On Thursday, January 16, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim of the District of Minnesota denied in full Mead Johnson Nutrition Company’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging the presence or risk of heavy metals in its Enfamil infant formula products.
The court declined to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine as Mead Johnson requested, noting that Mead Johnson’s products are not explicitly covered under the FDA’s “Closer to Zero” initiative aimed at reducing childhood exposure to contaminants. The ruling also recognized Plaintiff’s standing to bring claims related to several Enfamil products, even if not purchased directly, as the products share similar risks and marketing claims. The court also validated Plaintiff’s concerns about potential future harm, given that the infant formula is a recurring purchase for many parents.
In his order, Judge Tunheim found sufficient evidence to proceed on claims that Mead Johnson had a duty to disclose the presence of heavy metals, which would have been material to consumer decision-making. Additionally, Plaintiff’s pre-suit notifications were deemed satisfied, allowing the pleading of unjust enrichment as an alternative claim.
The case, Seutter, et al. v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al. No. 24-cv-02179, alleges that Mead Johnson knowingly failed to disclose the presence or risk of heavy metals—arsenic, cadmium, and lead—in popular Enfamil products, despite marketing them as “brain-building” and “expert-recommended.” The court’s decision will allow Plaintiff to continue to pursue relief on behalf of herself and the proposed class of purchasers of Enfamil formulas.
To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.