No Fees Unless We Win
(310) 207-3233
Menu

Dexcom G6 Recall

The Dexcom G6 is a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system marketed for its ease of use and ability to eliminate fingersticks. However, serious reliability concerns triggered recalls and a class-action lawsuit. 

Patients were first notified in May 2025 through an Urgent Medical Device Correction notification issued by the manufacturer. The notice warned that certain Dexcom G6 and G7 receivers were failing to provide audio alerts for low or high glucose levels. This was followed by an update in June 2025, when the FDA classified the issue as a Class I recall—the agency's most serious designation.

By the time the correction was issued, over 100 complaints had been filed, including 56 reports of severe adverse events. Documented injuries linked to these defects include seizures, loss of consciousness, vomiting, and other complications from severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.

At Wisner Baum, our attorneys are helping people understand their legal rights following the Dexcom G6 recall. If you believe your device was affected, contact us today to see if you qualify for the Dexcom class action lawsuit.

What Is Dexcom G6?

The Dexcom G6 is a small, wearable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. The monitor is worn for up to 10 days and sends glucose to a smartphone or Dexcom receiver. While Dexcom’s marketing claims the device eliminates the need for fingersticks, the manufacturer acknowledges that fingersticks are still required “if symptoms or expectations do not match readings.”

Is There a Dexcom G6 Lawsuit? 

Yes. After users began experiencing adverse health events related to failures in the G6 continuous glucose monitoring system, a Dexcom lawsuit was filed. The class action lawsuit asserts that the Dexcom G6 and G7 CGM devices were adulterated after FDA approval with unapproved materials. The lawsuit further alleges that the adulteration causes the devices to fail, resulting in injury to patients who use them to make critical diabetes treatment decisions. 

Reports from patients who used the Dexcom G6 say their readings were inaccurate and that delayed or inaudible alerts caused serious harm. Lawsuits further allege device failures can cause serious adverse events, including hospitalization related to hypo- or hyperglycemia.

Why Was the Dexcom G6 Recalled?

The Dexcom G6 has been the subject of two major recalls. The most recent was a Class I recall, the most serious issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA issues Class I recalls only when there is a “reasonable probability” that using the device could cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The most recent Dexcom G6 recall addresses a hardware defect where the receiver’s speaker may fail to sound an alarm for dangerous blood sugar levels. This silence can be deadly for patients who rely on the device to wake them or alert them during a medical emergency.

History of Dexcom Recalls 

First Dexcom G6 Recall (2020)

The first major Dexcom G6 recall came in March 2020. Dexcom notified users through an Urgent Medical Device Correction that hydroxyurea, an anti-neoplastic drug used in chemotherapy and the treatment of sickle cell disease, could adversely interact with the device. 

The drug caused falsely elevated glucose readings, potentially masking low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). The FDA designated this a Class II recall, meaning that use of the product may cause “temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences” or the chances of a serious injury are remote.

Dexcom G6 Receiver Recall (2025)

In June 2025, the FDA announced a Class I recall of certain Dexcom G6, G7, ONE, and ONE+ receivers because defective foam or an assembly error could cause the receiver speaker to lose contact with the printed circuit board, potentially preventing audible alerts for dangerously low or high blood glucose levels.

Injuries potentially caused by the Dexcom G6 receiver defect include:

  • Seizures
  • Vomiting
  • Loss of consciousness
  • Death (No deaths have been reported as of Dec. 2025)

Why Dexcom Recalls Keep Happening

The FDA identified several crucial safety lapses in its March 4, 2025, Warning Letter to Dexcom. These safety issues, identified by the FDA and referenced in lawsuits, include:

Unauthorized Design Changes: Dexcom made significant modifications to the materials used in its G6 and G7 CGM sensors without obtaining the required premarket approval from the FDA. Internal studies showed these modified sensors had “significantly greater variability,” leading to unreliable and potentially dangerous glucose readings.

Quality System Violations: FDA inspections of Dexcom's manufacturing facilities in two states revealed the company's methods and controls were not in conformity with federal good manufacturing practices (Quality System regulation).

Inadequate Validation and Procedures: The FDA warning letter noted that Dexcom failed to establish adequate procedures for evaluating and validating design changes before implementing them. The company also failed to properly validate its manufacturing process for key measurements.

Failure to Track Materials: Inspectors noted that the company's quality systems lacked a formal requirement for tracking certain material concentrations (like acetaminophen, which can interfere with readings) in test runs.

Concealing Defects (Alleged in Lawsuits): Wisner Baum’s class action lawsuit against Dexcom alleges the company knew about defects and accuracy issues but continued to market its products as reliable and safe, downplaying the risks to patients.

Dexcom G6 Recall Response

Dexcom continues to promote its devices as safe despite problems highlighted in the recent recall and in legal documents filed nationwide. While the medical device company responded to the FDA investigation into its adulterated sensors, the FDA found its responses inadequate. Dexcom is now facing a class-action lawsuit over device failures and other issues. 

How to Check If Your Device is Affected by the Recall

Dexcom G6 users can check if their receiver was part of the recall by inputting the serial number on Dexcom's website. If the receiver was part of the recall, G6 users should contact Dexcom Technical Support at 1-844-478-1600 to coordinate the return and replacement of the device. 

The manufacturer recommends that all G6 users, even those not affected by the recall, regularly test the speaker function every time they charge the receiver. 

What Users Should Do if Their Dexcom G6 Was Recalled

If your Dexcom G6 device was recalled, you should contact Dexcom Technical Support at 1-844-478-1600 to receive a replacement. Individuals are also encouraged to report adverse reactions or device malfunctions to MedWatch. MedWatch is the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. It helps to track problems with medical devices. 

If the glucose readings from your Dexcom G6 do not reflect symptoms or expectations, you should use a backup glucose monitoring system to confirm results. It is essential to report any new or worsening symptoms, as well as any device problems, to your healthcare provider. If you suffer harm after a Dexcom G6 failure, you may be entitled to compensation and are encouraged to speak with a Dexcom lawsuit attorney as soon as possible.

Contact a Dexcom Lawsuit Lawyer

If you have experienced inaccurate readings or a malfunction from a Dexcom G6 device that resulted in injury, you may be entitled to compensation. The medical device injury lawyers at Wisner Baum are currently accepting claims related to Dexcom device failures. 

Our firm is here to help you understand your rights and fight to ensure justice is served. Contact our office today to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation to determine if you qualify for a Dexcom lawsuit.

Get Started
Call (310) 207-3233 or fill out the form below and request a free consultation.
20,000+ Families Represented

"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"

Mary Flores
Reviewed
on Google
Read More Reviews
Case Results
We Demand Accountability.
More Successful Results
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
Continue Reading
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury

In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.

The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.

$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
Continue Reading
$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury

$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial

Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.

Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.

$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
Continue Reading
$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash

In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.

Dexcom G6 Recall FAQs

Lawsuits allege the Dexcom G6 may have defect-related risks, including inaccurate readings and missed alerts. Users should discuss these risks with their healthcare provider and verify any questionable readings with a fingerstick test.

Yes, twice. The first recall involved interference from the drug hydroxyurea. The second, a Class I recall in 2025, involved speaker malfunctions that could silence critical alarms.

Individuals who suffered harm as a result of a Dexcom malfunction or missed alert may be able to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer and should consult with an attorney as soon as possible.

If your Dexcom G6 does not provide accurate readings, you should check to see if it was part of a recall and report the inaccuracies to the FDA’s MedWatch program. You should also contact your healthcare provider to discuss alternative glucose monitoring systems. If the inaccurate readings resulted in injury, you may be entitled to file a lawsuit and should consult with an attorney. 

A Dexcom lawsuit could take a year or more to resolve. It is essential to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to determine if you are eligible to take legal action.

Individuals who were harmed by inaccurate Dexcom G6 readings or inaudible alerts may be able to take legal action, including joining existing litigation. It is important to contact an attorney as soon as possible to determine your legal options.

When companies choose profit over people, we fight. Wisner Baum exposes injustice, demands accountability, and delivers real results for real people. Your Path to Justice Starts Here.
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica
Blvd Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Get Directions
Bay Area
100 Drakes Landing Road
Suite 160
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Get Directions
Washington, D.C.
2101 L St NW 

Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
Get Directions
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute a client relationship.
Send Us Your Case Details
We’ll respond and let you know the best way to proceed with your case.
crossarrow-up linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram