Consumers who paid thousands of dollars for a genetic test marketed as improving their chances of having a healthy baby are now seeking damages, alleging they were misled by claims not supported by science. The complaint was filed on March 19, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Adrian Anderson, Amanda Malkin, and Maureen Ewing against Genomic Prediction, Inc. and Genomic Prediction Clinical Laboratory.
According to the filing, the plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and others who purchased preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) from Genomic Prediction as part of their in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. They allege that Genomic Prediction’s advertising and promotional materials falsely represented PGT-A as a proven method to decrease miscarriage risk and increase live birth rates, when scientific studies do not support these claims.
The complaint outlines how PGT-A is marketed as an add-on service during IVF cycles, with claims that it is “the most advanced genetic screening available,” offering “higher pregnancy rates per IVF cycle,” “fewer IVF cycles resulting in miscarriage,” “more embryos available for transfer due to testing accuracy,” and being “98-99% accurate.” Plaintiffs state that these representations are false or misleading because numerous studies have found no significant difference in pregnancy or live birth rates between those who use PGT-A and those who do not. The lawsuit also cites findings from major health organizations—including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and large insurers like United Healthcare—that question or do not recommend routine use of PGT-A due to insufficient evidence.
The court filing provides extensive background on the development and scientific evaluation of PGT-A technology since its introduction in the late 1980s. It details how initial hypotheses about removing embryos with chromosomal abnormalities would improve outcomes have not been substantiated by randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses over decades. According to plaintiffs, research has shown high rates of false positives—where embryos deemed abnormal may actually be viable—and instances where healthy babies were born from embryos classified as unsuitable by such tests.
The complaint further alleges that Genomic Prediction failed to disclose material information about these scientific limitations in its marketing materials directed at both consumers undergoing IVF and fertility clinics nationwide. Plaintiffs argue that insurance companies rarely cover PGT-A because it is considered experimental or unproven, making it an expensive out-of-pocket cost added to already costly fertility treatments.
Plaintiffs seek damages for economic losses suffered as a result of purchasing what they describe as an unproven product based on deceptive business practices. They request all available damages, equitable relief, and other remedies from the court. The suit asserts that had consumers known about the lack of supporting evidence for PGT-A’s efficacy—as well as potential risks such as discarding viable embryos—they would not have purchased the test.
Throughout the document, quotations from professional societies highlight concerns: ASRM’s November 2023 statement notes “the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a universal screening test for all patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) has not been established.” Similarly, ACOG concluded there is “insufficient evidence to recommend routine use” while warning about possible embryo damage during biopsy procedures.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys are listed as undersigned counsel within the filing; no judge name appears explicitly in this portion of the document. The case is identified under Case No. 3:26-cv-02860.
Source: 326cv02860_Anderson_v_Genomic_Prediction_Inc_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
