Paragard IUD Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers are handling Paragard IUD removal lawsuits in all 50 states. These lawsuits allege the Paragard intrauterine device breaks upon removal because it is made with inflexible plastic and degrades before the device expires. Over 2,500 lawsuits have been lodged against Teva Pharmaceutical and CooperSurgical by women who encountered issues such as breakage during removal or implantation or other complications associated with the Paragard birth control device.

This page provides an update on the Paragard class action lawsuit and speculates on the Paragard settlement amounts.

You can reach our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation. You pay nothing unless you get a recovery for the injuries related to your Paragard breaking during removal.

  • Another new birth control lawsuit: Depo Provera is said to be 5 times more likely to cause brain tumors

Paragard Class Action Lawsuit

Over one thousand women have filed a Paragard IUD lawsuit claiming that they were injured when a design defect in the popular IUD caused it to fracture during removal and leave foreign objects inside their bodies.

The Paragard lawsuits in the federal courts have been consolidated into an MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. The crux of the class action Paragard suit is that the device is prone to break inside a woman’s body because the IUD is not sufficiently flexible.

In this post, we give a 2025 Paragard lawsuit update. Our lawyers also speculate on how much a Paragard lawsuit might be worth if the litigation is resolved in a global settlement with the manufacturers. When could there be a settlement?  Soon.  These cases could potentially be resolved in 2025 before the end of the year, with victims getting paid in 2025 if the settlement happens quickly enough. Is that the most likely scenario?  We are cautiously optimistic, as they say.

Paragard Class Action Lawsuit Updates 2025

Plaintiffs Win Important Discovery Dispute

June 26, 2025

Last week, Judge May addressed ongoing discovery disputes in the Paragard MDL, specifically targeting the deposition testimony of William Senatore. Plaintiffs had asked to reopen Senatore’s deposition after CooperSurgical and other defendants repeatedly blocked lines of questioning about a 2023 internal audit.  There was no privilege, and the judge agreed.

The judge granted the request to reopen the deposition and made it clear that plaintiffs are not limited to simply revisiting the same questions that defense counsel initially obstructed. Judge May emphasized that the scope of privilege is narrow and must be properly applied. That means only confidential legal communications are protected, not facts, logistics, or the circumstances surrounding the audit.

The judge reiterated that questions about who was present at the mock FDA inspection, how often they met with counsel, what was observed during the audit, and the nature of related documents are all fair game. None of that falls under attorney-client or work-product protection, despite defense attempts to stretch privilege beyond its proper limits.

The court also warned that if Cooper again blocks questions already ruled permissible, especially under the guise of privilege objections, it will impose sanctions, including costs.

New Lawsuit in MDL

June 18, 2025

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a woman from Delaware has brought claims against multiple pharmaceutical companies in the Paragard MDL.  Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the MDL class action, 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.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff had the Paragard IUD inserted in May 2014. In February and March of 2021, she underwent an attempted and subsequent removal procedure. 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 expected to command higher settlement payouts due to the permanence and severity of the injuries involved. A hysterectomy, which results in the loss of fertility, is viewed as a life-altering procedure with profound emotional, physical, and psychological consequences. Juries recognize the gravity of such harm, especially when it follows complications from a device marketed as safe and reversible, and that gets reflected in settlement amounts.

Younger plaintiffs typically receive greater compensation in Paragard settlements because the impact on their reproductive future is more acute. Women in their twenties and early thirties who lose their ability to conceive face decades of emotional and psychological fallout, which adds substantial non-economic pain and suffering damages.

Deposition Battle Win

June 10, 2025

In a new order in the Paragard IUD MDL, Judge Leigh Martin May ruled that plaintiffs may reopen the deposition of key corporate witness William Senatore.

The issue centers on a 2023 IPS (Inspection Preparedness Services) audit, a review process often conducted to help companies anticipate and respond to regulatory scrutiny, typically by identifying internal quality control issues and potential compliance risks. Defendants had tried to block questioning about this audit by vaguely invoking privilege and claiming it was outside the scope of the deposition. But as the court rightly pointed out, 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.

Importantly, Judge May also called out the defense’s scope objection, ruling that the audit clearly fits within the deposition topics, especially since it relates 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 because they expect to win the fight in court, but because they are betting that plaintiffs’ counsel will not push back. In this case, that gambit failed. Plaintiffs followed through, and the court granted a two-hour deposition limited to the IPS audit, to be completed within 10 days.

Paragard Path to Trial 

June 6, 2025

The road to the first Paragard bellwether trial is finally taking shape. Judge Leigh Martin May entered this week a Fifth Amended Scheduling Order in MDL No. 2974, confirming a clear series of deadlines and milestones leading up to the first trial.

📅 Key Bellwether Deadlines

Event Deadline
Plaintiffs’ expert reports due July 3, 2025
Defendants’ expert reports due July 31, 2025
Rebuttal expert reports due August 18, 2025
Expert discovery closes August 29, 2025
Daubert & dispositive motions due September 19, 2025
Oppositions to Daubert & dispositive motions October 17, 2025
Replies due November 7, 2025
First Bellwether Trial January 20, 2026
Second Bellwether Trial March 3, 2026
Third Bellwether Trial May 11, 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, it allows a party to argue that the other side’s expert witness should not be allowed to testify because their methods are unreliable or not grounded in accepted science. In mass tort litigation like Paragard, Daubert motions are often pivotal, as excluding an expert can undermine a plaintiff’s entire theory of liability. But our expectation is that the court will find that the plaintiffs’ experts and the science on which they rely are all on solid ground to give their testimony.

Over 200 New Cases Added to MDL In April

May 14, 2025

216 new cases were added to the Paragard class action MDL during the month of April. This is the highest monthly volume of new cases in this MDL in over 2 years. It also marks the second month in a row of higher-than-normal new cases. There are now 3,252 pending cases.

What Is Braxton Trial About?

May 12, 2025

Last week, we talk about how the judge set the Braxton trial to go first.  What is the Braxton case about?

Braxton had a Paragard IUD implanted in November 2014. When she underwent removal in late 2019, the device fractured, leaving pieces behind 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 moving forward, and the news continues to favor plaintiffs. With nearly 3,000 cases pending, the momentum is shifting toward accountability. While the manufacturers have fought hard to dismiss claims, judges have allowed key arguments to stand, and bellwether trials are now on the horizon. This is not the kind of litigation that quietly disappears—it is building toward a settlement resolution.

The reality is that Paragard IUD lawsuits have exposed serious design flaws and a failure to warn that put 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 put real pressure on the defendants to settle. The longer this goes on, the clearer it becomes that Teva and CooperSurgical will have to answer for the damage their product has caused.

Below, we provide ongoing updates on new case filings, rulings on key legal issues, and where settlement discussions stand. If you are considering filing a claim, now is the time to act. The window for compensation may not stay open forever.

The first bellwether trial in the Paragard intrauterine device multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been officially set. The selected case is Braxton v. Teva. Importantly, Braxton is a defense pick.

What is a defense pick?  In an MDL, bellwether trials are chosen to serve as test cases that can 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 our best cases with strong, clear-cut examples of harm with 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.

That Braxton was selected by the defense means Teva and CooperSurgical believe this case puts them in a stronger position to push back on liability or damages. A defense win could give them leverage in settlement discussions. But there is also risk to them. If plaintiffs prevail even in a defense-chosen case, it sends a clear message about the strength of the underlying claims.

Get More Paragard IUD Lawsuit Updates

March 26, 2025: Motions to Reconsider Dismissals Denied

The MDL judge denied motions for reconsideration filed by six plaintiffs whose cases had been dismissed with prejudice due to failure to comply with Case Management Orders related to Plaintiff Fact Sheets.

The court had previously issued a show-cause order on December 30, 2024, giving plaintiffs 14 days to explain why their cases should not be dismissed for non-compliance. Despite explicit warnings that failure to respond could result in dismissal with prejudice, none of the plaintiffs filed a response. As a result, the court dismissed their cases.

The plaintiffs later sought reconsideration, but the court found no good cause to grant their motions. The judge emphasized that, given the complexity and scale of the MDL—with thousands of plaintiffs asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants—it is essential to enforce compliance with discovery obligations to manage the litigation efficiently. The court highlighted that plaintiffs had ample notice, multiple opportunities to correct deficiencies, and an explicit warning about the risk of dismissal.

While courts should be and are generally reluctant to dismiss cases with prejudice, plaintiffs must comply with procedural requirements and court orders. Repeated non-compliance—especially in large MDLs—can and will result in dismissal.

February 19, 2025: Paragard Trial Dates Pushed Back Amid Revised Scheduling

The first Paragard IUD lawsuit in the MDL has been delayed by over a year, with the MDL judge issuing a fourth amended scheduling order. The first bellwether trial is now set for January 12, 2026, followed by additional trials on March 3, 2026, and May 11, 2026. The order outlines detailed procedures for discovery, expert testimony, and depositions of key witnesses, including plaintiffs, healthcare providers, and sales representatives.

February 19, 2025: Dozens of Paragard Lawsuits Dismissed Due to Statute of Limitations

In a ruling favoring Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical, Judge May dismissed numerous Paragard lawsuits from plaintiffs in multiple states, citing statutes of limitations. The judge determined that the injury clock started when the IUD broke, even if the full extent of harm—such as infertility or chronic pain—was not immediately apparent. This decision has narrowed the MDL but leaves active cases within the applicable statute of limitations.

February 11, 2025: Inadequate Warning Labels at the Heart of Paragard Litigation

A central issue in the Paragard litigation is the device’s warning label, which plaintiffs argue fails to adequately convey the severity of risks. While the FDA mandated a warning about breakage during removal in 2019, the label remains vague, omitting details about potential complications like organ damage, chronic pain, and infertility. Plaintiffs contend that stronger warnings could have influenced patient and doctor decisions, a key argument in upcoming bellwether trials.

January 28, 2025: Settlement Payouts to Reflect Severity of Injuries

As settlement discussions progress, the severity of injuries will play a critical role in determining payout amounts. Cases involving emergency surgeries, chronic pain, or infertility are expected to receive higher compensation compared to those with minor complications. The litigation process involves a complex evaluation of medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional distress.

January 21, 2025: Paragard Warning Label Criticized for Vagueness

The Paragard IUD’s warning label, updated in 2019, acknowledges the risk of breakage during removal but fails to detail the potential for severe complications like organ damage or infertility. Plaintiffs argue that the label’s vague language downplays the risks, leaving patients and doctors inadequately informed.

January 13, 2025: Mediator Appointed to Facilitate Paragard Settlement Talks

Retired Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. has been appointed as a mediator to oversee Paragard settlement negotiations. This move signals the court’s push for a fair and efficient resolution, with hopes that a global copper IUD settlement can be reached before the first bellwether trial.

December 10, 2024: Discovery Battle Over Contention Interrogatories

Defendants had requested an extension of time to answer contention interrogatories, arguing that their responses should be delayed until the pretrial conference. Plaintiffs opposed the extension, citing the active state of discovery and the need for timely information to prepare their case.

The MDL judge sided with the defendants in granting an extension but stopped short of permitting a delay until the pretrial conference. Instead, the court has stayed defendants’ obligation to respond and stated it would revisit the matter at the next discovery conference.

November 4, 2024: Trial Set for December 1, 2025

The MDL judge has scheduled the first copper IUD bellwether trial for December 1, 2025, and the second for February 2, 2026, pending “confirmation of availability from Defendants’ trial counsel.”

October 23, 2024: FDA Reportedly Look at Paragard IUD Label

The FDA is reportedly reviewing stricter labeling for intrauterine devices, including Paragard, following ongoing reports of breakage complications during removal. This regulatory scrutiny, prompted by nearly 40,000 adverse events reported in the last decade and this litigation, could push manufacturers toward giving a much-needed stronger warning and design modifications to make these products safer during removal.

It would not be a shock to see a new warning timed around a global Paragard settlement.

October 11, 2024: Paragard Defendant to Pay $450 Million to Settle Medicare Fraud

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has agreed to pay $450 million to settle allegations that it used charitable organizations to cover Medicare patients’ out-of-pocket costs as a way to pay kickbacks and increase sales of its multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone. This settlement includes $425 million to resolve a lawsuit filed in Boston in 2020 as part of a broader investigation into drugmakers’ financial support of patient assistance charities. Additionally, the settlement resolves claims that Teva conspired to fix prices for generic drugs.

Maybe we can all agree that the allegations that Teva put profits over women’s best interest in the Paragard litigation are pretty plausible.

October 6, 2024: New Lawsuits in October

We talked in the last update about the litigation slowing down in terms of newly filed cases. Then 12 cases were filed in the first two days of October.

One of those lawsuits was on behalf of a Texas resident who has a story that will sound familiar. Her Paragard device, which was placed in Idaho in 2019 and later removed in Texas in 2022, broke during the removal procedure. As a result, she experienced device breakage and embedment, necessitating additional attempts to remove the remaining fragments. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to adequately test the product, misrepresented its safety, and concealed information regarding the risks of breakage.

September 13, 2024: Statute of Limitations Dismissal

Teva contends that 236 lawsuits within the Paragard MDL are undeniably time-barred and should be dismissed.

The allegedly untimely cases fall into three main categories:

  • Lawsuits where the statute of limitations starts on the date of the Paragard removal surgery.
  • Cases blocked by the statute of repose, which prohibits claims after a specific period from the product’s sale or use.
  • Claims where strict liability is barred by state law.

Defendants’ problem is that there are fraudulent concealment claims that should make the statute of limitations a matter for the jury. Even if these cases are dismissed—which is probably unlikely—they may still hold some settlement value because Teva/Cooper will not want to deal with an appeal at that point. Still, dismissal would likely reduce the settlement payout of these claims.

The good news is that if you are not one of these 236 plaintiffs? Teva’s strategy seems aimed at clearing these cases before a broader Paragard settlement. My take, and it is just my take, is that a Paragard settlement is likely near and everyone is trying to tie up loose ends before a settlement.

September 6, 2024: New Paragard Lawsuit

A Missouri woman has filed a new lawsuit Wednesday against Teva and Cooper in connection with injuries sustained from the use of the Paragard intrauterine device.

The plaintiff alleges – as every plaintiff in the MDL does – that the Paragard device broke during removal, causing injuries that include pain, suffering, mental anguish, and potential need for further surgeries. The lawsuit alleges counts of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws, and fraud. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and reserves the right to allege further complications or injuries.

August 27, 2024: Defendants Push Back on Motion to Compel

Defendants have filed a response opposing the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of custodial files. The plaintiffs argue, as we discuss in the last update, that the defendants have failed to identify relevant custodians and produce their files, despite a previous court order.

The defendants counter that the court never required ongoing identification of custodians and that the responsibility to request specific custodial files lies with the plaintiffs. They further argue that the plaintiffs have not provided a justifiable reason for requesting additional custodial files at this stage, making the request unduly burdensome and disproportionate.

The defendants also contend that they have acted in good faith by providing an updated list of custodians and have met deadlines for producing custodial files. They emphasize that the plaintiffs’ motion lacks a credible basis, as the plaintiffs have been aware of the custodians in question for years and have not previously requested their files. Defendants request that the court deny the plaintiffs’ motion, asserting that the plaintiffs’ request for all 31 custodial files is excessive and unsupported by the facts of the case.

Excessive how? Defendants argue that the production of all 31 custodial files is excessive but they have not convincingly demonstrated how this request would be unduly burdensome, especially in light of the potential relevance of these documents to the case.

August 21, 2024: Custodians Finally Revealed Two Years After Court Order Required Their Identification

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the defendants to produce custodial files for 31 newly identified custodians who were revealed almost two years – two years! – after a court order required their identification.

This motion argues that the defendants delayed disclosing these custodians, thus hindering the plaintiffs’ ability to request and review pertinent custodial files as part of the discovery process. The plaintiffs contend that this delay has caused significant prejudice to their case, as the late disclosure has compressed their discovery timeline and limited their ability to conduct thorough investigations. They request the court to order the defendants to produce these files expediently and at the defendants’ expense to rectify the ongoing prejudice.

The back story is that there are new lawyers representing the defendants, Teva and Cooper, who were formally appointed in September 2023 and February 2024, respectively. According to the motion, the previous attorneys for the defendants had failed to meet their obligations under the custodial file protocol by not timely identifying relevant custodians and producing the required custodial files. The new counsel, upon taking over, threw the old lawyers under the bus and acknowledged deficiencies in the previous productions and undertook additional efforts such as re-interviewing custodians and gathering more documents, which led to the identification of 31 new custodians with potentially relevant information.

August 9, 2024: New Lawsuit Filed Directly In Paragard MDL

Another new copper IUD lawsuit was filed directly in the Paragard class action MDL using the short form complaint earlier this week. The plaintiff in this case originally had her Paragard IUD implanted in Georgia in 2017. Four years later, when she had it removed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in New York, the IUD fractured. The fracture left pieces inside of her, causing pain and requiring her to undergo further medical treatments.

July 10, 2024: Southern California Woman Joins Paragard MDL

A woman from southern California became the latest plaintiff to join the Paragard class action MDL. According to the short form complaint filed directly in the MDL, the woman attempted to have her Paragard IUD removed in July 2022. The IUD fractured during removal and she underwent a second procedure in October 2022 in an effort to retrieve the fractured pieces from inside her.

June 29, 2024: State Law in The MDL

Even though multidistrict litigation is a national process designed to streamline complex cases involving many plaintiffs across different states, the laws applied to these cases are state laws, which can vary significantly. This presents a challenge in determining which state’s laws should govern each case within the MDL.

In the Paragard IUD MDL, specific guidelines were issued by the MDL judge to address this issue: For cases transferred from another federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the state choice-of-law rules from the transferor court (the court where the case was initially filed) will apply unless the case was filed in an improper venue or jurisdiction. If the venue or jurisdiction was improper, defendants can challenge the application of those state rules.

For cases filed directly in the MDL, the state choice-of-law rules from the district and division identified in the Short Form Complaint will apply, provided the identified court has proper venue and jurisdiction; otherwise, defendants may challenge these rules.

Plaintiffs cannot alter the applicable choice of law by amending the venue in their complaints post-filing, except within a specific timeframe and with consent or court approval. Additionally, no motions to resolve choice-of-law issues can be filed until after the initial bellwether trials unless the applicable law is undisputed. Any changes to the court-set deadlines require court approval for good cause. This structured approach ensures that the diverse state laws are applied fairly and consistently in the consolidated MDL cases.

The law that is applied to the case can be a big deal. One of the most significant differences lies in the treatment of punitive damages, which are awarded to punish defendants for particularly egregious behavior and to deter similar conduct in the future, especially when it comes to punitive damages. Some states have caps on punitive damages or require a higher standard of proof to award them, while others do not have such limitations, potentially leading to significantly higher awards. These discrepancies can greatly affect the strategies of both plaintiffs and defendants, the potential compensation available.

One battlefield in mass tort cases is what law applies to cases in the MDL. The issue is how the choice-of-law analysis should be applied uniformly across the Paragard MDL-2974, which is crucial for determining which state laws govern the cases. Plaintiffs seek flexibility in determining the applicable law for each case individually; defendants advocate for a uniform approach.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are attempting to manipulate the choice-of-law process to their advantage without providing any solid legal basis for their position. Defendants maintain that the choice-of-law analysis is a purely legal issue that should be resolved on an MDL-wide basis to ensure consistency and fairness. They emphasize that resolving this legal question now will provide clarity and prevent delays in the litigation process.

In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the choice-of-law issues are too individualized to be resolved collectively. They cite the need for case-specific determinations despite the defendants’ assertion that such an approach leads to unnecessary complications and delays.

April 3, 2024: Spotlight Investigative Report Alleges That CooperSurgical Ignored FDA Warning

A recent investigative report from Spotlight on America revealed that the FDA had told the maker of the Paragard IUD, CooperSurgical, that it had concerns about the potential for the IUD to break during removal, but CooperSurgical did nothing about it. The FDA concerns were submitted to CooperSurgical following an FDA inspection of one of its Paragard IUD manufacturing facilities. The company appears to have completely ignored this warning from the FDA.L

January 22, 2024: New Paragard Lawsuit Filed Friday

A new Paragard copper IUD lawsuit was filed on Friday. A Texas woman alleges injury from breakage when her OB/GYN attempted to remove the device in 2016.

How does she circumvent the statute of limitations? Her complaint alleges tolling/fraudulent concealment. Under this legal principle, the statute of limitations for filing a Paragard lawsuit is paused (or tolled) due to a defendant’s intentional hiding of their wrongdoing.

In such cases, the time limit to bring legal action does not begin until the plaintiff discovers or should have reasonably discovered the fraud or deceit. This principle ensures that plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to seek justice even when defendants have deliberately concealed their harmful actions.

October 2, 2023: Paragard MDL To Focus On Factual Discovery For Bellwether Candidate Pool Cases

As set forth in the recent Case Management Order, the focus in the Paragard MDL for the next few months will be case-specific factual discovery in the bellwether candidate pool cases. Depositions of the plaintiffs in these cases will take place 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. So… long ago. There are always mass tort plaintiffs who bring claims that either do not have viable claims or simply decide not to pursue a lawsuit. In this case, 132 Paragard plaintiffs are in that boat.

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.

June 2, 2023: Initial Bellwether Discovery Pool Close To Finalization

The initial pool of Paragard bellwether discovery cases is close to being finalized. Over the next few weeks, these cases will go through an accelerated fact discovery phase involving depositions of the plaintiffs and other fact witnesses. The information obtained from this discovery phase will then be used to narrow down the pool to six cases.

May 1, 2023: Judge May Expresses Optimism Towards Possible Settlement

At a recent court conference, Judge May closed a hearing, expressing 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. This makes us optimistic, but that optimism is chilled by how far away the first trial is. Because trial dates put pressure on defendants to offer reasonable settlement amounts.

February 25, 2023 Update: Judge Establishes Procedure For Selecting Bellwether Test Trial Representatives

The presiding judge in the federal Paragard IUD lawsuits has established a procedure for selecting a group of 10 representative cases for the initial bellwether trials slated for 2024. Fifteen cases will be nominated by the plaintiffs for the bellwether pool, which will then be reduced to ten through a process of eliminations and challenges from both parties. These ten cases will undergo detailed, case-specific discovery, with three ultimately chosen to proceed in the initial bellwether trials starting in Georgia in March 2024.

What is a bellwether trial? A bellwether trial is a legal process employed in mass tort litigation to gauge how juries might respond to the evidence and testimonies that are expected to recur across many similar cases. This approach involves preparing a small, representative set of cases for early trial dates. The outcomes of these trials are used to guide decisions in future trials and potential settlements.

February 5, 2023: Bellwether Process Remains A Work In Progress

The bellwether process in the Paragard MDL remains a work in progress 25 months after the MDL class action was established. A status conference was held before Judge May this week. Still, instead of finalizing the bellwether process, she simply offered “guidance” to the parties on their competing proposals for how the bellwether program should be handled. In the meantime, corporate depositions are getting underway for the primary defendants, Cooper Surgical and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

January 25, 2023: Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. Appointed As Settlement Mediator

Looking for some good news in the Paragard litigation? A retired Fulton County, Georgia judge, M. Gino Brogdon Sr., was appointed by the Paragard class action judge to serve as a settlement mediator.

We do not think Teva and Cooper Surgical are on the phone with this mediator right now, trying to set up settlement talks. A trial is too far away for the defendants to feel any urgency to settle these lawsuits. Brogdon’s appointment was made by the Court and not at the parties’ request, so this is not a sign that a settlement might be in the works already. That said, any direction in the settlement path for victims who have already waited too long for compensation is good.

January 9, 2023: 934 Adverse Incident Reports Involving Paragard IUD Fracture Reported To FDA In 2022

934 adverse incident reports involving fracture of the Paragard IUD during removal were reported to the FDA Adverse Event Report Database in 2022. This is three times the number of events reported for the Paragard just two years ago, and it suggests that we could see continued growth in the number of Paragard product liability cases in the MDL in 2023. It also shows—importantly—that Paragard removal breakage is more common than the defendants claim.


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.
What is the status of the Paragard MDL lawsuit?
The Paragard class action lawsuit has been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia. As of 2025, nearly 3,000 cases are pending. The first Paragard bellwether trial is scheduled for January 2026, with additional trials planned for later that year. While a global settlement could resolve these cases before trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys prepare for litigation. If you read in between the lines of our Paragard lawsuit updates (see above and below), our lawyers suggest we think there will be a global Paragard settlement in 2025.
What is the potential settlement amount for a Paragard IUD lawsuit?

While no official Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement amounts have been announced, 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.

We give more background to our thinking on Paragard settlement amounts below.

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 a lawyer to discuss your eligibility for a Paragard compensation claim.
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 2024 or 2025, it is crucial to contact a lawyer immediately to ensure you do not miss your filing deadline.

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. A recall is really not the point.  Defendants could have avoided this litigation with a strong warning to let women and doctors decide if they wanted 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 upfront. 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 a Paragard lawyer immediately.

To discuss your case with an attorney, call 800-553-8082 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., and controls 17% of the U.S. IUD market in 2024.

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.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs in the Paragard class action lawsuit are all women with a Paragard implant that later broke while still in their bodies. The IUD breaks because the flawed design does not provide sufficient flexibility. Specifically, Paragard lawsuits allege that Paragard raw plastic T units failed to meet the minimum flexibility requirements with the IUD’s approved expiration date (i.e., shelf life) before installing the copper sleeves. So the arms become more rigid over time, and these devices are marketed as a long-term solution.

Failure to Warn of Paragard Complications

There is also a failure to warn component to the Paragard class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim the defendants knew Paragard could cause serious harm to women due to its propensity to break in utero or during removal but failed to adequately warn doctors and patients of the risk. No one is arguing for a Paragard recall. Just warn doctors and women of what you know about the dangers.

The defendants in the Paragard lawsuits, including Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical, could have been aware of the risks associated with the device breaking during removal based on numerous reports filed between 2009 and 2021. During this time, over 2,000 incidents of Paragard breakage were reported, indicating a recurring problem. Despite these reports, the information did not translate into enhanced warnings for doctors or patients. This failure to act raises significant 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 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, necessitating surgical interventions. The plaintiffs argue that had the risks been made clear, many women might have opted for alternative birth control methods or taken additional precautions during removal procedures.

This lack of transparency about known risks has fueled the litigation. Paragard lawsuits allege the defendants intentionally concealed the severity and frequency of the risks associated with Paragard’s removal. Why? The same reason any medical device company hides the risks of their product: a warning would decrease sales and profits.

Eventually, to cut their losses, the warning label on the Paragard IUD was updated in 2019 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. But this warning was either too little or too late for too many women.

Paragard IUD Lawsuits Will Be Resolved in a Global Settlement

The Paragard lawsuits will eventually be resolved with a global settlement. This is how almost all product mass torts are resolved and not dismissed by a judge. The Paragard MDL was formed at the end of 2020, and new Paragard cases continued to get filed and added to the MDL. The MDL judge will oversee a consolidated “group discovery” process between the plaintiffs and defendants. The focus of the discovery process will be on the design flaw in the Paragard and what the defendants knew.

When the process of consolidated discovery in the Paragard MDL is completed, the litigation will move into the bellwether trial phase. This is where jury trials are conducted in a select handful of individual Paragard victims chosen by the parties. The results of these initial bellwether “test trials” significantly impact the litigation. They usually dictate how quickly the defendants will negotiate a global settlement and how much the settlement payouts will be.

What Will a Global Paragard Settlement Look Like?

Over 3,000 women have filed Paragard IUD lawsuits alleging that the copper IUD is prone to breaking during removal, causing serious internal injuries. Again, these claims have been consolidated into a federal Paragard MDL in Georgia, where coordinated pretrial proceedings are underway.  What would a global settlement in this litigation look like?

If the Paragard class action lawsuit—more accurately, this consolidated MDL—follows the pattern of past defective medical device cases, any settlement will be resolved through a structured, points-based compensation system rather than equal payouts. This system is designed to account for the differences in how each plaintiff was harmed, which, while flawed, is the fairest way to structure compensation. The use of a points matrix allows for more individualized compensation while still resolving thousands of cases through one negotiated settlement.

So if we reach a Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement, it will not involve flat-rate payouts. Instead, each plaintiff’s compensation would be determined using a points system. This method assigns point values based on various factors, including the type and severity of the injury, the medical procedures required (such as surgery to remove a broken copper IUD, which will be a big factgor), duration of pain and recovery, loss of fertility or other long-term effects, and the strength of medical documentation supporting the claim.

Estimated Settlement Payout in Paragard Lawsuits

Our lawyers cannot predict with certainty how much the settlement payout in the Paragard lawsuit might be. If and when there is a trial in January 2026, we will get a much more focused idea of what Paragard IUD settlement compensation might be. It is not too early, however, to make an educated guess about the potential settlement amounts of the average case in the class action, which might be based on settlement payouts in prior mass tort cases with similar allegations.

Based on global settlements in prior mass tort cases involving defective medical devices and internal damages, we believe that Paragard cases in the highest copper IUD settlement tier will have a value between $100,000-$380,000. Paragard plaintiffs in the second tier can probably expect payouts between $40,000-$75,000. There will likely be a lower, third tier of plaintiffs who receive smaller payouts, ranging from $10,000 to $30,000.

It is impossible to overemphasize the speculative nature of these Paragard individual settlement compensation payouts. Because all these projections assume that a judge will allow the Paragard lawsuits to proceed to trial. Before these cases reach a jury, the MDL judge must decide whether there is sufficient scientific evidence that a reasonable jury could accept.

Is this a challenge in the Paragard lawsuits? It is a challenge in most mass tort lawsuits. What your gut and science tell you are often two different things. But our Paragard attorneys believe the science supports the plaintiffs’ claims that the design was defective (and the defendants knew it and did not tell anyone). We will know more after the Daubert hearing in September 2025.

When Will the Paragard IUD Lawsuit Settle?

No one can say with certainty when the Paragard IUD lawsuits will settle. There is no official settlement date, and nothing has been finalized.

That said, our lawyers believe the most likely timeframe is December 2025. A court-appointed mediator is set to begin settlement discussions in November, and the first bellwether trial is scheduled for January 12, 2026. Based on that schedule, it is reasonable to expect that serious settlement negotiations will take place in the weeks leading up to trial.

If CooperSurgical and Teva are unwilling to offer fair and reasonable settlement amounts, then this litigation will proceed to trial. Plaintiffs ‘ lawyers are ready, and the court seems clear that the process is moving forward regardless of settlement status.

Hiring a Paragard Lawyer

Each victim who has filed a Paragard class action lawsuit had a Paragard break while it was still inside her body. If this happened to you, call a Paragard lawyer. You can reach us at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation. You pay nothing unless you get a recovery.

Contact Information