Paragard litigation · Evidence guide
The Paragard cases focus on breakage during removal
Plaintiffs allege the copper IUD can break when removed. FDA labeling recognizes that breakage may accompany removal, but that does not resolve defect or individual causation.
What plaintiffs allege
The centralized lawsuits allege that Paragard has a propensity to break during removal and that fragments can lead to complications. The manufacturers opposed centralization. JPML's transfer order coordinated common pretrial questions; it did not decide whether the device is defective or caused a particular injury.
What the FDA label says
FDA-approved labeling says breakage or embedment can make removal difficult, that IUS breakage may be associated with removal, and that the clinician should confirm Paragard is intact after removal. Label language and a product-liability ruling answer different questions; the label does not decide the lawsuits.
A dated view of the case
MDL 2974 is in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May. JPML listed 4,156 actions pending on August 3, 2026. The number measures federal docket activity, not proven claims or recoveries.
Verification ledger
Primary sources
Paragard transfer order
The allegation, opposition and centralization record.
MDL 2974, Document 60, pages 1-3
Paragard prescribing information
FDA-approved removal and breakage language.
Reference ID 5405397, pages 7-8
Pending MDLs by Actions Pending
The dated federal docket snapshot.
Page 1, MDL 2974