Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.
Key facts
- Case: Calcaterra v. Natera, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-06342-YGR, Northern District of California.
- Settlement: A proposed $9.5 million fund for specified Panorama and Horizon genetic-test billing claims, with fees and administration deducted.
- Covered bills: More than $249 or $349, depending on the test, during July 10, 2019 through September 2, 2026.
- Claim deadline: Online submission or receipt of a mailed claim by May 3, 2027.
- Earlier rights deadline: Exclusion requests are due by December 28, 2026; objections must be filed or postmarked by that date under the official instructions.
- Hearing: Final-approval review is scheduled for March 2, 2027 at 9 a.m. Pacific time.
- Position: Natera denies wrongdoing. Payments are not guaranteed before final approval.
In this article
- What the Natera settlement covers
- The tests and the companies involved
- Why billing and insurance are disputed
- Who may belong to the settlement class
- The two payment groups and their limits
- What changes beyond the cash fund
- The legal claims and case timeline
- How to submit a claim or exercise other rights
- Evidence boundaries and the next milestone
- Frequently asked questions
What the Natera settlement covers
A proposed $9.5 million settlement has opened a claim process for people billed above specified thresholds for Natera's Panorama prenatal screening or Horizon carrier screening. The official site lists May 3, 2027 as the claim deadline, but earlier December deadlines apply to exclusion and objections.
The dispute concerns what patients were told about potential out-of-pocket costs. It is not a general refund for every genetic test, a ruling that a test result was wrong or a promise to cancel every outstanding Natera bill.
Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted preliminary approval on September 2, 2026 in the Northern District of California, a federal trial court. The court conditionally certified a settlement class and authorized notice. Conditional certification allows this group settlement process; final approval remains a separate decision.
Natera denies that it misrepresented costs or failed to disclose material information. The settlement website says the company settled to avoid the expense and disruption of continued litigation. The court has not resolved the underlying billing dispute in favor of either side.
Being billed and having proof of payment are different
The class definition uses the bill amount. The proposed payment allocation separately considers whether Natera's records show an out-of-pocket payment above the relevant threshold.
The tests and the companies involved
Natera, Inc. develops and performs the genetic screening tests involved in this case. Its relevant consumer-facing products are Panorama and Horizon, not every test the company offers.
Panorama is noninvasive prenatal testing, abbreviated NIPT. Natera describes it as a blood-based screening test performed during pregnancy for certain chromosomal conditions. Chromosomes contain genetic information. A screening result estimates risk; it is not a definitive diagnosis. The company's product page expressly distinguishes screening from diagnostic confirmation.
The class definition separates Panorama testing with and without microdeletions. A microdeletion is a small missing piece of chromosome material. That term matters here because the settlement uses different billing thresholds for those two test categories, not because this billing settlement determines the reliability of a particular result.
Horizon is genetic carrier screening. Natera says it identifies genetic changes a person could pass to a child and can be performed before or during pregnancy. A carrier can have a relevant genetic variant without having the associated illness. Its settlement threshold is separate from Panorama without microdeletions.
The named federal plaintiff is Rachel Calcaterra. Elizabeth Copley's related state case, Copley v. Natera, Inc., No. 23-CIV-03095 in San Mateo County Superior Court, is also part of the negotiated resolution. The September order makes clear that Calcaterra, not Copley, is the representative of the federal settlement class.
Wolf Popper LLP and Berman Tabacco are the appointed class-counsel firms. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is the court-appointed administrator responsible for notice and claims. Kroll is not the testing laboratory or the court, and Class Action Pulse does not administer the fund.
Why billing and insurance are disputed
The court's preliminary order describes allegations that Natera misrepresented what patients would pay, advertised a cash discount in certain insurance circumstances and billed at excessive rates. These remain allegations, not findings that every bill was unlawful.
Out-of-pocket cost means the amount a patient pays rather than an insurer or another source. It differs from the initial invoice, the insurer's payment and any advertised estimate. The settlement's distinction between billing thresholds and proof of payment reflects those different events.
Natera's position, set out on the official settlement site, is that it provides cost information in brochures and online, offers a pre-test estimate and tries to contact patients when insurance benefits could result in higher costs. It says contact details or permission to communicate are not always available. It also says most patients owe less than the relevant thresholds, depending on their health plan.
The company refers to copayments and deductibles, the patient's share of covered costs and the amount a plan may require the patient to pay before certain coverage applies. Those insurance obligations help explain why a general cost message and an individual bill can differ. They do not resolve whether the disclosures challenged by Calcaterra were adequate.
Who may belong to the settlement class
The class covers people in the United States who had the specified tests performed by Natera and were billed above the applicable threshold between July 10, 2019 and September 2, 2026.
For Panorama without microdeletions, the threshold is more than $249. For Panorama with microdeletions, it is more than $349. For Horizon genetic carrier screening, it is more than $349. These are class-definition thresholds, not automatic refund amounts.
The preliminary order lists exclusions, including people whose tests were entirely paid by insurance or another third party and who were not billed by Natera, and people tested as part of a clinical trial or research study. Specified company-related people, the presiding judges and their families, counsel and people who properly opt out are also excluded under the settlement terms.
The settlement does not cover every product mentioned in earlier pleadings. The order explains that Vistara and Spectrum were dropped from the settlement class. A reader should therefore check the actual test name rather than assume that any Natera genetic test is covered.
Potential class members received email or postcard notices beginning on or after October 2, according to the current FAQ. A notice is a useful starting point, not a guarantee that a claim will be approved. The administrator's toll-free number is 833-453-3593.
The two payment groups and their limits
The $9.5 million is a gross settlement fund. Notice and administration costs, approved legal fees and expenses, and any approved representative service award reduce the amount available for consumer payments. A service award is a court-approved payment recognizing the representative's work in the litigation, not the ordinary class-member benefit.
The current official FAQ divides claimants into two groups. An identification number starting with "A" indicates that Natera's records contain proof of an out-of-pocket payment above the applicable threshold. Valid claimants in that group share 94.7% of the net fund proportionally, subject to the available fund. Pro rata means a proportional share; the FAQ says the payment depends in part on the amount paid above the threshold and the number of valid participating claims.
An identification number beginning with "B" indicates that the company's records do not show the relevant proof of payment. The current FAQ describes a maximum payment of $50 for a valid claim in that group, subject to the available net fund. It does not promise every person with a "B" number a $50 check.
The preliminary order describes reimbursement of excess out-of-pocket costs, while the agreement and current FAQ explain proportional allocation and fund limits. Those descriptions should not be turned into a guarantee of full reimbursement for every claimant. The administrator and the court-approved final allocation govern actual payments.
The notice code does not set a fixed award
An "A" code identifies recorded proof of payment; a "B" code identifies no recorded proof. Both groups still need a valid claim, and payment depends on the approved allocation and available funds.
The order also says the administrator will contact claimants lacking appropriate proof to seek further documentation. Keep the distinction between missing company records and a final claim determination. The official instructions explain what the administrator needs.
A separate case, In re Natera Prenatal Testing Litigation, concerns allegations about how prenatal-test reliability was advertised. The current FAQ warns that combined recovery for a claimant participating in both settlements may not exceed their out-of-pocket payment for the applicable tests. The two proceedings are not interchangeable, and this billing settlement does not decide the other case.
What changes beyond the cash fund
The proposed settlement includes additional wording on patient invoices and test requisition forms. A requisition form is the paperwork used to order a test.
Invoices would direct patients to billing-policy and payment-option information on the back of the bill. Requisition forms would explain that using the price-transparency program requires insurance information and a phone number or email when the test is ordered, plus text-message opt-in to receive texts.
Those changes address the communications at issue. They are not a promise that the tests will always cost $249 or $349 regardless of insurance, or that every existing balance will disappear. The agreement specifies timing and implementation conditions rather than an immediate universal billing change.
The legal claims and case timeline
The September order identifies disputed questions under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, consumer-protection laws addressing unlawful or deceptive business practices. In this case, the questions concern pricing representations, disclosures and alleged harm to patients.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs federal class settlements. The court assessed whether common issues could be handled for a group and whether the proposal could be fair, reasonable and adequate. It did not decide the company's liability merely by permitting notice.
The dispute has an earlier history than the current notice. Copley's federal case began in 2021. In May 2023 it was dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal standing, meaning the required concrete harm to pursue that action in federal court had not been established. Without prejudice allowed refiling rather than resolving every claim against her.
Copley filed in state court in July 2023. Natera removed that action to federal court in December 2023; removal means transferring a qualifying state case into federal court, not a new verdict. In May 2024, Copley's claims were separated and returned to state court while Calcaterra continued as the federal plaintiff. The state proceeding was paused in June 2024 pending the federal result.
The parties reached a settlement in principle in November 2025. The federal court held a preliminary-approval hearing in August 2026 and issued its September 2 order. Current notices then supplied the dates readers need for claims and other rights.
How to submit a claim or exercise other rights
Use GeneticScreeningTestSettlement.com for the official claim channel and documents. A claim must be submitted online by May 3, 2027, or mailed so the administrator receives it by that date. A May 3 postmark alone does not satisfy the notice's receipt requirement.
The official mailing destination is Settlement Administrator - 83476, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391. Follow the claim form and provide the required information. This publication's case directory or newsletter is not a substitute for that submission.
Opting out means leaving the settlement, taking no settlement payment and preserving the ability to pursue the released claims separately. The official FAQ requires an online or received mailed exclusion request by December 28, 2026. An objection raises a concern with the court while remaining in the class; the FAQ requires filing or postmarking by December 28 and lists the documentation and other requirements.
The rights deadlines come before the claim deadline
December 28, 2026 controls exclusion and objections under their separate instructions. The May 3, 2027 claim deadline does not extend those earlier options.
If a class member does nothing, the current notice says they receive no payment and give up specified claims if the settlement is approved. The release excludes personal-injury claims and the specified separate prenatal-testing case. It also reserves certain defenses and counterclaims if Natera later seeks to collect covered test payments. The full documents, not this summary, define those legal consequences.
Evidence boundaries and the next milestone
The official FAQ, agreement and September order support the class definition, allocation, current deadlines and procedural history. Natera's product pages explain the tests, but are not evidence that the billing allegations were proved or disproved.
This report does not estimate individual awards, supply a current valid-claim count or assume a future fee request has already been granted. The current FAQ describes a fee request capped at 25% of the fund, while the preliminary order discusses an earlier 30% proposal and requires justification if fees above the court's 25% benchmark are pursued. The court still determines the award.
The next scheduled approval milestone is March 2, 2027 at 9 a.m. Pacific time. The claim deadline follows that hearing. Payment distribution still depends on approval and resolution of appeals; neither date guarantees payment. Check the official site for changes. The Class Action Pulse case directory covers other consumer matters, not the administration of this settlement.
Frequently asked questions
Which Natera tests are covered?
The settlement covers specified Panorama prenatal screening and Horizon carrier screening bills above the applicable thresholds. It does not cover every Natera test.
Is the threshold an automatic refund?
No. The $249 and $349 thresholds help define the class and allocation. Actual payments depend on a valid claim, proof status, final approval and available funds.
What does an A or B notice code mean?
An "A" code indicates recorded proof of an excess out-of-pocket payment. A "B" code indicates no such recorded proof. The current FAQ describes proportional payments for the first group and up to $50 for the second, subject to funds.
When must I file a claim?
Submit online by May 3, 2027 or mail so the administrator receives your claim by May 3. A postmark on that date alone is not enough under the notice.
When are exclusions and objections due?
Exclusion requests must be submitted online or received by December 28, 2026. Objections must be filed or postmarked by December 28 under the official court-submission instructions.
Has Natera admitted wrongdoing?
No. Natera denies the allegations. Preliminary settlement approval is not a merits ruling, and final approval remains pending in the reviewed materials.