If you have had a baby recently, or are thinking about it, chances are you or your partner will be offered a non‑invasive prenatal test (NIPT). These blood tests, once reserved for “high‑risk” pregnancies and treated like a fancy add‑on, have quietly become common in prenatal care in the U.S.
Instead of an invasive procedure that carries a small risk of miscarriage, NIPTs use a simple blood draw from the pregnant patient to look for chromosomal issues. They typically screen for trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), plus some rarer genetic issues like certain chromosomal microdeletions.
Some estimates say roughly 25–50% of pregnant people now get these tests, depending on the country and setting, though use is higher in insured U.S. populations. That uptake makes it easy to assume everyone trusts them without question. But a federal court is currently overseeing a proposed settlement between Natera, a major player in NIPT, and a group of patients who sued over the accuracy and marketing of its tests. The lawsuit highlights how these prenatal genetic blood tests can produce false positives for some chromosomal conditions, with error rates that are much higher than many families realize, and the fallout can be devastating.
Everyone’s Doing NIPT… but Few Read the Fine Print
Today, getting a NIPT (like Natera’s Panorama or Vistara) is almost as routine as stepping on the scale at your prenatal visit. The screening is usually done with a blood sample between weeks 9 and 12 of pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that this type of screening be offered to all pregnant patients, and many OB‑GYNs simply hand patients a lab brochure and send them off for bloodwork.
The problem? The list of conditions each Natera “package” screens for can be long, technical, and overwhelming. Most pregnant patients are juggling nausea, exhaustion, and a hormonal roller coaster, not parsing medical jargon and statistical probabilities.
Layered on top of that is the insurance headache. Before you even get to the blood draw, you may have to figure out:
- Does my plan cover Natera’s tests at all?
- If yes, which specific tests?
- Are they fully covered, or will I owe part of the bill?
And then you cross your fingers that the bill that shows up later matches whatever your insurer’s representative and the lab told you on the phone.
One more selling point that drives uptake: NIPTs can reveal the baby’s sex much earlier than a standard ultrasound. Results can show sex from around week 9, versus around 16–20 weeks with an ultrasound.
Here is a key nuance that often gets lost: “prenatal testing” is a broad umbrella term. It includes both screening tests and diagnostic tests. NIPT is screening only. It cannot confirm a diagnosis on its own; diagnostic testing such as chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis is required.
From Peace of Mind to Panic
For most pregnant patients, NIPT is framed as a simple step toward peace of mind. But when the result comes back as “high risk,” the effect is the exact opposite.
The lawsuit against Natera focuses on how likely these tests are to produce false positives, especially in the more complex panels that look for rare conditions. The general pattern alleged in the complaint:
- Basic screening, like for Down syndrome, performs relatively well.
- As you move into screening for rarer conditions and microdeletions, the positive predictive value drops, and the false positive rate can climb dramatically.
According to the plaintiffs and reporting cited in the litigation, some of Natera’s NIPT panels for rare genetic conditions can have positive predictive values as low as 2–5%, meaning positive results are wrong as much as 95–98% of the time. Put simply, when the test flags certain rare conditions as “high risk,” it is often wrong.
The complaint also calls out Natera’s marketing, arguing that the company presents some of these tests as highly accurate and reliable when, for certain rare conditions, the real‑world performance is far shakier. The lawsuit cites allegations that Natera has long known about extremely high false-positive rates for some panels, yet continued to tout its tests as a trustworthy way to detect rare abnormalities.
What a False Positive Can Do to a Family
Beyond the numbers, the real heart of the lawsuit is the human cost of a bad result.
Many families make agonizing decisions based on NIPT results that show a high chance of serious genetic conditions. For some, that means choosing to terminate a wanted pregnancy. For others, it means undergoing invasive follow‑up testing (like amniocentesis), which carries its own small risk of miscarriage, or enduring months of anxiety while waiting for more definitive answers.
The plaintiffs in this case all say they received “high-risk” Natera results for their babies. Later, diagnostic testing, such as amniocentesis, showed that the NIPT results were false positives, and the babies were born without the conditions flagged by the screen.
According to the complaint, those false positives led to:
- Intense emotional distress during pregnancy.
- Extra medical appointments, specialist consults, and additional tests.
- Significant out‑of‑pocket costs for follow‑up care.
And that is just the group that came forward in this class action. The lawsuit emphasizes a broader concern: when a screening test with a high false‑positive rate is marketed as highly reliable, families may make irreversible decisions based on results that are more “maybe” than “yes.”
The Legal Theories Behind the Case
The class action leans on a mix of consumer and warranty laws in several states, including unjust enrichment laws in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. The plaintiffs also claim violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York General Business Law, among others.
In short, the plaintiffs argue that Natera overstated the reliability and usefulness of some of its NIPT panels, failed to adequately disclose limitations and false positive rates, and profited from tests that did not perform as advertised, especially for rarer conditions.
The Settlement: Who Gets What?
The case is not going to trial. Like many class actions, it is heading toward a settlement where Natera pays money but does not admit wrongdoing.
Under the proposed deal, Natera will pay about $8.25 million. That pot of money will:
- Cover attorneys’ fees, costs, and administration of the settlement.
- Be distributed to class members who file a claim.
If you qualify, there is a good chance Natera already has your contact information and has emailed you about joining the class. The class includes people in the U.S. who paid out of pocket for Natera NIPT tests (Panorama or Vasistera/Vistara) during specific date ranges, depending on the state:
- Ohio: February 17, 2016 – August 7, 2025
- New Jersey: May 5, 2016 – August 7, 2025
- Florida: February 24, 2017 – August 7, 2025
- New York and Illinois: April 27, 2017 – August 7, 2025
- All other states: February 17, 2018 – August 7, 2025
The most recent information states that class members must submit claim forms by July 24, 2026. The same date applies for exclusion and objections. The court will hold a final approval hearing on August 20, 2026, in Oakland, California, to decide whether to approve the settlement. The dates are subject to change.
If the court signs off, class members who submit valid claims will be eligible for:
- Up to $30 if they file a claim without proof of purchase, or
- 10% of their documented out‑of‑pocket costs for Natera NIPT tests, as long as those expenses were more than 300 dollars.
In many class actions, the per‑person payout ends up being quite small compared to the stress and harm people describe.
When a Class Action Is Not Enough
Because prenatal screening has become such a routine part of pregnancy care, the broader impact of this settlement is significant. For many families, though, a check for 30 dollars, or even 10% of what they spent, does not come close to making them whole.
If your experience was particularly severe, you may have options beyond staying in the class:
- You can opt out of the class action and pursue an individual lawsuit.
- It is wise to talk to a lawyer before deciding, so you understand what you would be giving up and what an individual case might look like.
These cases can be complex and interdisciplinary. Depending on the facts, you might need:
- A consumer protection attorney (for marketing and disclosure issues).
- A medical malpractice lawyer (if doctors miscommunicated or mismanaged results).
- A product liability lawyer (if the test itself is alleged to be defective or unreasonably dangerous).
The strength of a potential individual case can vary a lot based on what actually happened. Courts tend to look differently at a false positive that caused emotional distress and extra appointments versus a situation where the result led to:
- Significant medical bills and long‑term consequences
- An invasive test that caused complications
- A pregnancy termination
In high‑impact cases like those, an individual lawsuit may be more likely to support higher damages than a small class‑action check, but it also involves more time, uncertainty, and emotional investment.
