Health Law Daily Wrap Up, FOOD SAFETY—N.D. Cal.: Court allows negligence claim against Amazon in toxic baby food case, (Oct 16, 2025)

By Brittany DiBiaggio, J.D.

The consumers plausibly alleged that the retailer knowingly sold baby food containing toxic heavy metals through its platforms.

A California federal district court partially denied Whole Foods’ and Amazon’s motions to dismiss an action brought by parents alleging that the companies sold baby food products contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury linked to developmental disorders. The parents alleged that Amazon had knowledge of the contamination but failed to warn consumers. While the court dismissed consumer protection and warranty claims, it allowed negligence and strict liability claims to move forward, holding that Amazon may be liable as a distributor and seller (In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, No. 24-md-03101-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025)).

Background. Parents of a child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder alleged that baby food sold through Amazon and Whole Foods contained harmful levels of heavy metals. They claimed the retailers knew or should have known about contamination but failed to warn consumers or remove the products. After the court previously dismissed most claims, the parents amended their petition to include a negligent undertaking claim against Amazon and a Louisiana state law bad faith seller redhibition claim against both retailers. The retailers moved to dismiss.

Negligent undertaking claim. To state a negligent undertaking claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant affirmatively undertook services necessary for the plaintiff’s protection; (2) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care; and (3) the defendant’s conduct either increased the risk of harm or the plaintiff relied on it (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323).

The court found the parents plausibly alleged that Amazon affirmatively undertook a duty to monitor baby food safety. The parents cited Amazon’s public statements that its product safety team investigates complaints and may remove or flag unsafe products. They also pointed to emails showing Amazon contacted Nurture and Hain about toxic heavy metal complaints but continued selling the products despite incomplete responses. The court rejected Amazon’s argument that the word “may” negated any duty, finding Amazon had control over sellers and requested corrective actions. The court found this supported a duty beyond that of a typical retailer.

The court also held that the parents plausibly alleged that Amazon failed to exercise reasonable care. Amazon opened investigations into Nurture and Hain products but failed to follow up when the manufacturers did not respond, continuing to sell the products without warnings. The parents noted Amazon removed a different Nurture product for safety reasons, but not others with similar complaints, further suggesting negligent follow-through.

Finally, while the court found no increase in risk, it held the parents plausibly alleged reliance. The parents claimed they trusted Amazon’s representations that it actively monitored and curated the products sold on its platform. Those representations could have influenced their decision to purchase the baby food. The court declined to consider Amazon’s outside evidence about when its safety team webpage went live and allowed the negligent undertaking claim to proceed.

Bad faith seller redhibition. Under Louisiana law, a buyer may bring a redhibition claim if a seller knowingly fails to disclose a defect that renders a product useless or significantly less valuable. The court found the parents plausibly alleged that Amazon sold baby food it knew contained toxic heavy metals. The parents pointed to Amazon’s 2018 communications with Nurture and Hain, in which Amazon investigated complaints about heavy metals but continued to sell the products despite receiving incomplete information. The court held these allegations supported an inference of Amazon’s knowledge and allowed the redhibition claim against Amazon to proceed.

In contrast, the court dismissed the redhibition claim against Whole Foods. The parents did not allege that Whole Foods received complaints or had direct knowledge of contamination. While they cited a third-party email referencing a 2019 report on heavy metals in baby food, the court could not consider this because it was not part of the complaint. The court also declined to address whether Whole Foods’ role as a separate baby food manufacturer could establish constructive knowledge under Louisiana law. The court granted the parents leave to amend their complaint to add allegations of Whole Foods’ actual or constructive knowledge.

Other negligence theories. The court refused to consider the parents’ new argument that Amazon and Whole Foods were negligent as non-manufacturing sellers. The parents had expressly limited their prior theory to negligent undertaking and could not now raise a new basis for liability through their opposition brief.

The case is No. 24-md-03101-JSC.

Judge: Corley, J.

Attorneys: Alexandra M. Walsh (Anapol Weiss) and Aimee H. Wagstaff (Wagstaff Law Firm, PC) for V.Z. Edward A. Wallace (Wallace Miller) for Z.W. Bryan Alexander Merryman (White & Case LLP) and Joseph G. Petrosinelli (Williams & Connolly LLP) for Gerber Products Co. Livia M. Kiser (King & Spalding LLP) and Melvyn M. Miyagi (Watanabe Ing LLP) for Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. Ali Mojibi Yazdi (Covington and Burling LLP) and Dawn T. Sugihara (Farm Benedict Sugihara) for Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Livia M. Kiser (King & Spalding LLP) for Walmart Inc. Bennett James Chin (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP) for Sprout Foods Inc.

Companies: Gerber Products Co.; Beech-Nut Nutrition Co.; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Walmart Inc.; Sprout Foods Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions FoodNews FoodSafetyNews GeneralNews CaliforniaNews