IVF Genetic Testing Faces a Legal Challenge Over Promised Benefits

A federal judge dismissed a proposed nationwide class action challenging LifeView preimplantation genetic testing, but the October 8 ruling did not decide whether the test is accurate or improves the chance of having a healthy baby. The case ended, for now, because the three plaintiffs did not identify a concrete injury tied to the testing they personally received.

What Is PGT-A Genetic Testing in IVF?

The case, Anderson v. Genomic Prediction, concerns a test used during in vitro fertilization (IVF), in which eggs are fertilized in a laboratory and an embryo is then transferred to the uterus. Before transfer, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (i.e., PGT-A) checks a small sample of cells from an embryo for an abnormal number of chromosomes. The results can help guide which embryo is selected for transfer, but they cannot guarantee a successful pregnancy or a healthy child.

What Are the Clinical Benefits and Limitations of PGT-A?

PGT-A is a screening tool, not a guarantee that an embryo will implant, avoid miscarriage, or produce a healthy child. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has concluded that the value of PGT-A as routine screening for every IVF patient remains unclear, while recognizing that it may help selected patients and can support single-embryo transfer.

What Did the Plaintiffs Allege in Anderson v. Genomic Prediction?

The plaintiffs alleged that Genomic Prediction marketed the LifeView PGT-A test as highly accurate and capable of increasing pregnancy rates, reducing miscarriage, shortening the time to pregnancy, and decreasing the number of IVF cycles needed. According to the complaint, the three women paid for testing between 2021 and 2023. They sought to recover those costs on behalf of a national class, arguing that they would not have purchased the service if its limitations had been properly disclosed.

Why Was the IVF Genetic Testing Lawsuit Dismissed?

The defendants sought dismissal because the plaintiffs had not identified any harm from their own testing. Specifically, plaintiffs failed to allege an inaccurate result, the loss of a viable embryo, a treatment decision based on faulty information, or that the testing was worth less than they paid. The question was whether dissatisfaction with the test’s marketing, without a concrete injury, was enough to bring the case in federal court. Judge Michael Shipp held that they were not. His opinion found no concrete economic injury traceable to the defendants’ conduct and dismissed the federal claims without prejudice. The court also declined to retain the remaining state-law claims. The plaintiffs have 30 days to amend. The ruling therefore addresses the way the injury was pleaded, not the clinical validity of LifeView or PGT-A generally.

What Medical Evidence Matters in IVF Genetic Testing Litigation?

That distinction will matter if the case returns. A medically developed claim would need to move from broad statements about PGT-A to the specifics of each patient’s IVF cycle. Relevant evidence may include age, ovarian reserve, prior pregnancy history, the number and quality of embryos, biopsy technique, laboratory platform and validation data, the test results, treatment recommendations, informed-consent discussions, transfer decisions, and reproductive outcomes. A test can perform as designed while a patient misunderstands what it predicts. Conversely, a laboratory or counseling failure can matter even when PGT-A has a legitimate role in a particular treatment plan.

Which Medical Experts Are Relevant to PGT-A Litigation?

The expert questions are equally specific. A specialist in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility can assess why testing was recommended and how the results affected treatment. A Medical Geneticist with experience in reproductive testing can address the test’s capabilities, limitations, and interpretation, including what patients should have been told. Additional laboratory expertise may be appropriate if the case identifies a specific concern about how the testing was performed. Those disciplines overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

What Happens Next in Anderson v. Genomic Prediction?

The court has given the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint. If they do, broad challenges to PGT-A will need to be tied to each patient’s experience: what the test showed, how the results affected her care, and what, if any, measurable harm resulted.