Paragard Lawsuit: IUD Breakage MDL 2974 Status, Trials, and Who Qualifies

Paragard is a T-shaped copper IUD that prevents pregnancy for up to 10 years without hormones. Teva sold it until 2017, when it divested the product to CooperSurgical, according to Teva's SEC filings. Both are defendants.

The lawsuits allege that Paragard's plastic arms can become brittle over time and snap, most often during removal, leaving fragments embedded in the uterus. Women describe needing hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or even hysterectomy to retrieve pieces, and some report lasting pain or effects on fertility. The claims include design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and negligence. The defendants deny the claims.

The FDA-approved label does address breakage. It states that breakage or embedment of Paragard in the uterine muscle can make removal difficult and that breakage may be associated with removal. Plaintiffs argue the warnings understated how often breakage happens and how serious it can be.

These are individual cases in a mass tort, not a class action. Allegations are not proven, and the only jury to rule so far sided with Teva.

Paragard's appeal is that it uses copper rather than hormones, which is why many women chose it and kept it for years. The lawsuits say that long-term use is exactly when the plastic arms are most likely to have become brittle, so removal after many years is the typical scenario in these cases.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the federal cases on December 16, 2020 as In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974, Case No. 1:20-md-2974, before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia.

Teva's quarterly report states that the first Georgia MDL bellwether trial concluded on February 3, 2026 with a defense verdict in Teva's favor. A defense verdict in one case does not end the others; each plaintiff's facts differ. It does tend to slow settlement talks, since the defendants have a win to point to.

Teva also reported one related case in New Jersey state court with trial set for September 14, 2026.

The JPML's September 2026 figures show 4,503 cases filed in the MDL over time and 4,185 still pending, so a few hundred have been closed through dismissal or other resolution. The MDL has been open since late 2020, which is long for a device case to reach only its first bellwether verdict.

Attorneys reviewing Paragard cases generally look for:

• A documented break. The removal note, imaging, or the recovered pieces should show the IUD broke, typically at an arm.
• Additional treatment. Hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, surgery, or hysterectomy to remove fragments strengthen a claim. A fragment left in place with ongoing symptoms may also count.
• Injury. Pain, infection, perforation, scarring, or effects on fertility.

You are less likely to qualify if your Paragard came out whole, if the problem was expulsion or perforation without breakage, or if you had only the known side effects such as heavier bleeding or cramping. Whether CooperSurgical or Teva is the right defendant can depend on when the device was made; that is a question for an attorney.

Many women do not learn a piece was left behind until later, when pain continues or an ultrasound for another reason finds a fragment. A retained fragment found on imaging months or years after removal can still support a claim, but the dates on those imaging reports become critical for deadlines. If you are unsure whether your device came out whole, ask the provider who removed it whether the removal note says it was intact, as the label directs. Our guide to what a lawsuit investigation is explains what happens when attorneys are still reviewing claims like these.

No Paragard settlement or plaintiff verdict exists, so there are no verified payout figures. Online estimates of settlement ranges are guesses. If cases resolve, value would depend on:

• the procedures needed (office removal versus surgery versus hysterectomy);
• whether fragments remain;
• effects on fertility and future pregnancy;
• medical bills and lost wages.

After a defense verdict in the first bellwether, the April 12, 2027 trial is the next real test of what juries think these claims are worth. Contingency fees and medical liens usually come out of any recovery; see how settlement money is divided.

How a fragment was handled drives value. A piece removed in the office during the same visit is a very different claim from a fragment that stayed embedded, needed operating room surgery under anesthesia, or led to a hysterectomy. Claims involving loss of fertility or future pregnancy options are generally treated as the most serious.

Paragard claims are state-law product liability claims. Plaintiffs argue the device was defectively designed because its material can degrade and fracture, that some units were defectively manufactured, and that the label did not adequately warn doctors of the breakage risk. Defendants respond that breakage is a known, labeled risk, that doctors are warned about removal difficulty, and that other factors explain individual injuries.

Because the product changed hands in 2017, plaintiffs often sue both Teva and CooperSurgical, which can raise questions about which company is responsible for a particular device depending on when it was made and sold.

For background on how test trials shape the rest of an MDL, see our guide to what an MDL is.

A manufacturing defect claim asks whether a particular device differed from its intended design, while a design defect claim argues every device shared the flaw; plaintiffs in these cases have pleaded both. Manufacturing defect claims can be easier to prove when the broken device is preserved, because it can be examined. That is one more reason to keep any recovered pieces.

Each claim is governed by the plaintiff's state statute of limitations, commonly two or three years from the date of injury or discovery. For most women, the date the IUD broke during removal is the clearest start of the clock, which means breaks from 2023 or earlier may already be past a two-year deadline in some states. Some states also have statutes of repose tied to when the device was sold.

If your IUD broke, note the date and get an attorney's view soon rather than waiting for the April 2027 trial.

Retained fragments complicate timing. If a piece was left in place and discovered later on imaging, the discovery date may be later than the removal date. An attorney will want both dates.

Write down both dates now while your records are easy to get.

Because the defense leans on the label, it helps to read what it actually says. The current FDA-approved Paragard prescribing information includes several statements about breakage:

• Paragard is indicated to prevent pregnancy for up to 10 years.
• The threads can retract into the uterus or break, and Paragard itself can break, perforate the uterus, or be expelled; x-ray or ultrasound may be needed to locate it.
• If removal by gentle pulling fails, providers should check the device's location and assess for embedment and perforation, with imaging if needed.
• Breakage or embedment in the uterine muscle can make removal difficult, and breakage may be associated with removal.
• Pain medicine, local anesthesia, cervical dilation, grasping forceps, or hysteroscopy may help remove an embedded device, and providers should make sure Paragard is intact after removal.

The label's instruction to confirm the device is intact after removal is why a removal note matters: it may record whether both arms came out.

What the defense verdict means for everyone else

Teva won the first bellwether in February 2026. Plaintiffs will argue the next case has different facts, such as a different device age, injury, or surgical history. The defense will argue breakage is a disclosed risk. The April 12, 2027 trial, and the separate New Jersey state case set for September 14, 2026, will show whether juries see the risk as adequately disclosed.

Questions an attorney will likely ask

• When was the IUD placed, and was it removed within the labeled 10 years?
• Who removed it, and does the note say it broke or that a piece was missing?
• Did imaging find a fragment, and how was it removed?
• Did you need hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or hysterectomy?
• Were there effects on fertility or plans for pregnancy?

Answers to these questions, backed by records, usually decide whether a Paragard claim is worth filing.

Plaintiffs argue these statements describe difficult removals but understate how often the arms actually fracture over years of use. The defense says the label discloses the risk. That disagreement is the core of the failure to warn claim.

1. Get medical care for any retained fragment; follow your gynecologist's advice.
2. Request records of insertion, removal, imaging, and any surgery.
3. Ask for the removed pieces if your provider still has them, and keep them in a sealed container.
4. Write down the date of the break and every follow-up procedure.
5. Be skeptical of payout promises. No settlement exists.

A case review usually takes a few minutes. You describe what happened, and if your situation fits what independent attorneys are handling, one may follow up to request records with your permission. There is no charge for the review, and you are not committed to anything by asking. Keep any recovered IUD pieces in a sealed, labeled container, because physical evidence can be lost for good once thrown away.

Independent attorneys who handle Paragard cases can review your records and deadline. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: the Depo-Provera lawsuit and the hernia mesh lawsuit.