Active case
People are filing Paragard® lawsuits after experiencing serious health complications while using the birth control device.
Connect with an attorney
Active case
Thousands of people who used the Paragard® intrauterine device (IUD) have had serious health problems. At least 17 people have died after using it. Thousands of people who used the IUD have filed suit against the manufacturers. The lawsuits are currently part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Learn about these harms, legal actions and eligibility requirements for a Paragard lawsuit.
05.02.2025
Paragard is a T-shaped, hormone-free, birth control device made of flexible plastic with a thin copper coil around the plastic. The copper is thought to serve as the device’s active ingredient by preventing sperm from reaching the egg and fertilizing it. Implantation of the Paragard device requires medical professionals.
The copper IUD is placed inside the uterus to prevent pregnancy. It is removable, and can last up to 10 years, according to the manufacturer. However, severe complications can happen if the device moves, breaks, falls out or pierces the uterine wall.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved Paragard in 1984. The FDA approved revisions for Paragard’s prescribing label in 2005 and 2019. The updated 2019 label recommends prescribing to women from age 16 to menopause.
The lawsuits allege that design defects can lead to the device breaking. The broken device can lead to severe Paragard complications and injuries, including:
Speak with a medical professional if you are concerned that you may be experiencing dangerous side effects from Paragard or complications from any other IUD.
People with Paragard IUDs and their medical providers have made more than 50,000 reports to the FDA since Paragard was approved in 1984. This is according to publicly available data in the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) database.
Of the more than 53,000 reports, more than 22,000 have involved serious health problems. As of late November 2024, there had also been 19 reported death cases.
Total reports encompass all reports made to the FDA concerning a particular drug or device.
Reports are classified as serious reports if they result in any of the following outcomes:
Disclaimer: Reports by themselves are not an indicator of Paragard’s safety profile. In addition, FAERS may include duplicate reports or may significantly undercount the number of women whose copper IUDs have broken during removal.
Individuals who would like to file a Paragard IUD lawsuit must meet eligibility requirements. These requirements may include:
People who wish to file a Paragard copper IUD lawsuit should be able to prove they meet the requirements. A Paragard attorney at Motley Rice can discuss what documentation you need to file a lawsuit.
If you or a loved one has or had the Paragard birth control device and experienced complications, you may have a claim. Complete this form or call 1.800.768.4026 for more information and to discuss a potential lawsuit with Paragard IUD lawyers from Motley Rice.
Many Paragard lawsuits have been filed by women alleging harm by the copper IUD breaking. The cases have been centralized into one district court in the U.S. federal court system as a multidistrict litigation (MDL). This consolidation process is designed to save resources and eases the burden on district courts.
The Honorable Leigh Martin May presides over the federal Paragard litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As of May 2025, more than 3,000 lawsuits are pending in the Paragard IUD MDL, which is designated MDL 2974.
The court appointed Motley Rice attorney Fidelma Fitzpatrick to the Paragard MDL Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC). The court also appointed Motley Rice attorney Kristen Hermiz to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC). She was appointed in May 2024.
Keep in mind that MDLs allow multiple plaintiffs suing the same defendants to consolidate pre-trial efforts, share resources and create efficiencies. Class action suits are structured differently. There are class representatives who file on behalf of similarly situated people. The Paragard lawsuit is not a class action.
MDLs often use a bellwether trial to test how future cases may turn out. This practice is common in mass torts.
The Paragard IUD device lawsuits consolidated in MDL 2974 named five defendants:
CooperSurgical acquired the Paragard copper IUD from Teva in 2017. Teva may still be liable for injuries caused by Paragard that were implanted prior to the sale in 2017.
If you experienced harm as a result of your Paragard IUD, you may be able to file a lawsuit. If a favorable verdict or settlement is reached on your behalf, you may be able to receive monetary awards for:
Paragard settlement amounts are never guaranteed but may be available depending on the specific circumstances of a plaintiff’s case. An attorney with experience handling medical device litigation can help you explore what financial compensation may be available for you.
There are currently no settlements or verdicts in the Paragard MDL litigation. The cases are still in the discovery phase of litigation.
Below is a timeline of the Paragard’s history, developments with the device’s approval status and legal updates. Please note that the legal updates reflect the work of several firms, not just Motley Rice.
05.02.25
As of May 1, 2025, the Paragard IUD MDL increased to 3,252 pending actions.
04.02.25
The Paragard IUD MDL had 3,036 pending actions.
03.03.25
There were 2,965 pending actions in the Paragard IUD MDL.
02.04.25
The total number of cases in the Paragard IUD MDL rose to 2,937.
01.03.25
The total number of cases in the Paragard IUD MDL rose to 2,882.
12.01.24
More lawsuits have been filed in the Paragard MDL. The total number of active cases has grown to 2,862.
11.01.24
Plaintiffs continued to file Paragard IUD lawsuits, bringing the total number of cases in the docket to 2,824 at the start of November.
The first Paragard IUD lawsuit bellwether trials are scheduled for December 2025 and February 2026, pending confirmation from defense counsel.
10.31.24
At a status conference, the court set a deadline of December 11, 2024, for producing the custodial files requested in August. They can be produced on a rolling basis.
The judge denied plaintiffs’ July motion to add Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (the international wing of the company) to the master complaint.
The Paragard MDL had 2,747 actions pending as of October 2024. This was a decrease in the number of pending actions since September – the first decrease in nearly five years.
10.04.24
A status conference is scheduled for the end of the month. It will be between the lead counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. The Court will rule on plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendants to produce important custodial documents, as well as plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add Teva Ltd. as a defendant. The Court will also hear arguments about future deadlines in this case, including setting discovery, expert and trial dates.
09.01.24
CooperSurgical launched a new Paragard IUD designed to be inserted with one hand. The company expects the device to work similarly to their other IUDs.
Nearly 2,800 actions were pending in the Paragard MDL.
08.01.24
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to compel certain custodial files from defendants that have yet to be produced.
Continued FDA investigations showed that Paragard’s IUDs still pose a risk of breakage. CooperSurgical was trying to fix the issue.
The Paragard MDL now has nearly 2,775 plaintiffs. In January 2024, the MDL had 2,416 plaintiffs.
07.01.24
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to amend the master complaint to add Teva Ltd. as a defendant in this litigation. The Court will likely rule on the plaintiffs’ motion in the fall.
During the July status conference, leadership for plaintiffs discussed how changes in counsel for the defense have led to delays in completion of the discovery phase. Plaintiffs indicated their intent to file appropriate motions to compel delayed, deficient or missing discovery.
Defendants indicated their intent to file various motions to dismiss certain plaintiffs’ cases based upon allegedly deficient statute of limitations and statute of repose issues.
The Paragard MDL reached 2,736 actions pending.
06.01.24
Presiding Judge Leigh Martin May issued an order that individual cases in the Paragard MDL will be analyzed using laws from the state where the case was originally filed. The judge allows exemptions if the case was filed in a court of improper venue or jurisdiction. Cases filed directly to the MDL will use the choice-of-law analysis for the state where the district court and division would have had personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff.
The Paragard MDL had 2,690 actions pending.
05.01.24
Since January 2024, 235 individual cases have been added to the MDL, bringing the current total to 2,651 pending actions. As of May, the Paragard MDL had the 15th largest number of pending actions among all current MDLs.
The Court removed previous members of the Plaintiff Steering Committee and appointed new members. Motley Rice attorney Kristen Hermiz is one of the newly appointed members.
08.01.23
Judge Leigh Martin May rescheduled the first bellwether trial for October 2024. It has since been rescheduled again and will likely take place in 2025.
02.01.23
The U.S. District Court for the Northeastern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, ordered that 10 cases from the Paragard MDL be selected as part of a pool of potential bellwether cases. From there, the parties involved would use that pool to select a bellwether case.
02.01.21
Fidelma Fitzpatrick was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. She is a medical attorney for Motley Rice and specializes in womens’ health matters.
Judge Leigh Martin May appointed several other attorneys to fill roles such as co-lead counsel, plaintiffs’ liaison counsel and Plaintiff’s Leadership Committee members (including the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee and Plaintiffs; Steering Committee). The order appointing attorneys to these positions also outlined the duties and responsibilities of these roles.
The FDA issued a letter to CooperSurgical about a potentially false or misleading promotional video about the Paragard copper IUD. The FDA asked CooperSurgical to address concerns related to failure to discuss potential side effects and to submit a written response within 15 days.
12.01.20
Individual Paragard lawsuits from more than 30 districts transferred to the Paragard MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. At that time, the MDL consisted of nearly 60 actions. Judge Leigh Martin May was assigned to the MDL.
09.01.17
CooperSurgical entered an agreement to purchase Paragard from Teva Pharmaceuticals. The agreement was worth an estimated $1.1 billion.
Here are questions people frequently ask about Paragard and the associated lawsuits and MDL.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not recalled Paragard IUDs or released plans to recall the devices. Despite that, there are multiple concerns for women’s health, serious injuries and numerous deaths associated with broken pieces of the device related to a possible design flaw.
The lack of recall may result in more women experiencing injuries and serious health conditions as a result of using the device.
The plaintiffs allege that the Paragard IUD has a serious design flaw. This flaw causes plastic pieces of the Paragard IUD to break off during removal. These sharp plastic pieces can become stuck in the user’s uterus, causing serious or life-threatening injuries.
In some cases, Paragard users required hysterectomies or other surgeries to remove these plastic pieces. In other cases, women suffered heavy bleeding after the IUD was removed. Cases filed within the MDL also allege that the manufacturers of Paragard didn’t disclose the risks associated with this potential design defect to users and their medical providers.
There is no Paragard class action lawsuit. However, thousands of individual personal injury lawsuits are collected in a multidistrict litigation (MDL). These lawsuits aim to help affected Paragard users seek justice and compensation for their serious medical issues.
MDLs differ from class action lawsuits. Like class action suits, MDLs “combine” a number of individual cases. However, there are some technical differences. For example, plaintiffs’ cases are tried individually in an MDL, instead of as a group like a class action lawsuit.
The Paragard MDL comprises over 2,800 individual lawsuits. If the court or a jury rules in favor of one of the injured parties, the lawsuit award will go only to that individual.
The attorneys at our law firm have experience representing people alleging harmed by defective medical devices and birth control measures, including:
In addition to being a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) of the Paragard MDL, medical device attorney Fidelma Fitzpatrick served as court-appointed lead counsel of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) for more than 32,000 Essure® cases coordinated in California state court. Motley Rice has also reviewed and researched other lawsuits related to the adverse health effects of IUDs.
Read more on our birth control litigation experience.
FAERS is intended to help identify safety concerns related to marketed products, but it does not prove any product or drug is linked or caused a particular side effect or injury. The information in the FAERS reports has not been verified.
Do not stop taking a prescribed medication without first consulting with your doctor. Discontinuing a prescribed medication without your doctor's advice can result in injury or death. Paragard remains approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
What is Paragard?
Why are people filing Paragard IUD lawsuits?
Who qualifies for a Paragard lawsuit?
What is the Paragard MDL?
What damages may be available in a Paragard lawsuit?
Paragard lawsuit news and updates
Frequently asked questions about Paragard
Our experience with medical device litigation
Member
Fidelma Fitzpatrick represents people and communities in toxic tort and environmental matters, including property damage and personal injury claims. Her experience with complex civil litigation has led her to represent other victims of corporate malfeasance, including thousands of women who suffered health problems after receiving medical devices such as Essure®, pelvic mesh/sling products and IUDs, as well as people harmed by consumer products such as chemical hair straighteners.
Associate
Nicholas Williams represents people who developed health problems caused by defective medical drugs and devices, toxic exposure and environmental contamination.
Call us or fill out our online form with the details of your potential case.
Our team reviews your information to assess your potential case.
Talk with us about next steps.
