“Abbott Wins Again” in Baby-Formula Litigation — What It Means Going Forward
Another defense win for Abbott has shifted the momentum in the Similac/NEC litigation. In late October 2025, a federal judge overseeing a bellwether matter found that plaintiffs did not establish a feasible alternative design, handing Abbott its third bellwether victory and reinforcing a trend that raises the evidentiary bar for future cases.
These outcomes arrive after headline-grabbing plaintiff verdicts in 2024, including a $60 million award against Mead Johnson in Illinois and a $495 million Missouri verdict against Abbott. Those jury results demonstrated juror receptivity to failure-to-warn themes and the gravity of NEC injuries. But the more recent defense run—particularly on design and proof—signals a tougher road ahead unless plaintiffs tighten causation, warning adequacy, and alternatives evidence.
Where the Cases Stand Now
Hundreds of NEC claims against Abbott and Mead Johnson remain consolidated in MDL 3026 in the Northern District of Illinois, with additional trials moving in state courts. Bellwethers are shaping expectations on what proof will be required to reach a jury—and to sustain a verdict on appeal.
Why Abbott Is Winning Recent Rounds
Alternative design is front and center. Courts are scrutinizing whether plaintiffs can point to a feasible, safer alternative design for bovine-based formulas and fortifiers. Abbott’s latest win turned on precisely that deficiency, undercutting strict-liability design theories and, by extension, damages leverage.
Causation is being tested at a granular level. In contrast to broad epidemiological debates, judges are focusing on product-specific exposure, clinical context for premature infants, the role of fortifiers, and whether warnings would have changed medical decision-making under a learned-intermediary framework. Recent defense outcomes reflect courts’ insistence on rigorous linkages across those elements.
Warnings claims are not dead—but they’re harder. The big 2024 verdicts showcased warning adequacy as a viable path for plaintiffs. However, subsequent defense wins suggest that generalized risk narratives won’t suffice without contemporaneous medical records, prescriber testimony on decision impact, and a clear articulation of what an adequate alternative warning would have said.
Implications for Valuation and Strategy
Settlement posture is recalibrating. Early plaintiff verdicts expanded demand expectations; the string of defense wins contracts them. Expect more selective settlement activity concentrating on cases with robust medical proof, clear timing between formula exposure and NEC onset, and strong treating experts. Mixed bellwether signals generally narrow global-resolution scenarios and push parties toward tiered, criteria-based programs.
Plaintiff proof packages must level up. High-value files will feature NICU feeding logs, specific product IDs (including fortifiers), growth curves, infectious workups, surgical notes, and neonatology testimony tying product use to outcome—and addressing the feasibility of different nutrition pathways available at the time of care. Cases lacking those anchors will price down or face dispositive risk.
Defense is leaning into clinical necessity. Expect continued emphasis that specialized formulas are essential for some premature infants, alongside attacks on general causation and alternative-design proposals. Jury perceptions of medical necessity can blunt punitive exposure and reframe risk–benefit analyses.
What Plaintiffs Should Prioritize Now
Document specificity. Identify exact products (Similac variants, fortifiers), volumes, dates, and transitions to or from human milk/donor milk. Precision on formulation and timing strengthens both causation and warning-change arguments.
Treating testimony and venue fit. Build the learned-intermediary story with neonatologist and NICU testimony addressing how different warnings would have changed care—especially where donor milk or alternative feeding protocols were reasonably available. Venue-level precedent on design/warning standards will matter.
Economic damages clarity. Life-care planning and neurodevelopmental follow-up records remain pivotal for valuation spreads. The 2024 jury awards illustrate both compensatory and punitive potential where proof is concrete and credibility high.
Countervailing Signals: The Record Is Still Mixed
Despite Abbott’s recent streak, the litigation record isn’t one-way. The Illinois $60M Enfamil verdict and the Missouri $495M Abbott verdict showed that warning and causation theories can resonate strongly with jurors when the file is tight. The divergence between those outcomes and later defense wins explains today’s narrower—but alive—path to plaintiff success.
MDL Outlook
Within MDL 3026, future dispositive motions will likely press design-feasibility and specific causation. Bellwether selection will increasingly privilege cases with cleaner product identification, stronger NICU documentation, and credible alternative-feeding narratives. Parallel state-court trials will continue to influence bargaining ranges.
Key Takeaways for Families
Eligibility is case-specific. Stronger cases typically involve premature or very-low-birth-weight infants with documented NEC diagnoses, clear exposure to bovine-based formula or fortifiers, and medical records supporting timeline and severity. Earlier large verdicts confirm upside is possible; recent defense rulings show proof must be meticulous.
Collect and preserve records now. Gather NICU/feeding logs, operative notes, pathology, growth and neurodevelopment assessments, and packaging or purchase proof. Early preservation helps your legal team evaluate causation and warning-change potential under the standards emerging from bellwether rulings.
For Law Firms: How To Compete in a Tougher Environment
Screen for design and warning plausibility. Intake should quickly triage for product specificity, feasible alternative pathways at time of care, and treating testimony availability. Build a template that maps each element to jurisdictional law and current bellwether holdings.
Invest in clinical storytelling. The best files connect neonatal nutrition choices, institutional protocols, and risk disclosures to actual decisions made by clinicians. That story should be evident from the first case memo through expert reports and trial graphics.
Value with a narrower band. Use recent defense wins to reset reserves while recognizing that outlier plaintiff-ready files can still command premium value—particularly in venues with demonstrated receptivity. Align offers with documentation strength rather than treating all NEC exposures as fungible.
Bottom Line
“Abbott wins again” is not the end of NEC litigation, but it is a clear signal: design-feasibility and decision-changing warnings are now the fulcrum. Plaintiffs who can prove both—backed by meticulous NICU documentation and credible experts—still have a path. Everyone else should expect tougher sledding, tighter settlement windows, and more dispositive risk than the early headlines suggested.