
| Tier II | $40,000 – $75,000 |
| Tier III | $10,000 – $30,000 |
Paragard settlements with higher payouts are likely to involve severe injuries, such as infertility in a young woman. A successful jury verdict in a Paragard infertility case could potentially reach millions of dollars, especially for a woman who did not have children before using the Paragard IUD.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the speculative nature of these individual settlement compensation projections. These estimates assume that a judge will allow the Paragard lawsuits to proceed to trial and that there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims.
While scientific evidence can sometimes be challenging to interpret, our Paragard attorneys believe that the science supports the plaintiffs’ claims that the device’s design was defective and that the defendants were aware of this defect but failed to disclose it. The MDL judge ultimately agreed with this assessment.
Timeline for Paragard IUD Lawsuit Settlement
The exact date for a potential Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement remains uncertain. There is currently no official settlement date, and nothing has been finalized.
If CooperSurgical and Teva are unwilling to offer fair and reasonable settlement amounts, the litigation will proceed to trials. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are prepared, and the court has indicated that the process will move forward regardless of settlement status.
Consulting a Paragard Attorney
Each plaintiff who has filed a Paragard lawsuit experienced IUD breakage while the device was still inside her body. If you have experienced this, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer for assistance. Call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation, or visit our contact page at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact. You owe us nothing unless we secure a recovery for you.