A class action suit was filed in the Northern District of California last Thursday by plaintiff Amanda Law against defendant Natera, Inc. In the suit, plaintiff Law alleges that defendant Natera represented one of their products, a panorama test intended for pregnant women, in a misleading and deceptive manner which caused Law and other members of the class to suffer monetary damages.
According to the complaint, Natera produces and markets panorama tests, which are intended to act as “prenatal screening tests for pregnant women that screen for various chromosomal and genetic conditions affecting a baby’s health.” The plaintiff asserts that these panorama tests, though they are marketed as being effective and accurate, are incorrect 85% of the time, making them “worth far less than their market price.” Since the tests are incorrect so often, Law alleges that pregnant women can be subject to unnecessary testing, genetic counseling, or even the erroneous termination of a viable pregnancy.
In recent years, non-invasive methods of prenatal testing have become popular due to their decreased risk, the complaint claimed. Newer methods are called Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, or NIPT. NIPT uses DNA fragments from the blood of a pregnant woman to determine if their fetus has any genetic abnormalities. Law asserts that while NIPT is very popular, it is riddled with inaccuracies and is known to give “pregnant women false positive results for genetic conditions that their fetuses do not have.” The complaint even cites a New York Times study which found that for every 15 times the test correctly identifies a genetic disorder, it misidentifies 85 others, making 85% of NIPT tests false positives.
Law argues that the inaccuracies of the defendant’s NIPT test “can lead to devastating personal consequences and painful decisions that are premised upon this wrong information.” She further explains that had she been aware of the inefficiencies of the test, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for the test.
The complaint cites breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent omission, as well as violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Law is seeking class certification for all other persons that reside in the state of Florida who purchased the defendant’s panorama test, favorable judgment on all counts, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution, monetary relief, injunctive relief, and litigation fees.
The plaintiff is represented in the litigation by Bursor & Fisher.
