Paragard IUD Class Action MDL

Within the past year, many lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals. These Paragard IUD lawsuits allege that suits allege that Teva’s IUD fractures upon removal, resulting in fragments being left in the uterus. The plaintiffs claimed this caused them to undergo additional removal procedures, which would have been unnecessary had this defect not occurred.  The purpose of this page is to provide a status update on the current state of the Paragard lawsuits as of 2025.

Indeed, the biggest news in the short history of this litigation was last month when these lawsuits were centralized into an MDL in Georgia federal court.  This means there will be a class action in which all federal court cases will be consolidated in Georgia under one judge.  So if you have a federal case in California, Texas, Florida, or anywhere, it will end up.

Let’s start out by talking about some of the science behind these cases.  Usually, what fuels litigation is that studies come out, and lawyers jump on these studies to bring lawsuits.  In this litigation, it might be a little bit backward.  It took a while for plaintiffs’ lawyers to pick up on the problems with Paragard.  Now a new study further supports the contention Paragard lawyers are making.

Paragard IUD Lawsuit Updates

February 2025: Mass tort settlements are rarely simple, and the Paragard litigation is following the usual script. The MDL celebrated its fourth birthday in December.  We have been at this for a while.

Defendants like Teva and CooperSurgical are in no hurry to reach a resolution—they want as much leverage as possible before engaging in meaningful settlement discussions. Their strategy is clear: reduce the number of cases before negotiating by aggressively challenging weaker claims, highlighting procedural deficiencies, and dragging out discovery battles. The fewer plaintiffs left standing, the smaller their overall payout when a settlement is finally reached.

For plaintiffs, this can be frustrating for sure. Lawyers manage it better becasue we are used to it.  Ultimately, for better but mostly for worse, this is how the  corporate risk management game is played in mass tort cases. Teva and Cooper will not make a serious settlement offer until they feel they have minimized their exposure and they feel the pressure of that trial date.Then the defendants will be forced to weigh the risks of taking cases before a jury, and that is when meaningful settlement discussions are most likely to begin.

January 2025:  The Paragard litigation remains active, with key developments signaling both progress and challenges. The MDL now includes 2,882 cases, reflecting modest growth in recent months. Plaintiffs and defendants are gearing up for the first bellwether trial, scheduled for December 1, 2025, with a second trial to follow in February 2026. These trials will be pivotal in determining how juries perceive the claims and could provide a clearer framework for settlement discussions.

Teva, one of the key defendants, has focused on reducing the number of cases through procedural dismissals, aggressively enforcing compliance with documentation requirements. Plaintiffs are urged to stay diligent and meet deadlines to avoid risking dismissal. This strategy reflects a common defense approach in mass torts: narrowing the pool of claims to strengthen their position in settlement talks.

One canary in the coal mine of settlement is a bunch of new lawyers talking cases.  This is usually because the have their ears to the ground and what they are hearing is that settlement in on deck.

December 2024: The Paragard MDL added 38 new cases and we are pushing towards 3,000 case.  This steady but slow growth reflects the mature stage of the litigation, where most eligible plaintiffs have already filed claims.

This is not huge litigation but that is good for plaintiffs—it makes it easier for Teva to offer reasonable Paragard settlement amounts without breaking the bank.

November 2024: As we get closer to 2025, it is hard for plaintiffs (and lawyers) not to be thinking about settlement.  We write about it a lot here.  The purpose of a civil lawsuit in money.  The is no other justice victims will receive. So it is important to talk about it.

One misconception is that this will be some kind of class action settlement where everyone gets the same compensation. It will not.  Unlike a class action, where all plaintiffs receive a uniform payout, a Paragard settlement will be tiered based on injury severity. A plaintiff who suffered only minor complications will not receive the same payout as someone who endured multiple surgeries or suffered permanent reproductive damage.

This structure makes it difficult to predict average settlement amounts.  Why?  Because the biggest question will be what is the baseline injury. What if the device broke during removal but the doctor was about to get it out without surgery or discomfort.  Is that case included in the settlement pool? That will matter for calculating average individual payouts.

Plaintiffs with more severe injuries will receive higher compensation. The key factors influencing settlement payouts will include the number of medical procedures required, long-term health complications, and whether the plaintiff has experienced permanent damage. As settlement talks progress, plaintiffs should expect a grading system that determines individual compensation based on medical records and the severity of harm.

September 2024:  This litigation is moving slowly.  Very slowly.  We have been at this for two years, and there is not much progress to show for it.  But things are trudging along.  A process to bring the first bellwether trial is coming soon, which will throw some caffeine into this litigation.

What to Expect in 2025

Where is this litigation going in 2025?  For those considering filing a claim, now is the time to act. With the Paragard IUD lawsuit 2025 gaining traction, an IUD lawsuit settlement may be on tap.  When?  We do not know exactly.  But our lawyers do believe it is coming. So if you  have suffered from complications related to the Paragard IUD—specifically breakage during removal—and you think you may qualify to join the Paragard compensation claim process, act now.  Our experienced attorneys are ready to guide you through this complex litigation and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Paragard IUD Lawsuit Background

The Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) has been a popular form of birth control for many women.  The Paragard is inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider and can provide protection against pregnancy for up to 10 years. The device can be removed at any time, and fertility typically returns quickly after removal. We get complaints from women who want to bring a lawsuit because they got pregnant.  But no IUD is perfect and Paragard does its job reasonably well.

Every broken IUD lawsuit in the Paragard MDL centers on breakage during removal, with plaintiffs alleging that Teva Pharmaceuticals failed to adequately warn healthcare providers and patients of this risk. Prolonged use of the IUD and individual factors, such as uterine abnormalities, may increase the likelihood of breakage. Despite these risks, Paragard remains on the market, with its label only recently acknowledging breakage as a potential complication.

However, reports began to build that indicated some women experienced serious complications, including breakage of the device during removal. Breakage can occur when the Paragard IUD’s arms or stem become separated from the base during removal. This can result in the IUD becoming stuck in the uterus, which can be painful and cause other complications.  Every Paragard class action lawsuit is a breakage during removal claim. In some cases, in most cases that come to our lawyers, surgery may be required to remove the broken pieces of the IUD.  This is beyond the normal “no medical device is perfect” type of problem.

There are several factors that can increase the risk of Paragard IUD breakage during removal. One of the main factors is the length of time the device has been in place. The longer the IUD has been in place, the more likely it is to become embedded in the uterus and the harder it is to remove. Women who have had multiple pregnancies or a history of uterine abnormalities are also at a higher risk of IUD breakage.

In order to minimize the risk of breakage, it is important for women to have their Paragard IUD removed by a trained healthcare provider. During the removal process, the provider should use gentle traction and be careful not to damage the IUD or the surrounding tissue. In some cases, an ultrasound or other imaging techniques may be used to help guide the removal process.

If you suspect that your Paragard IUD has broken during removal, it is important to seek medical attention right away. Your healthcare provider will be able to diagnose the problem and recommend the appropriate treatment. In some cases, the broken pieces of the IUD may be able to be removed vaginally, while in other cases surgery may be required.

Paragard Litigation Timeline

Below is a Paragard timeline that explains how we get here.

Four Paragard Studies That Triggered Paragard Lawsuit

Here are a four key studies on Paragard IUD breakage and related complications for those of you who want to better understand the science behind these lawsuits:

Latack, K. R., & Nguyen, B. T. (2022). Trends in copper versus hormonal intrauterine device breakage reporting within the United States’ Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. Contraception, 118.

This study analyzed data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to assess trends in reported IUD breakage from 1998 to 2022. The researchers found 4,144 breakage reports for copper IUDs, compared to 2,140 for hormonal IUDs. Breakage accounted for 9.6% of all adverse event reports related to copper IUDs, compared to only 1.7% for hormonal IUDs. Although the true prevalence of breakage cannot be determined solely from FAERS data, the study suggests that copper IUDs—such as Paragard—are disproportionately prone to breakage compared to hormonal alternatives.

This is a really important study. It is directly relevant to the Paragard litigation. It  supports plaintiffs’ claims that copper IUDs are more susceptible to breakage, potentially due to design flaws. The high percentage of breakage reports for copper IUDs aligns with allegations that Paragard fractures upon removal, leaving retained fragments that necessitate invasive surgical procedures such as hysteroscopy or hysterectomy.

Aoun, J., Dines, V. A., Stovall (2014). Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 123(3), 585-592.

This study analyzed the impact of age, birth history, and IUD type (copper vs. hormonal) on complication rates and device discontinuation. Conducted on 999 women aged 13 to 24, the research found that copper IUD users experienced higher rates of complications, including expulsion and contraceptive failure, compared to hormonal IUD users. Younger and nulliparous (never given birth) women were more likely to discontinue IUD use due to pain and bleeding. The study suggests that copper IUDs, such as Paragard, may carry a higher risk of complications, particularly in younger women.

This study is importanbt to the Paragard litigation because it provides scientific evidence that copper IUDs have higher complication rates than hormonal IUDs, including device failure. The study’s findings support claims that copper IUDs present unique risks,  strengthening allegations that manufacturers knew what the problem was long ago and  failed to adequately warn patients and doctors.

Example Paragard Lawsuit

Then nothing much happened.  No lawyers pounced.  But the reports of Paragard IUD complications continued to flow to healthcare providers which invariably leads to more lawyers getting more phone calls.

This case involved a woman who underwent a Paragard IUD removal after having had it inserted a decade earlier. The physician followed Teva’s instructions.

Upon removal, however, the IUD was missing a piece. The woman then underwent an unsuccessful hysteroscopic removal one month later. After two months, she underwent a successful removal.

The woman’s IUD lawsuit alleged that Teva Pharmaceuticals failed to warn healthcare providers and patients of the risk associated with Paragard. She also claimed, not surprisingly, this defect caused her pain and emotional suffering.

Centralization in Georgia Federal Court

Around December 2020, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized over 80 Paragard IUD lawsuits in the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Leigh Martin May was appointed to preside over these cases. This marked a pivotal moment for the growing litigation, as centralization allows for more efficient handling of common pretrial proceedings, ensuring consistency in rulings and reducing duplicative discovery. The panel determined that these lawsuits shared enough common facts to warrant consolidation, including allegations of breakage during removal and subsequent injuries.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, the primary defendant, opposed the centralization, arguing that the differences between individual claims—such as varying medical histories and removal procedures—would complicate proceedings. The panel dismissed these objections, stating that such differences were “insignificant” and “not an impediment to centralization.” This consolidation laid the groundwork for what would become the Paragard IUD class action lawsuit. The move also positioned plaintiffs closer to achieving collective progress in their pursuit of justice, with the ultimate goal of obtaining fair Paragard compensation claims. Centralization is a precursor to settlement discussions, which could potentially lead to a significant Paragard settlement benefitting the women impacted by this defective device. But not until the lawyers fight for a good long while.  That is the history of MDLs

Fast-forward to 2025, and the Paragard IUD lawsuits have grown significantly. Now there are nearly 3,000 cases are pending, with new filings continuing at a steady pace. Plaintiffs have argued, of course, that the Paragard IUD suffers from a defective design that increases the risk of breakage during removal, often leading to severe complications such as embedded fragments, infections, and even surgeries like hysteroscopies or laparotomies to retrieve broken pieces.

The MDL’s progress is significant for women seeking compensation for injuries caused by this defective device. Judge May has overseen the establishment of Plaintiff Fact Sheets, an important step in ensuring that each plaintiff’s claims are fully documented. This detailed process helps pave the way for potential settlement discussions, with many plaintiffs hoping to have Paragard IUD settlement checks in 2025. We will see but it is certainly not impossible.

How much compensation are we talking about? A Paragard compensation claim will likely hinge on the degree of harm suffered. Women who underwent multiple surgeries, experienced long-term complications, or faced significant emotional distress could be entitled to higher settlement payouts. You will see huge settlements, probably over $500,000 and you will also see settlements in the $20,000 to $50,000 range.

Contact a Paragard Lawyer

At our law firm, we are dedicated to helping women who have been harmed by defective medical devices, including the Paragard IUD. Our experienced attorneys have a deep understanding of the legal issues involved in these cases, and we are committed to fighting for the rights of our clients.

If you have experienced Paragard IUD breakage, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. You may also be entitled to recover other damages, such as loss of consortium and emotional distress.  Reach out to us for free online Paragard lawsuit case evaluation or call us at 888-322-3010.