Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Mead Johnson must face claims over toddler drink marketing under California consumer law, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Brittany DiBiaggio, J.D.

A baby formula maker must defend claims that it misled parents about the health benefits of its toddler drink, and the court says the label itself may have done the damage.

California parents who sued Mead Johnson & Company over its Enfagrow toddler drinks can pursue claims that the product labels misled consumers into believing the drinks promote physical health benefits for children under two years old. However, the court dismissed their theories of fraud and injunctive relief. The court held that the parents who brought the case plausibly alleged that Mead Johnson’s labels contained implied nutrient content claims in violation of federal food labeling regulations and misleading representations under California law (Garland v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC, No. 24-cv-1168-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2025)).

Background. California parents of toddlers alleged that Mead Johnson falsely advertised Enfagrow Toddler Nutritional Drinks as promoting healthy growth and development in children as young as one year old, when in reality, according to the complaint, health experts discourage these types of drinks for toddlers. The complaint pointed to label claims such as “Helps Nourish Brain Development” and “Toddler Nutritional Drink,” arguing that these misled consumers into believing the product was medically beneficial for young children. The parents further alleged that the labels conveyed implied nutrient content claims without FDA authorization and violated the FDA’s fortification policy, which discourages the addition of nutrients to foods inappropriately to enhance their health image.

Mead Johnson moved to dismiss the case in full, asserting that the parents failed to allege fraud with particularity, that the products do not contain nutrient content claims or target children under two, and that regulating such statements would violate the First Amendment. The company also challenged the parents’ standing to seek injunctive relief.

Implied nutrient content claims support unlawful labeling theory. The court found that the challenged label statements, such as “IMMUNE HEALTH Dual Prebiotics & Vitamins” and “Supports BRAIN DEVELOPMENT Omega-3 DHA & Iron,” went beyond merely listing nutrients and instead suggested those nutrients had specific health benefits. These suggestions qualified them as implied nutrient content claims under federal law. While the FDA allows factual references to a nutrient's presence, it restricts claims that imply a certain nutrient level helps maintain health, particularly in foods marketed for children under two years old. Because the statements at issue paired nutrient names with suggested benefits, the court concluded they plausibly violated FDA rules and supported the parents’ theory that the labels were unlawfully misleading.

Target age and fortification claims within the scope of FDA regulation. The court found that parents plausibly alleged the Enfagrow products were specifically intended for children under two. Although labeled for “toddlers” aged one and up, the complaint pointed to marketing placement near infant formula and the typical definition of toddlers as children between one and three years old. These facts supported the inference that the products targeted children under two, triggering stricter FDA rules. The court also held that the label’s use of “plus” and references to added nutrients suggested product fortification, bringing them within the scope of the FDA’s fortification policy. Because the FDA discourages nutrient fortification that could mislead consumers or disrupt balanced diets, the court concluded that parents adequately alleged a violation of this policy.

Fraud-based claims dismissed for lack of specificity. The court dismissed the fraud-based claims under Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. While the parents alleged that the product labels misled consumers by suggesting health benefits for children under two, they did not explain what made those statements false or misleading. The court emphasized that a mere violation of FDA labeling rules is not enough to plead fraud. Because the complaint lacked these details, the court found the fraud theories too vague to proceed. However, it granted leave to amend.

Injunctive relief claim dismissed. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief, finding the parents lacked standing because all of their claims focused on past purchases and they did not allege any intent to purchase the products again or face future harm. Thus, the parents failed to plead sufficient claims to support a forward-looking remedy.

First Amendment defense rejected at dismissal stage. Mead Johnson argued that the labels were not deceptive enough to justify regulation and claimed that limiting the label language would violate its commercial speech rights. The court disagreed. At the pleading stage, the parents had already alleged that the labels were both unlawful and misleading. The court found it premature to determine whether the claims were inherently misleading or whether any restriction on speech would fail. The court allowed the First Amendment argument to be raised later in the case, likely at summary judgment.

The decision narrows the case but leaves Mead Johnson to defend its labeling and marketing of Enfagrow under California's consumer protection framework. The ruling highlights the potential exposure companies face when marketing food or nutritional products to young children, particularly in cases where the FDA has issued specific guidance but not preemptive regulations.

The case is No. 24-cv-1168-BAS-SBC.

Judge: Bashant, C.

Attorneys: Cody R. Padgett (Capstone Law APC) for Chelsea Garland, Estelita Rey and Zachary Williams. Eskandar Alex Beroukhim (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Mead Johnson & Co., LLC, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. and Reckitt Benckiser LLC.

Companies: Mead Johnson & Co., LLC; Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.; Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews