A Chicago jury delivered a significant verdict Thursday, ordering Abbott Laboratories to pay $53 million in compensatory damages to families who alleged the pharmaceutical company inadequately warned about serious health risks linked to its specialized formula for premature babies, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The decision concluded an extended trial in Cook County circuit court and represents the latest development in hundreds of pending lawsuits claiming Abbott’s cow’s milk-based formula designed for preterm infants can trigger necrotizing enterocolitis, commonly known as NEC. The trial combined legal cases from four different families.
Jurors are scheduled to reconvene Friday to decide the amount of punitive damages Abbott will be required to pay, according to the Tribune report.
Abbott representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the verdict.
The company has consistently disputed claims that their products cause NEC, maintaining that these specialized formulas serve a critical role for premature infants when mothers cannot supply adequate breast milk.
Necrotizing enterocolitis destroys bowel tissue and primarily strikes premature newborns, with medical experts estimating mortality rates exceeding 20 percent.
The affected children in this case were born at Chicago-area medical facilities between 2012 and 2019 and developed NEC but survived, court documents indicate. Three children underwent surgical procedures, and all continue experiencing ongoing medical complications, according to legal filings.
Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been initiated against Abbott, which produces Similac formulas, and Mead Johnson, Enfamil’s manufacturer and a Reckitt subsidiary. More than 700 cases are consolidated in Illinois federal court, while additional cases remain pending in state courts across Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
The disputed products include cow’s milk-based formulas and milk-fortifying products specifically manufactured for hospital use with infants, distinct from standard consumer formulas sold in retail stores.
Abbott, headquartered in Illinois, also manufactures medical equipment, nutrition products for adults and children, and pharmaceutical medications.
Both companies maintain that while breast milk provides protection against NEC, their formula products do not cause the condition, emphasizing that breast milk’s protective benefits have been well-established among medical professionals. Abbott CEO Robert Ford indicated in 2024 that litigation pressures might force discontinuation of preterm products.
Federal regulatory authorities and a scientific working group assembled by the National Institutes of Health concluded in a joint 2024 report that available evidence supports the theory that lack of breast milk, rather than formula exposure, correlates with increased NEC occurrence.
The companies have experienced varying outcomes in the limited number of cases that have reached trial stages.
During 2024, a St. Clair County, Illinois jury required Mead Johnson to pay $60 million to a mother whose premature infant died after consuming the company’s Enfamil formula. Several months afterward, a St. Louis jury mandated Abbott pay $495 million in damages in a separate case. Both decisions are under appeal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a supporting brief for Mead Johnson’s appeal last year, stating that formula represents standard medical care for premature infants.
Abbott and Mead Johnson secured a victory in one Missouri state court trial in October 2024, though the presiding judge subsequently ordered a new trial after determining defense attorneys had engaged in improper conduct. That decision is also being appealed.
In March, a Florida state judge dismissed a scheduled NEC case after concluding that additional warnings to the family’s physicians would not have altered their decision to use the formula.
No cases have advanced to trial in federal court, as the overseeing judge has dismissed three of four cases selected for benchmark trials.
In the most recent October dismissal, the judge determined that Abbott had provided compelling evidence regarding formula necessity and demonstrated that plaintiffs’ suggested alternatives were impractical.
