Paragard IUD Lawsuit 2026: MDL 2974 Claims & Status

The Paragard copper IUD is the subject of product liability claims alleging that the device can break or fracture when it is removed, leaving a piece behind. The federal cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia. This page explains the claims, what the device's FDA label says, and the current status neutrally, including the fact that the first test trial ended in the manufacturer's favor. It is general information and attorney advertising, not legal advice, and not a statement that anyone has a claim.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What the Paragard litigation is about

Paragard is a non-hormonal intrauterine device, a small T-shaped copper contraceptive that is implanted in the uterus and can be left in place for up to ten years. The lawsuits allege that the device has a tendency to break or fracture when a clinician removes it, so that one of the T-shaped arms can snap off and remain embedded in the uterus, sometimes migrating or requiring an additional procedure to retrieve. The legal claims include failure to warn, meaning the warnings about breakage are alleged to have been inadequate, along with design and manufacturing defect theories. The device was sold by Teva before late 2017 and then by CooperSurgical, which bought it that year, and both companies are involved in the litigation. These are allegations that plaintiffs must prove, and the manufacturers deny that the device is defective.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. Many Paragard removals are uneventful, and a complication does not by itself establish that the device was defective or that any company is liable.

The alleged injuries

The core injury alleged in the litigation is breakage of the device on removal, with a broken arm or fragment left embedded in the uterus. Plaintiffs allege this can require additional medical care to locate and remove the fragment, such as a hysteroscopy or dilation and curettage, and in some cases a surgical procedure like a laparoscopy, with hysterectomy alleged in rare cases. Related allegations include embedment in or perforation of the uterine wall, migration of the device or a fragment outside the uterus, pain, infection, scarring, and alleged effects on fertility. The severity differs from person to person, and whether any of these outcomes was caused by a device defect, rather than by the known risks of any IUD, is contested in the cases.

What the FDA label and adverse-event data show

Paragard has been approved by the FDA since 1984, and its FDA-approved label already addresses breakage. The label states that partial penetration or embedment in the uterine muscle can make removal difficult, that surgical removal may be necessary in some cases, and that breakage of an embedded device during non-surgical removal has been reported. This existing disclosure is significant to the litigation, because the manufacturers point to it while plaintiffs argue the warnings were still inadequate. The FDA's adverse-event database, known as MAUDE, contains reports involving Paragard, including reports of a broken or missing arm on removal. It is important to read that database carefully: MAUDE reports are submitted voluntarily, are not verified by the FDA, can be duplicative, and do not establish that the device caused the reported outcome.

Note: A label warning or an adverse-event report does not resolve the legal question. Plaintiffs argue the warnings were inadequate; the manufacturers argue they were sufficient and that the device is not defective. That dispute is what the litigation is about.

The status of the litigation (as of June 2026)

The federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May, which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created in December 2020. As of the panel's June 2026 statistics, roughly 4,000 cases were pending, a number that has grown over the life of the litigation. The first bellwether trial, Rickard v. Teva, was tried in Georgia and ended in a defense verdict in early February 2026, with the jury rejecting the plaintiff's claims. In July 2026 the MDL court entered an order scheduling the second bellwether trial to begin on April 12, 2027, a date Teva reported in its Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2026. There is no global settlement as of June 2026. A defense verdict in the first test case is a meaningful signal, though it is specific to that case and does not decide the others.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation are those who were implanted with a Paragard copper IUD and allege that the device broke or fractured during removal, leaving a fragment behind that caused complications or required additional medical care. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including the documentation of the breakage and any follow-up procedure, the medical records, and the law of the relevant state. Having had a Paragard, or even having experienced a difficult removal, does not by itself establish a claim, particularly given that the label discloses breakage as a known possibility. Nothing here suggests that every patient has a claim or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, the legal deadlines to file suit, which vary by state and by the type of claim. Many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury was connected to the device, a concept called the discovery rule, rather than from the date of removal. Some states also have statutes of repose that can bar older claims. Because these rules are state-specific and fact-dependent, there is no single national deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can determine which deadline applies, and missing it can permanently bar a claim.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim, which this page cannot do, and can take into account that the first test trial favored the defense. It helps to gather any records you have, such as documentation of the Paragard implant and removal, records of any procedure to retrieve a fragment, and the relevant dates. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation and work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation.