A brand-new class action targeting fertility testing giant Natera was filed on June 2, 2026, in the Northern District of California — and it may be the most significant development yet in a rapidly expanding wave of PGT-A IVF lawsuits sweeping federal courts from New Jersey to Illinois to the West Coast. If you paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for preimplantation genetic testing during an IVF cycle — and especially if embryos were discarded based on those results — what is unfolding in courtrooms right now directly affects your legal rights.
What Is PGT-A and Why Are Fertility Companies Being Sued?
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, known as PGT-A, is an add-on screening test performed on embryos during an IVF cycle. The test analyzes chromosomal composition and is marketed by companies including Natera, CooperSurgical (CooperGenomics), Reproductive Genetic Innovations (RGI), Genomic Prediction, Igenomix, Ovation Fertility, and Progenesis as a tool to identify the most viable embryos for transfer — allegedly increasing implantation rates, reducing miscarriages, shortening time to pregnancy, and improving overall IVF success, particularly for women over 35.
The problem, according to plaintiffs across multiple PGT-A IVF lawsuits, is that independent scientific studies tell a very different story. Complaints filed in 2026 cite research showing no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, or live-birth rates between standard IVF and IVF performed with PGT-A screening. Meanwhile, patients paid between $3,000 and $6,000 or more out-of-pocket — costs almost universally excluded from insurance coverage — for a test that plaintiffs allege was deceptively marketed as 99% accurate and clinically transformative.
The gravest harm alleged goes beyond financial loss. Prospective parents say they permanently discarded embryos — embryos that may have been viable — based on test results that the lawsuits characterize as scientifically unreliable. For couples who underwent multiple IVF cycles, that decision may be irreversible. To understand how courts value this category of reproductive harm, resources like a medical malpractice calculator can help patients begin to contextualize the scope of potential damages in cases involving defective or misleadingly marketed medical testing.
Timeline and Scope of the PGT-A IVF Lawsuit Litigation in 2026
The current wave of litigation did not emerge overnight. Cases began accumulating in late 2024, and the docket has grown steadily and aggressively through the first half of 2026. The following table summarizes the key cases, defendants, and filing jurisdictions as of press time:
| Defendant(s) | Filing Jurisdiction | Approximate Filing Date | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CooperSurgical / CooperGenomics | D.N.J. (New Jersey Federal) | Late 2024 | Motion to dismiss pending |
| Reproductive Genetic Innovations (RGI) | N.D. Illinois | Late 2024 – 2025 | Motion to dismiss pending |
| Ovation Fertility | Multiple federal courts | 2025 | Motion to dismiss pending |
| Progenesis | Federal court | 2025 | Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed |
| Genomic Prediction | D.N.J. (New Jersey Federal) | March 19, 2026 | Active — early stage |
| Natera (Spectrum PGT-A) | N.D. California | June 2, 2026 | Active — just filed |
The June 2, 2026, Natera filing — brought by named plaintiffs Melissa Klein and Valerie Griffeth — specifically alleges that Natera marketed its Spectrum PGT-A product as 99% accurate and capable of measurably improving IVF outcomes, despite contrary scientific evidence available within the company’s own research environment. The March 19, 2026, Genomic Prediction complaint, filed in the District of New Jersey by the firm of Anderson, Malkin, and Ewing, adds a further layer to the litigation by alleging that Genomic Prediction’s proprietary scoring methods for complex traits remain scientifically controversial and were not transparently disclosed to patients. You can review federal civil procedure rules governing class actions at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, which publishes the full text of Rule 23 governing class certification.
What the Lawsuits Actually Allege: Deceptive Marketing and Discarded Embryos
The legal theories underpinning the PGT-A IVF lawsuit wave are grounded primarily in consumer protection law, with plaintiffs pursuing claims under consumer fraud statutes in at least ten states: Michigan, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Texas, and others. Breach of warranty claims are also central to multiple complaints.
At the heart of each case is the allegation that fertility testing companies made materially false or misleading representations about what PGT-A could deliver. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that marketing materials, clinical consultations, and company literature promised patients that PGT-A would:
- Increase embryo implantation rates
- Reduce the likelihood of miscarriage
- Shorten the overall time to a successful pregnancy
- Meaningfully improve IVF success rates, particularly for patients over 35
- Identify non-viable embryos with near-perfect accuracy (claims of 99% accuracy cited in the Natera complaint)
Independent studies cited directly within the complaints found no statistical difference in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, or live-birth rates between IVF cycles conducted with PGT-A and those conducted without it. Use of PGT-A during IVF procedures surged from approximately 17% of IVF cycles in 2014 to nearly 45% by 2018, a dramatic commercial expansion driven, plaintiffs argue, by marketing claims that outpaced the underlying science. More than 700 IVF patients are currently involved across active suits, and attorneys have publicly committed to filing additional actions against further companies.
The most emotionally and legally significant harm alleged is the permanent discarding of embryos. Patients who received an “aneuploid” or otherwise unfavorable PGT-A result frequently made the irreversible decision to discard those embryos rather than transfer them. If the tests were unreliable — or marketed in a manner that overstated their predictive power — those embryos may have had real developmental potential. Courts and juries in reproductive harm cases have historically grappled with how to value this category of loss, and plaintiffs in the current PGT-A IVF lawsuit litigation are seeking both out-of-pocket cost recovery and statutory damages.
Where the Litigation Stands: Motions to Dismiss and What Comes Next
As of June 2026, the litigation is at a critical procedural juncture. Defendants CooperSurgical, Natera, RGI, and Ovation Fertility have all filed motions to dismiss — formal legal challenges arguing that even accepting every plaintiff allegation as true, no viable legal claim exists. Progenesis has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a procedurally similar mechanism. Federal judges in New Jersey, Illinois, and California are expected to issue rulings on these motions in the coming months, and those decisions will function as gating events for the entire litigation.
If the motions to dismiss are denied — meaning courts allow the cases to proceed — plaintiffs will advance into discovery, where internal company communications, clinical studies, and marketing approval records could become available. That phase of litigation frequently produces the evidence that drives mass tort settlements. If motions are granted in whole or in part, plaintiffs will have an opportunity to amend their complaints before any final dismissal.
No multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidation has been formed yet, but the multi-district spread of active cases across New Jersey, Illinois, and California creates meaningful consolidation pressure. For cases involving defective medical devices or testing products — which is how courts may ultimately categorize PGT-A — federal MDL consolidation before a single judge is a common outcome that streamlines discovery and settlement negotiations for all parties. Patients who believe they may have a claim should document their PGT-A costs and any related embryo disposition records now, before the litigation posture shifts further. Our personal injury settlement calculator can help prospective claimants begin to estimate the potential value of financial and non-economic damages in cases like these.
Natera has publicly responded to the litigation, stating: “The litigation against Natera is baseless,” and citing published peer-reviewed studies it contends support the accuracy and clinical value of its Spectrum PGT-A product. CooperSurgical and other defendants have similarly contested the plaintiffs’ scientific characterizations. The judicial rulings on the pending motions will determine which factual and legal theories survive into active discovery.
Who May Have a Claim in a PGT-A IVF Lawsuit
Based on the current complaints and class definitions being pursued, IVF patients who may have viable claims in the PGT-A IVF lawsuit litigation generally share several common characteristics. You may be a potential class member if you:
- Underwent one or more IVF cycles and paid out-of-pocket for PGT-A testing through Natera, CooperSurgical/CooperGenomics, RGI, Genomic Prediction, Igenomix, Ovation Fertility, or Progenesis
- Were told or marketed to that PGT-A would improve your IVF outcomes, reduce miscarriage risk, or increase implantation rates
- Discarded one or more embryos based on PGT-A results that classified them as aneuploid or otherwise non-viable
- Received testing in or after 2014, the period during which use of PGT-A began its dramatic commercial expansion
- Reside or received testing in any of the states covered by active consumer protection claims: California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, or Texas
Plaintiffs currently seek recovery of out-of-pocket PGT-A costs, which typically ranged from $3,000 to $6,000 or more per cycle, plus statutory damages available under applicable state consumer protection laws. The Justia class action resource center provides publicly accessible information about how class action claims are structured and certified under federal law. Patients considering whether they qualify should preserve all invoices, clinic communications, embryo disposition records, and any marketing materials received from their testing provider.
Frequently Asked Questions About the PGT-A IVF Lawsuit
What is the PGT-A IVF lawsuit and who are the defendants?
The PGT-A IVF lawsuit refers to a wave of class action cases filed in federal courts in 2024 through June 2026 against companies that sell preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy as an add-on to IVF cycles. Defendants currently include Natera (Spectrum PGT-A), CooperSurgical/CooperGenomics, Reproductive Genetic Innovations (RGI), Genomic Prediction, Igenomix, Ovation Fertility, and Progenesis. The lawsuits allege these companies deceptively marketed PGT-A as significantly improving IVF outcomes — including claims of 99% accuracy — despite independent scientific studies showing no measurable improvement in live-birth rates compared to standard IVF without testing.
What harm do plaintiffs claim they suffered?
Plaintiffs allege two primary categories of harm. First, financial harm: PGT-A typically costs between $3,000 and $6,000 or more per IVF cycle, is almost never covered by insurance, and plaintiffs argue the money was spent on a test whose benefits were materially misrepresented. Second — and arguably more significant — many patients permanently discarded embryos classified as non-viable by PGT-A results. If those test results were unreliable or generated under scientifically overstated accuracy claims, patients may have destroyed embryos that could have developed into viable pregnancies. This loss is permanent and, for many patients, irreplaceable.
What is the current legal status of these cases as of June 2026?
As of June 2026, multiple cases are active across federal courts in New Jersey, Illinois, and California. Defendants CooperSurgical, Natera, RGI, and Ovation Fertility have filed motions to dismiss; Progenesis has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Rulings on those motions are expected in the coming months and will be pivotal for the litigation’s trajectory. The most recently filed case — a Natera-specific class action filed June 2, 2026, in the Northern District of California — is in its earliest stage. No multidistrict litigation consolidation has been formed yet, though the spread of cases across multiple federal districts creates ongoing pressure toward MDL formation.
Does it matter which company performed my PGT-A testing?
Yes. The specific defendant named in a class action determines which cases you may qualify to join. Current active suits target Natera (Spectrum PGT-A), CooperSurgical/CooperGenomics, RGI, Genomic Prediction, Igenomix, Ovation Fertility, and Progenesis. Attorneys involved in the litigation have publicly stated their intention to file additional suits against other companies in the PGT-A market. The company that performed your testing — typically identified on your invoice or IVF clinic records — determines which class definition you may fall under. Patients who used any of the currently named defendants should document their records immediately regardless of which specific case is ultimately most relevant to their situation.
How much money could I recover if I join a PGT-A IVF lawsuit?
No settlement amounts have been established in 2026 because all cases remain in active litigation prior to any class certification or MDL consolidation. Current plaintiffs seek recovery of out-of-pocket PGT-A testing costs — typically $3,000 to $6,000 or more — along with statutory damages available under applicable state consumer protection laws in California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, and Texas. The total damages picture in any individual case will depend on how many IVF cycles involved PGT-A testing, whether embryos were discarded based on results, and the specific consumer protection statutes that apply. The litigation is at too early a stage for reliable individual recovery estimates.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; readers should consult a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction regarding their specific circumstances.
Related reading: General Surgery Malpractice Settlement Amounts: 2026 Data, Verdicts & How Compensation Is Calculated
Related reading: Robotic Surgery Malpractice Settlement Amounts: 2026 Data, Verdicts & How Compensation Is Calculated
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.