This is an Active case
Thousands of people allege birth control breakage led to serious health complications. Learn about ongoing lawsuits and potential Paragard IUD lawsuit eligibility.
Connect with an attorney
Plaintiffs in the Paragard IUD lawsuit allege that the device can fracture during removal, leaving pieces embedded in the uterus or migrating to other organs. Reported injuries include uterine perforation, organ damage, infertility, infections and the need for invasive surgery. More than 3,800 cases are pending in multidistrict litigation (MDL), with trials beginning in 2026.
02.03.2026
Paragard is a non-hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) that’s been available in the U.S. since 1988. The small, T-shaped device is wrapped in copper, which prevents pregnancy by releasing copper ions that disrupt sperm movement. Unlike hormonal IUDs such as Mirena, Paragard provides long-term contraception without altering a patient’s hormone levels.
Paragard has been promoted as a safe, reversible birth control option that can be removed at any time by a healthcare provider. It is marketed as effective for up to 10 years. However, lawsuits allege that the device can break apart during removal, leaving copper fragments in the uterus or migrating to other organs. These complications have led to thousands of legal claims against its manufacturers, Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical.
Thousands of lawsuits allege that the Paragard IUD can fracture when doctors attempt to remove it, and that the manufacturers failed to warn patients about this risk. Instead of sliding out intact, one or both of the device’s arms may snap off, leaving fragments lodged in the uterus or migrating to other parts of the body. These incidents have led to painful complications, repeat medical procedures and, in some cases, permanent injuries.
Patients have reported a range of complications linked to Paragard breakage, including:
People with Paragard IUDs and their medical providers have made more than 54,000 reports to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since Paragard was FDA-approved in 1984, according to publicly available data in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.
Of the more than 54,000 reports, nearly 24,000 have involved serious health problems, as classified by the FDA. According to the FDA, by the second half of 2025, there had also been 22 related deaths.
*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. Reports by themselves are not an indicator of a medical product’s safety profile. In addition, FAERS may include duplicate reports or may significantly undercount injuries.
Paragard IUD lawsuits claim manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and doctors about these risks, despite marketing Paragard as an IUD that could be removed easily and safely. However, not everyone who used Paragard will be eligible to file a claim. To pursue compensation, individuals must show medical evidence connecting the broken IUD to their injuries.
You may qualify for a Paragard IUD lawsuit if you’ve experienced:
Although people sometimes refer to the Paragard litigation as a “class action,” the lawsuits aren’t part of a single class case. Instead, they’ve been consolidated into an MDL in a Georgia federal court. An MDL allows thousands of individual lawsuits that share similar claims to be managed together for efficiency. Each plaintiff maintains their own case, but discovery, expert testimony and pretrial rulings related to Paragard litigation are coordinated by Judge Leigh Martin May.
As of September 2025, more than 3,500 lawsuits were pending in the Paragard MDL, or MDL No. 2974. The first bellwether trial is scheduled for January 2026, with two more scheduled for the following months. These early trials will provide important insight into how juries view the evidence, which may influence settlement negotiations for the broader group of plaintiffs. Motley Rice attorneys serve in leadership roles in the MDL and play an important role in advocating for injured patients nationwide.
Patients who suffered injuries from a fractured Paragard IUD may be eligible to seek compensation through ongoing litigation. While no settlements have been finalized yet, lawsuits seek to recover both monetary and non-monetary damages.
The exact value of each case will depend on the extent of the injuries and the strength of medical documentation. Bellwether trials scheduled for 2026 may provide insight into how juries respond to these claims, and these trials could shape settlement discussions for thousands of plaintiffs.
02.03.26
As of February 2, the Paragard IUD MDL increased by 67 claims to 3,867.
01.05.26
New plaintiffs joined the MDL in December, bringing the total to 3,800.
12.03.25
Throughout November, plaintiffs continued to join the Paragard IUD MDL. There are now 3,749 pending cases.
11.03.25
There are now 3,658 plaintiffs suing Paragard in the MDL for harms related to its IUD.
10.01.25
With more actions filed, the total number of active cases in the Paragard MDL rose to 3,595 by the end of September.
09.02.25
There were 3,569 pending actions in the Paragard IUD MDL.
08.01.25
At the beginning of August there were 3,529 active pending lawsuits in the Paragard IUD MDL.
07.11.25
Judge Leigh Martin May issued a case management order (CMO) setting dates for three bellwether trials in 2026: January 20, March 3 and May 11. The CMO also set new deadlines for sharing documents, deadlines for motions (Daubert and dispositive) and responses, and the closing of expert discovery.
07.02.25
There were 3,474 pending actions in the Paragard IUD MDL.
06.03.25
The Paragard IUD MDL grew to 3,330 pending actions.
05.02.25
As of May 1, 2025, the Paragard IUD MDL increased to 3,252 pending actions.
05.02.25
Judge May ordered the first case to go before a jury in the Paragard MDL. This trial may be heard as soon as January 2026. While the outcome of this trial isn’t binding on other cases in the MDL, it may impact how other cases proceed.
04.02.25
The Paragard IUD MDL had 3,036 pending actions.
04.01.25
Judge May held two evidentiary hearings in late March to resolve ongoing disputes about document sharing and deposition scheduling to keep the discovery process moving and avoid delays.
03.03.25
There were 2,965 pending actions in the Paragard IUD MDL.
02.11.25
Judge May issued a scheduling order delaying the first bellwether trials. The first trial was scheduled to begin in January 2026.
02.01.25
Judge May dismissed a handful of suits in the Paragard MDL. The claims were time barred by various states’ statutes of limitation.
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.
09.19.24
FDA safety regulators acknowledged that leaving IUD fragments in a woman’s uterus has “unknown consequences,” and “device breakage can subject patients to risk and cause anxiety for both patients and healthcare providers.”
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.
02.01.24
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.
02.01.23
Fidelma Fitzpatrick was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. She is a medical attorney for Motley Rice and specializes in women’s health matters.
Judge Leigh Martin May appointed several other attorneys to fill roles such as co-lead counsel, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Leadership Committee members (including the Plaintiffs’ 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.
Settlement amounts in the Paragard IUD lawsuits haven’t yet been determined. Compensation may cover medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering. While the value of each case will depend on its facts, the outcomes of early bellwether trials scheduled for 2026 are expected to shape potential global settlement ranges.
Yes. Despite ongoing lawsuits, Paragard remains approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It’s still prescribed nationwide. The litigation doesn’t seek to remove the product from the market but, instead, challenges its design and the adequacy of warnings about breakage risks.
The Paragard IUD device lawsuits consolidated in MDL No. 2974 has five defendants:
CooperSurgical bought Paragard from Teva in 2017. However, Teva may still be liable for injuries caused by Paragard prior to the sale in 2017.
Statutes of limitations vary by state, but many range from one to three years after the injury is discovered. Because Paragard complications may not be apparent right away, some states allow exceptions. Consulting a Paragard IUD lawyer as soon as possible helps ensure you don’t miss critical filing deadlines.
Motley Rice’s Paragard IUD attorneys hold leadership positions in the MDL, representing patients nationwide who suffered injuries from fractured IUDs. Our firm has decades of experience litigating defective medical device cases, including many involving women’s health products. Motley Rice has:
In addition to being a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) of the Paragard MDL, medical attorney Fidelma Fitzpatrick served as court-appointed lead counsel for the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) for more than 32,000 Essure® cases coordinated in California state court. Motley Rice has also monitored other lawsuits related to the adverse health effects of IUDs.
Read more on our birth control litigation experience.
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.
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.
What is Paragard?
Why are people filing Paragard IUD lawsuits?
Is there a Paragard class action lawsuit?
Paragard IUD lawsuit news and recent updates
Frequently asked questions about the Paragard IUD lawsuit
Our medical device litigation experience
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.
