On February 4, 2026, an Atlanta jury delivered the first-ever bellwether verdict in the Paragard IUD multidistrict litigation — and it went to the defense. The jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims that Teva failed to adequately warn about the risks of the Paragard intrauterine device breaking during removal and that the device was defectively designed, finding for the defense on all counts. As of July 2026, there were 4,111 pending lawsuits and a total of 4,409 cases filed against the company in federal court in Georgia under MDL 2974. For those thousands of women with active cases in the Northern District of Georgia, that headline may feel devastating. But mass tort litigation rarely moves in a straight line, and one defense verdict in a carefully selected test case does not define what happens to thousands of remaining claims. Here is what the February 2026 result actually means — and why the fall 2026 second bellwether trial may matter far more.
What Happened in the First Paragard IUD Bellwether Trial
Pauline Rickard’s Paragard IUD broke during removal, requiring a hysteroscopy procedure to retrieve device fragments left inside her body. Her attorneys argued that Teva Pharmaceuticals — the original manufacturer — and CooperSurgical, which acquired the device in 2017, failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the known risk of IUD fracture during removal and that the device itself was defectively designed. After a two-week trial, the jury rejected claims that Teva failed to adequately warn about Paragard’s propensity to break or that the device was defectively designed.
The Paragard IUD is a copper, T-shaped intrauterine device. Unlike hormonal IUDs, it relies entirely on copper’s spermicidal properties. Thousands of women allege that the device’s arms fracture at removal, leaving fragments that migrate or embed in uterine tissue, sometimes requiring hysteroscopies, laparoscopies, or even hysterectomies to address. People with Paragard IUDs and their medical providers have made more than 54,000 reports to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since Paragard was FDA-approved in 1984, according to publicly available data in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Of the more than 54,000 reports, nearly 24,000 have involved serious health problems, as classified by the FDA. According to the FDA, by the second half of 2025, there had also been 22 related deaths. Separately, according to the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), there were 9,618 reports of device breakage specifically from 2009 through October 29, 2025.
Following the verdict, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May signaled that she is considering adjustments to the MDL’s bellwether trial plan. The judge’s review reflects the impact of the first trial outcome on the planned sequence of representative trials. Additionally, a settlement mediator — retired Atlanta judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. — has already been appointed and tasked with getting the two sides working toward a global settlement. Those two developments together tell a more nuanced story than a simple defense win.
Why a Defense Verdict Does Not Doom Remaining Paragard IUD Claims
Bellwether trials serve one primary purpose in mass tort litigation: they give both plaintiffs and defendants a realistic preview of how juries respond to the core legal and scientific arguments in a given MDL. They are test cases by design, not binding precedents. The defense verdict in Richard v. CooperSurgical tells both sides how one jury responded to one plaintiff’s specific evidence, but it does not legally determine the outcome of the nearly 4,000 remaining cases.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys handling Paragard IUD cases have been direct in their post-verdict analysis: case selection and evidence presentation — not the underlying science about device fracture risk — drove the first trial outcome. That is a critical distinction. The scientific data on Paragard breakage rates, the FDA’s adverse event records, and the peer-reviewed research on copper IUD fractures all remain available to future plaintiffs. A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Contraception found that copper IUD breakage was recorded in 9.6% of adverse events, compared to just 1.7% for hormonal IUDs — a statistically significant disparity that will remain available to plaintiffs in every future trial. You can use a medical malpractice calculator to explore how documented device injuries may translate into compensation ranges, though every case ultimately turns on its individual facts.
The first test trial in the Paragard MDL ended in a verdict for the defense, and the second case’s test trial was originally on an earlier docket. Pushing back the trial in the second test case may allow the attorneys for the plaintiffs to refine their strategy based on what was learned from the first trial. While this is a disappointing result, it does not determine the outcome of future cases.
Key MDL Data: Paragard IUD Cases at a Glance (2026)
The raw litigation numbers tell an important story about the scale and continued growth of this MDL, even after the February defense verdict:
- Total cases filed as of August 2026: As of August 3, 2026, there are 4,156 lawsuits consolidated in the federal MDL about Paragard.
- Monthly growth: According to June 1, 2026 figures, there are 4,071 lawsuits filed or transferred into the active Paragard MDL — an uptick of 87 cases since May 1, 2026.
- MDL ranking: It is now one of the top 10 largest active mass torts in the United States.
- Presiding court: The MDL is consolidated under one judge to streamline the legal process — MDL 2974 is before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia.
- Defendants: Teva Pharmaceuticals (original manufacturer) and CooperSurgical, which bought Paragard from Teva in 2017.
- Settlement mediator appointed: Retired Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. has been appointed as a mediator to oversee Paragard settlement negotiations.
- Global settlement status: Settlement amounts in the Paragard IUD lawsuits haven’t yet been determined. While no settlements have been finalized yet, lawsuits seek to recover both monetary and non-monetary compensation.
- No recall issued: As of July 2026, there has been no Paragard IUD recall despite reports and complaints about device breakage. The FDA and manufacturer CooperSurgical haven’t released any warnings or safety communications related to device breakage.
The continued growth in case filings after the defense verdict is itself a signal. Women with documented Paragard injuries are not being deterred by a single unfavorable result — and plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to actively accept new cases.
The Fall 2026 Second Bellwether and What It Means for Settlement
To allow both sides to process the data from the Rickard trial and resolve outstanding expert discovery, the second and third bellwether trials originally slated for this spring have been pushed back to the fall of 2026. A third bellwether remains on the calendar for later in 2026 as well.
This compressed but still active schedule matters enormously for settlement dynamics. In virtually every large MDL, the realistic path to a global resolution runs through the bellwether process. Defendants need to see whether a plaintiff verdict is achievable before they will seriously engage on compensation numbers. Plaintiffs need the same data to calibrate settlement demands.
The February 2026 defense verdict gave Teva and CooperSurgical some leverage — but a single data point is not enough to anchor a global settlement affecting nearly 4,000 active claimants. The fall 2026 second bellwether, combined with the judge’s appointment of a settlement mediator, suggests that both sides are already positioning for a negotiated resolution rather than trying thousands of individual cases. Federal court MDL procedures are specifically designed to funnel mass cases toward resolution once the trial record matures.
For injured women monitoring this litigation, the fall 2026 trial is the next genuinely important milestone. If plaintiffs win that trial — or even achieve a close, contested loss — the pressure on defendants to settle meaningfully increases substantially. This defendant is known for being willing to try cases rather than settle them. However, analysts believe this would be unwise in this case because bellwether verdicts will increase the overall settlement payout, both in final amounts and in the number of new plaintiffs who will come forward upon hearing the verdicts.
On estimated settlement values, based on trends from prior mass tort cases, estimated individual settlement amounts could range from $10,000 to over $400,000, depending on the severity of injuries, need for surgery, and lasting health consequences. Cases involving permanent damage, infertility, or multiple surgical procedures may qualify for higher compensation tiers. If a settlement is reached, it will not involve flat-rate payouts. Instead, each plaintiff’s compensation would be determined using a points system that assigns values based on injury type and severity, the medical procedures required, duration of pain and recovery, loss of fertility or other long-term effects, and the strength of medical documentation supporting the claim.
What Women With Paragard IUD Injuries Should Know Right Now
Women who have suffered documented Paragard IUD fractures, retained device fragments, or required surgical intervention have strong incentives to have their claims properly documented and filed before any global settlement discussions accelerate. The fall 2026 trial schedule creates real urgency: once bellwether outcomes begin accumulating, both sides have more data to structure a global resolution, and case intake often narrows.
In 2026, the Paragard IUD litigation is moving into a critical trial phase with thousands of claims still pending and several cases set for trial. The federal cases are consolidated in a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May, and the total federal and state filings now exceed 4,000 individual claims nationwide.
Women who experienced Paragard IUD breakage should take several concrete steps now. First, gather all medical records documenting the IUD insertion, removal attempt, any imaging (ultrasound, X-ray), surgical reports confirming retained fragments, and all follow-up treatment. Second, consult with a mass tort attorney who is actively handling Paragard cases — many work on contingency, meaning no upfront fees. Third, understand that you must file before your state’s legal deadline — in 2025, several cases were dismissed because they were filed too late, making it crucial to act promptly in 2026.
MDL bellwether trials began in early 2026 and are scheduled to continue through fall 2026. These trials, and the motion practice leading up to them, are expected to test the strength of the plaintiffs’ liability and damages claims and to guide future settlement negotiations between the parties.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Paragard IUD MDL Verdict
Does the February 2026 defense verdict mean my Paragard IUD case has no value?
No. The bellwether process was designed to provide early jury verdicts that inform the parties and the court about key disputed issues common to thousands of Paragard claims pending in the MDL. A defense verdict in one test case does not extinguish, reduce, or legally affect any other plaintiff’s independent claim. Each case in the MDL is evaluated individually. The scientific evidence about Paragard’s breakage risk, the FDA’s adverse event database, and the peer-reviewed literature all remain intact and available for use in every future trial and settlement negotiation.
What is a bellwether trial and why does it matter for mass torts?
Bellwether trials usually involve facts and issues that are common to many similar cases filed in the same litigation. Generally, the hope is to determine how jurors may react to these facts and issues, so that the parties can have a better sense of likely outcomes in future trials. While not binding on other plaintiffs, the outcomes of these early trials will likely shape the litigation’s trajectory, informing both global settlement talks and defendant risk assessments. In practical terms, a plaintiff verdict in a bellwether typically accelerates settlement discussions significantly, while a defense verdict gives defendants negotiating leverage — but rarely ends a large MDL on its own.
When is the next Paragard IUD bellwether trial scheduled?
The bellwether trial of a second test case in the Paragard MDL has been scheduled for fall 2026, which gives the parties more time to prepare. Following the defeat in the first Paragard IUD MDL bellwether trial, the second bellwether trial, initially scheduled for March 2026, has been postponed until the fall of 2026 by Judge May. A third bellwether remains on the calendar for later in 2026 as well. The rescheduling gives plaintiffs’ counsel additional time to refine trial strategy and resolve remaining expert discovery issues before the next jury hears the evidence.
How does a global settlement work in a mass tort MDL like the Paragard IUD case?
A global settlement in an MDL typically occurs after enough bellwether trials have been completed to give defendants and plaintiffs a realistic picture of their respective litigation risks. The presiding judge facilitates the process — in the Paragard IUD MDL, Judge May has already appointed a settlement mediator. The mediator is M. Gino Brogdon Sr., a retired judge from Atlanta, who is tasked with getting the two sides working toward a global settlement. Once a total settlement fund is negotiated, individual claimants receive compensation allocated based on injury severity, documented medical costs, and other case-specific factors through a points-based matrix system. These cases could potentially be resolved by the end of 2026, with victims receiving payment in 2026 if a settlement is finalized quickly — though that timeline remains uncertain given that defendants have historically been willing to litigate rather than settle quickly.
What types of Paragard IUD injuries are most likely to qualify for compensation?
The strongest Paragard IUD claims involve documented device fracture with confirmed retained fragments and a resulting need for additional medical procedures. Specific injuries associated with breakage include pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, surgical intervention (some patients required hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or even a hysterectomy to retrieve fragments), and uterine perforation where device fragments can puncture the uterine wall. Legal experts estimate that Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement amounts will range from $10,000 to over $400,000. Payouts will likely be divided into tiers, with Tier 1 cases involving severe injuries like organ perforation or hysterectomy receiving the highest compensation. Several factors may impact the final settlement amount, including the severity of the injury, impact to your quality of life, and strength of the case. Women with infertility resulting from Paragard fracture, those who required hysterectomy, and those with documented chronic pelvic pain or organ damage are typically expected to fall into the highest compensation tiers.
Victoria Chambers is a mass tort and class action research analyst with extensive knowledge of multi-district litigation (MDL), defective product cases, dangerous drug lawsuits, and toxic exposure claims across the United States. Victoria is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.