Petersen v. Exact Sciences Corporation
This case was recently filed and is being litigated — the claims below are allegations, not proven facts, and there is no settlement, claim form, or payout yet. Watch the case (right) and we'll email you when it moves, including if it settles and a claim process opens.
What happened
A proposed class action against Exact Sciences Corporation filed by Nicole Petersen. The nature of suit is listed as "Other" personal injury, but based on the defendant's identity as a major cancer-screening company, this likely concerns allegations related to medical testing, screening products, or related health claims. Without access to the complaint itself, the specific allegations cannot be determined from the docket entry alone.
Do you qualify?
No settlement exists yet, so there is nothing to file and no class definition to check. If the case settles, the settlement will define exactly who qualifies — watch this case and we'll let you know.
How to file
There is no claim to file yet. If this case reaches a settlement, a claim process will open — usually with an official settlement website and a filing deadline.
Common questions
- Can I file a claim in the Petersen v. Exact Sciences Corporation case?
- No. This case has been filed and is still being litigated — there is no settlement, no claim form, and no payout. Many class actions are dismissed or never certified, so a case being filed does not mean anyone will be paid. If it settles and a claim process opens, that will be announced by a court-appointed settlement administrator.
- Where is the Petersen v. Exact Sciences Corporation case being heard?
- The case is before the District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, case number 3:26-cv-00643. Everything alleged in the complaint is an allegation, not a proven fact.
Who's involved
Plaintiffs
- Nicole Petersen
Defendants
- Exact Sciences Corporation
Counsel for plaintiffs
- Nickolas J. HagmanCafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP
Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More drugs & medical settlements
View all →QVAR Antitrust Settlement
Teva allegedly violated antitrust laws by improperly listing patents in the FDA's Orange Book and engaging in product hopping to delay generic competition for QVAR and QVAR Redihaler inhalers, causing consumers and third-party payors to overpay for the brand-name drug. Teva denies all allegations and maintains it did nothing wrong.
Tracleer Litigation Settlement
The defendants allegedly unlawfully delayed the entry of generic formulations of bosentan into the market, causing third-party payors to pay more for brand Tracleer and bosentan than they should have. Defendants deny wrongdoing and there has been no court determination that the allegations were proven or caused harm.
Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Settlement
The defendants falsely advertised their generic metformin drugs as equivalent to Glucophage and Glucophage XR, but the drugs were contaminated with NDMA and did not meet FDA standards. Consumers and businesses paid for drugs they would not have purchased had they known the truth. The defendants deny wrongdoing.
Anthem Grandfathered Rx Settlement
Anthem denied coverage for brand name (single source) prescription drugs and/or applied a deductible to these drugs under certain grandfathered health plans, resulting in out-of-pocket expenses for members and charging some members an $8,850 deductible. The California Department of Insurance required Anthem to settle this matter.
Up to $8,850