Corrected: U.S. Supreme Court rejects CareDx appeal in Natera false-advertising dispute

CareDx

01/06/2026 19:43

(Corrects headline to clarify that CareDx appealed to Supreme
Court)
    By Blake Brittain
       WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on
Monday declined to take up genetic testing company CareDx's
 CDNA.O  request to hear a false-advertising dispute over
statements made by rival Natera  NTRA.O  about its
kidney-transplant tests.
    The high court said it would not reconsider whether Natera
owed damages for making allegedly misleading advertisements
about the effectiveness of Natera's Prospera tests in comparison
to CareDx's competing product. As is its custom, the court did
not outline its reasons for rejecting the appeal. 
    Spokespeople and attorneys for the companies did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in Delaware threw out a $45
million jury verdict for CareDx in 2023 after finding no
evidence that Natera's statements actually misled customers.
CareDx told the justices that courts should presume that the ads
deceived consumers because they were "deliberately false."
CareDx alleged in 2019 that Natera used the results of a flawed
clinical trial to make misleading statements in ads directed to
organ-transplant doctors about the effectiveness of Prospera, a
test used to assess the risk that a person's body will reject a
kidney transplant. CareDx said Natera misused the results to
falsely advertise that Prospera was more effective than CareDx's
competing AlloSure test.
The companies are also involved in a separate patent dispute
over their technologies.
A jury awarded CareDx $44.9 million in damages on its false
advertising and unfair competition claims in 2022. Connolly said
in 2023 that the damages evidence presented at the trial was
insufficient, although he upheld the jury's determination that
Natera was liable for false advertising.
    Connolly also rejected CareDx's argument that the court
should presume customers were deceived and said that "evidence
of an intent to mislead does not warrant a presumption of actual
deception." Actual deception is a requirement for damages in
federal false-advertising cases.
    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Connolly's
ruling last year. CareDx told the high court that the ruling
contradicts six other circuits that have held that juries can
presume consumers were deceived if an ad campaign is
deliberately false.
    CareDx said that presumption has "widespread practical value
to remedy and deter false advertising campaigns," and that
proving consumer deception otherwise is "notoriously difficult."
    Natera responded that there was "no error in the Third
Circuit’s application of fact to the specific instructions
CareDx agreed would govern its case."
    The case is CareDx Inc v. Natera Inc, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 25-959.
    For CareDx: Edward Reines of Jones Day
    For Natera: Robert Smith of Katten Muchin Rosenman
     
    Read more:
    CareDx wins $45 mln verdict against Natera for false
advertising
  
    US judge rejects $45 mln award to CareDx in Natera false ads
case
  

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington)