
Enfagrow Premium Toddler Transitions
Allegations: Deceptively marketing products as “nutritionally appropriate” for children between nine and eighteen months
Hawes et al. v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC and Reckitt Benckiser, LLC
24-cv-2930, N.D. Cal.
(May 2024)
Enfamil NeuroPro Infant Formula, Enfamil Simply ProSobee Plant-Based Infant Formula, and Enfamil Infant Formula Milk-based Powder with Iron
Falsely marketing products as safe, healthy, nutritious, and committed to reducing their environmental impact when they contain harmful chemicals, including organic fluorine, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. as to the named plaintiff’s claims and When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled. as to the class members’ claims
Allegations: Deceptively marketing products as “nutritionally appropriate” for children between nine and eighteen months
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as safe when they are dangerous for premature infants
Allegations: Failing to disclose that products contain toxic heavy metals
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing infant formulas as “Milk-based” when the primary ingredient is a form of sugar
Allegations: Products do not contain enough powder to make the advertised number of bottles
An FDA panel’s recent findings has led to a flood of lawsuits.
Products marketed to clear up stuffy noses and relieve sinus congestion don’t work, researchers say.
TINA.org files brief urging court to deny final approval of settlement that is unfair to consumers.
It’s the perfect formula for a class-action lawsuit trend.