Paragard IUD Lawsuit

What Is the Paragard IUD Lawsuit About?

The Paragard IUD lawsuit involves claims that the Paragard T 380A copper intrauterine device is prone to breaking during routine removal, leaving plastic and copper fragments inside the body. Thousands of women allege that the T-shaped device's plastic arms fracture when a healthcare provider attempts to remove it, requiring additional surgeries to extract the broken pieces and causing complications including organ perforation, infection, infertility, and in some cases the need for a hysterectomy.

The lawsuits are consolidated in MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May. As of September 2025, there were 3,569+ pending cases in the MDL. The defendants are Teva Pharmaceuticals (which manufactured and sold Paragard until 2017) and CooperSurgical (a subsidiary of The Cooper Companies, which acquired Paragard for $1.1 billion in 2017 and currently markets the device).

The litigation reached a critical stage in early 2026 with the first bellwether trial beginning on January 20, 2026, followed by a second trial on March 3, 2026, and a third scheduled for May 11, 2026. The outcomes of these bellwether trials are expected to significantly shape the future of the litigation and potential settlement negotiations. For background on how test cases influence mass tort outcomes, see our guide on what is a bellwether trial.

How the Paragard IUD Breaks During Removal

The Paragard IUD is a T-shaped device with a vertical stem and two horizontal arms made of a flexible plastic (polyethylene) with copper wire wrapped around them. The device is designed to be removed by a healthcare provider who pulls on a thin monofilament string attached to the bottom of the stem. In a normal removal, the arms fold upward as the device is pulled through the cervical canal.

Plaintiffs allege that in thousands of cases, one or both of the plastic arms snap off during this removal process rather than folding as designed. The broken arms remain inside the uterus or can migrate to other areas of the body. This breakage can occur even during what appears to be a routine removal by an experienced healthcare provider. The lawsuit contends that the plastic material becomes brittle over time while implanted, making fracture more likely the longer the device has been in place.

Complications from Retained Paragard Fragments

When the Paragard IUD breaks during removal, the retained fragments can cause a range of serious medical complications. Many women who experience device breakage require one or more additional surgical procedures to locate and remove the fragments, and some sustain permanent injuries.

• Organ perforation: Retained fragments can embed in or pierce the uterine wall, and in some cases migrate to other organs including the bowel, bladder, or abdominal cavity.
• Infection: Foreign material left inside the body creates a risk of serious infection, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which can lead to abscess formation or sepsis.
• Infertility: Damage to the uterus, fallopian tubes, or ovaries from fragments or from the surgical procedures needed to remove them can impair a woman's ability to become pregnant.
• Ectopic pregnancy: Retained fragments can increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the uterus), a potentially life-threatening condition.
• Chronic pain: Many women experience persistent pelvic and abdominal pain from retained fragments, even after removal surgery.
• Hysterectomy: In severe cases, the damage from broken fragments is extensive enough to require surgical removal of the uterus (hysterectomy).
• Additional surgeries: Locating and removing broken fragments often requires hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or open surgery — procedures that carry their own risks and recovery time.

Who Qualifies for the Paragard IUD Lawsuit?

Eligibility for the Paragard IUD lawsuit is based on whether your device broke during removal and whether you experienced complications as a result. The following criteria are generally used to evaluate potential claims:

Lawsuit Timeline

The Paragard IUD litigation has been building for several years and is now entering its most critical phase with bellwether trials in 2026. Here are the key dates and milestones:

Settlement Amounts

As of early 2026, the Paragard IUD litigation has not yet reached a global settlement. Settlement negotiations are expected to progress significantly based on the outcomes of the three bellwether trials scheduled for 2026. The results of these test cases will help both sides evaluate the strength of the claims and the range of potential damages.

The estimated settlement ranges below are based on the types of injuries involved and comparable medical device litigation. Actual settlement amounts will depend on the bellwether trial outcomes and subsequent negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants.

Factors that will influence individual claim values include: the specific complications experienced, whether a hysterectomy was required, the impact on fertility, the number of additional surgeries needed, the duration of symptoms, and the quality of medical documentation. For a general overview of how mass tort settlements are calculated, see our mass tort settlement amounts guide.

How to File a Paragard IUD Claim

If your Paragard IUD broke during removal and you experienced complications, here is the process for filing a claim:

For more detail on the general process, see our guide on how to join a mass tort lawsuit. Learn about how mass tort attorneys get paid through contingency fees — you pay nothing unless you receive compensation.

Named Defendants

The Paragard IUD lawsuit names the following defendants:

• Teva Pharmaceuticals — The global pharmaceutical company that manufactured and sold the Paragard IUD until 2017. Teva is alleged to have known about the device's tendency to fracture during removal and failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about this risk.
• CooperSurgical (The Cooper Companies) — CooperSurgical acquired the Paragard product line from Teva for approximately $1.1 billion in 2017 and is the current manufacturer and marketer of the device. Plaintiffs allege that CooperSurgical continued to sell the device with a known breakage defect and without adequate warnings.

Plaintiffs in the Paragard MDL allege that both defendants are responsible for design defects in the device and failure to warn about the risk of breakage during removal. The claims include strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn. For other medical device lawsuits, see our pages on the hernia mesh lawsuit and the Bard PowerPort lawsuit.

Medical and Scientific Evidence

The medical evidence in the Paragard IUD litigation centers on the device's tendency to fracture during removal and the injuries that result from retained fragments. Key elements of the evidence include:

• FDA adverse event reports: The FDA's MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database contains thousands of adverse event reports related to Paragard device breakage, documenting instances of arm fracture, fragment retention, and resulting complications.
• Material degradation evidence: Expert testimony in the MDL addresses how the polyethylene plastic used in the Paragard arms can become brittle over time when exposed to the uterine environment, increasing the risk of fracture during removal.
• Medical literature: Published case reports and clinical studies in peer-reviewed medical journals have documented instances of Paragard IUD breakage and the complications associated with retained fragments, including the need for surgical intervention.
• Defendant knowledge: Discovery in the MDL has produced internal documents from both Teva and CooperSurgical related to their awareness of the breakage issue, complaint tracking, and decisions regarding product warnings and design modifications.
• Expert engineering analysis: Plaintiffs' expert witnesses have analyzed the device design, material properties, and failure modes to establish that the breakage is attributable to a design defect rather than improper removal technique.

The bellwether trials in 2026 will be the first opportunity for a jury to evaluate this evidence and determine whether the defendants are liable for the injuries caused by Paragard breakage. For another case involving a contraceptive product, see the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit.