Reckitt Benckiser’s Mead Johnson unit and Abbott Laboratories received a favorable ruling from a Missouri court regarding claims that certain brands of their premature infant formula could lead to a serious gut condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
According to the legal news service Law 360, the lawsuit filed by the Whitfield family is the first to target both Mead Johnson and Abbott concerning this life-threatening illness commonly affecting premature infants fed specialized formulas.
In a statement issued on October 31, Reckitt confirmed the latest ruling from the St. Louis, Missouri State Court. Following the announcement, the company’s shares rose by 8.52% at 12:26 GMT. Reckitt stated, “Today’s verdict aligns with the scientific consensus that no established causal link exists between the use of specialized pre-term hospital nutrition products and NEC. When human milk is unavailable or supplementation is required, these products can provide critical, life-saving nutrition.”
The Whitfield case is just one among numerous pending lawsuits claiming damages related to NEC against both companies. Barclays analysts estimate there may be hundreds of such cases.
Earlier this year, Mead Johnson was ordered to pay $60 million in damages to Jasmine Watson, the mother of a baby who died after being fed the Enfamil Premature 24 formula.
Meanwhile, Abbott faced its own challenges when a different court ruling in July ordered the company to pay $95 million in compensation and an additional $400 million in punitive damages to the Gill family. Their claim alleged that their baby, Robynn Gill, suffered severe and irreversible brain damage due to NEC.
In response to the latest ruling, Abbott stated: “The decision reinforces what we, the medical community, and regulatory bodies have asserted: that pre-term infant nutrition products are safe, and reliable scientific evidence does not support a link between these products and NEC.” The company emphasized its commitment to providing essential nutrition to premature infants through its products.
Reckitt, following a strategic review of its nutrition division after the March fine, echoed a similar sentiment regarding the latest court ruling. In its statement, the company reaffirmed that the claims lack solid scientific backing and should be dismissed. It also highlighted the challenges plaintiffs face in proving their claims, emphasizing its intention to vigorously defend itself in ongoing cases.
Concerns have been raised by analysts regarding the financial implications for Reckitt and Abbott if the pending cases are decided against them. The European consumer staples team at Barclays noted that plaintiffs in the Whitfield case are seeking damages amounting to $6 billion. They commented, “This is the first legal victory for the defendants after previous losses in the Watson and Gill trials.”
Barclays speculated that Reckitt may consider settling for $1 billion in NEC liabilities as early as late next year or in early 2026.
In summary, as the food and beverage industry navigates ongoing challenges, companies like Reckitt and Abbott contend with legal complexities that could shape their business strategies and health-related product lines moving forward. For those in the food and drink business, understanding consumer trends surrounding infant nutrition is critical, especially amid evolving litigation landscapes.
For further insights into market dynamics and trends within the food and drink sector, consider subscribing to industry-focused updates and reports.
