A jury in St. Louis, Missouri was recently asked to award over $6 billion in damages against baby formula manufacturers defendants in a lawsuit that alleged the defendants’ specialized infant formulas for premature babies caused the development of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal condition. NEC is a severe gastrointestinal condition that primarily affects premature babies, leading to inflammation and bacterial invasion of the intestine, which can cause significant health issues and lead to death. After three hours of deliberations, the jury found the defendants not liable for Plaintiffs’ product defect, failure to warn and negligence claims.

This lawsuit is one of nearly a thousand across the United States against prominent baby formula manufacturers. Plaintiffs in these cases typically argue that these companies were aware of the risks posed by their products but failed to take appropriate action to mitigate those risks or adequately inform consumers and healthcare providers. This was the third baby formula case to go to trial in 2024, with previous cases resulting in verdicts of $60 million and $495 million in favor of the families of infants who developed NEC. This was the first defense verdict in the litigation to date.

During closing arguments, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the companies failed to adequately warn about the risks of NEC associated with their products. Plaintiffs claimed that the child developed NEC after receiving the formula in the neonatal intensive care unit at a St. Louis area hospital in 2017, resulting in enduring health and developmental challenges.

Plaintiffs requested nearly $277 million alone in compensatory damages to cover past and future medical expenses, lost potential earnings, and pain and suffering. Additionally, they sought
$6 billion in punitive damages against the defendants.

Throughout the trial, defendants maintained that their formulas do not cause NEC. While they acknowledged that breast milk and donated human milk are known to protect against NEC, they argued that their formulas do not contribute to its development. Defendants specifically contended that the child’s illness was inevitable due to other risk factors connected with the extremely premature birth, including the development of anemia and multiple infections that necessitated treatment with antibiotics.

The medical community is watching ongoing NEC litigation with extreme interest. Manufacturers of these specialized baby formula have indicated a possibility of withdrawing their premature infant formula from the market due to ongoing litigation. This posturing has caused significant concern within the medical community regarding the future availability of these formulas, which are critical in providing nourishment to premature babies who are unable to feed naturally. Regulatory agencies and scientific panels, including a working group convened by the National Institutes of Health, have stated that current evidence does not support the claim that these formulas cause NEC.

This verdict is likely to influence future cases, potentially making it more challenging for plaintiffs to secure favorable outcomes in similar litigation. The verdict underscores the complexity of proving liability in product safety cases and highlights the critical role of thorough scientific and medical evidence in such legal disputes. As the litigation continues to evolve, this defense verdict may prompt both manufacturers and regulatory bodies to reassess their approaches to product safety and consumer warnings.