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. According to a June 2026 lawsuit, approximately 40 percent of all IVF cycles in the United States now utilize PGT-A screening, underscoring just how widespread — and how consequential — these marketing claims have become.
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. Natera, for its part, agreed to an $8.25 million class action settlement, finalized in January 2026, over allegations that it misrepresented its noninvasive prenatal screening tests — a resolution that has drawn fresh scrutiny to the company’s broader marketing practices across its reproductive testing product line.
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. Adding to the scientific concerns, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) stated in its 2026 guidelines that preimplantation polygenic risk score (PRS) testing is not appropriate for clinical use and should not be offered — a position that further erodes the evidentiary foundation on which these testing companies built their marketing claims. 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 2026. As of March 2026, approximately 3,000 people are part of PGT-A class action lawsuits led by Constable Law alone — a figure that reflects just how broadly these claims have resonated with IVF patients across the country. 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 others — represents the litigation’s latest and most prominent expansion. Natera’s entry into the PGT-A lawsuit docket is particularly notable given the company’s January 2026 settlement of a separate $8.25 million class action over misrepresentations in its prenatal screening products, which plaintiffs’ attorneys in the PGT-A cases have cited as evidence of a pattern of deceptive marketing practices across Natera’s reproductive testing business.
What the Lawsuits Actually Allege: Deceptive Marketing and Discarded Embryos
At their core, the PGT-A IVF lawsuits allege a straightforward but devastating consumer fraud: fertility testing companies sold patients an expensive, largely unproven screening test using marketing claims that were not supported by the available scientific evidence. The complaints allege violations of state consumer protection statutes, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and in some cases fraud — all grounded in the same central theory that defendants knew or should have known that their promotional materials overstated both the accuracy and the clinical benefit of PGT-A testing.
Specific allegations include:
- Marketing PGT-A as “99% accurate” when peer-reviewed studies demonstrate meaningful rates of false-positive results that can cause viable embryos to be misclassified as abnormal
- Claiming PGT-A improves live-birth rates when randomized controlled trials cited in the complaints show no statistically significant benefit over unscreened IVF cycles
- Failing to disclose that embryos flagged as aneuploid by PGT-A have in documented cases been transferred and resulted in healthy live births — meaning the test’s “abnormal” designation is not a reliable clinical verdict
- Charging patients between $3,000 and $6,000 or more per testing cycle for a service plaintiffs allege was worth a fraction of what was charged, given its unproven clinical utility
- Causing patients to discard healthy or potentially viable embryos based on misleading test results, resulting in irreversible reproductive harm
The ACMG’s 2026 declaration that preimplantation polygenic risk score testing is not appropriate for clinical use reinforces what plaintiffs have long argued: that the scientific and medical establishment has not validated the broad clinical promises embedded in these companies’ marketing campaigns. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for the cost of the testing itself, consequential damages for additional IVF cycles necessitated by embryo discard decisions, and in many cases damages for emotional distress and loss of reproductive opportunity.
Where the Litigation Stands: Motions to Dismiss and What Comes Next
As of August 2026, CooperSurgical, Natera, RGI, and Ovation Fertility have all filed motions to dismiss the PGT-A complaints against them. These motions are a standard procedural step in complex class action litigation and do not signal that the cases lack merit — defendants in virtually every major mass tort and consumer class action file motions to dismiss as a matter of course. The central arguments defendants are expected to raise include: that their marketing materials were accurate statements of opinion rather than actionable misrepresentations, that plaintiffs assumed the risk of uncertainty inherent in genetic testing, and that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate reliance on specific marketing claims as a cause of their individual decisions.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are expected to counter that the complaints plausibly allege specific, verifiable falsehoods — not puffery — and that the uniform nature of the defendants’ marketing materials supports class-wide treatment of reliance questions. Courts ruling on these motions to dismiss will set the foundational legal framework for how the broader litigation proceeds. If even one or two defendants survive the motion to dismiss stage, it is likely to accelerate settlement discussions across the board, as has occurred in comparable pharmaceutical and medical device class actions.
Meanwhile, the Natera $8.25 million settlement finalized in January 2026 — covering misrepresentations in its prenatal screening business — provides a potential roadmap for resolution in the PGT-A context. That settlement demonstrated that Natera is capable of negotiating class-wide relief when litigation pressure reaches a sufficient threshold, a dynamic that plaintiffs’ counsel in the PGT-A cases will almost certainly leverage as discovery progresses.
Who May Have a Claim in a PGT-A IVF Lawsuit
If you underwent IVF treatment and paid out-of-pocket for PGT-A screening — particularly if embryos were discarded as a result of test results — you may have a viable claim in the ongoing litigation. While the specific eligibility criteria vary by case and jurisdiction, the general profile of potential plaintiffs includes:
- Individuals or couples who paid for PGT-A testing from any of the defendant companies, including Natera, CooperSurgical, RGI, Ovation Fertility, Genomic Prediction, or Progenesis
- Patients who were not adequately informed of the scientific limitations and controversy surrounding PGT-A accuracy and clinical benefit
- Patients whose embryos were classified as abnormal and subsequently discarded, particularly where no transfer was ever attempted for those embryos
- Patients who underwent additional IVF cycles — at significant financial and physical cost — after embryos were discarded based on PGT-A results
- Patients who relied on marketing materials, clinic recommendations, or company-provided educational content that overstated PGT-A’s accuracy or proven clinical benefit
It is worth noting that you do not need to have experienced a failed IVF cycle to potentially have a claim. Plaintiffs who ultimately had successful pregnancies may still have suffered economic harm in the form of the cost of PGT-A testing itself, if that testing was sold through materially deceptive marketing. The approximately 3,000 individuals already enrolled in lawsuits led by Constable Law as of March 2026 span a wide range of circumstances, reflecting the breadth of the potential class.
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 collection of related class action cases filed in federal courts across the United States alleging that fertility genetic testing companies engaged in deceptive marketing of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Defendants named across the various cases include Natera, CooperSurgical (also known as CooperGenomics), Reproductive Genetic Innovations (RGI), Ovation Fertility, Genomic Prediction, Progenesis, and Igenomix. The lawsuits allege that these companies marketed PGT-A using claims of exceptional accuracy and proven clinical benefit that were not supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence, causing patients to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket and in many cases to permanently discard embryos based on unreliable test results.
What harm do plaintiffs claim they suffered?
Plaintiffs claim two broad categories of harm. The first is economic: they paid between $3,000 and $6,000 or more per testing cycle for a product they allege was deceptively marketed and of unproven clinical value. The second, and more profound, category is reproductive: many plaintiffs discarded embryos based on PGT-A results that the lawsuits characterize as scientifically unreliable. For patients of advanced maternal age or those with limited ovarian reserve, the discarding of embryos may represent an irreversible loss of reproductive opportunity. Some plaintiffs also allege that they underwent additional IVF cycles — at great financial and physical cost — that would have been unnecessary had they not discarded embryos based on the defendants’ testing.
What is the current legal status of these cases as of 2026?
As of 2026, the litigation is active across multiple federal courts and at varying procedural stages. CooperSurgical, Natera, RGI, and Ovation Fertility have all filed motions to dismiss as of August 2026. The Genomic Prediction case, filed in March 2026 in the District of New Jersey, is in its early stages. The Natera PGT-A class action, filed June 2, 2026, in the Northern District of California, is the most recently initiated case in the wave. No PGT-A-specific cases have reached settlement as of this writing, though Natera’s January 2026 resolution of a separate $8.25 million class action involving its prenatal screening products has been closely watched by litigants on both sides of the PGT-A docket.
Does it matter which company performed my PGT-A testing?
Yes, in the sense that the lawsuits are organized by defendant — each case names specific companies, and the marketing materials, pricing structures, and specific claims at issue vary somewhat by company. However, the core legal theory is consistent across all of the cases: that PGT-A was deceptively marketed regardless of which company provided it. If the company that performed your testing is among the defendants — Natera, CooperSurgical, RGI, Ovation Fertility, Genomic Prediction, or Progenesis — there is likely an existing or forthcoming case to which your claim may be relevant. Speaking with an attorney who focuses on this litigation is the most reliable way to assess whether your specific situation and testing provider give rise to a viable claim.
How much money could I recover if I join a PGT-A IVF lawsuit?
Individual recovery amounts in class action litigation are inherently difficult to predict before a case reaches the settlement or verdict stage. Factors that will influence damages include the amount paid for PGT-A testing, whether embryos were discarded and in what quantity, whether additional IVF cycles were undertaken as a result of embryo discard decisions, the strength of evidence that specific marketing claims caused the plaintiff’s decision to purchase the testing, and whether courts permit claims for emotional distress or loss of reproductive opportunity in addition to economic damages. The $8.25 million Natera prenatal screening settlement offers one reference point for how defendants in this space have valued class-wide claims when pushed to resolve — though the PGT-A cases involve a distinct product and a distinct harm theory that may command different valuations. Tools such as a medical malpractice calculator can offer a preliminary frame of reference, but consultation with a qualified attorney remains the only reliable way to assess the potential value of an individual claim.
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.