Health Law Daily Wrap Up, LABELING AND PACKAGING (FOOD, DRUGS & MEDICAL DEVICES)—S.D.N.Y.: Case against maker of Enfamil infant formula moves forward, (Aug 17, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Consumers sufficiently alleged violations of New York consumer protection laws and fraudulent misrepresentation with the packaging of the infant formula and alleged heavy metals.

The maker of Enfamil infant formula, Mead Johnson, must respond to a proposed class-action consumer protection lawsuit filed in the federal district court in New York alleging that the infant formula contained undisclosed heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and arsenic. In denying the infant formula manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, the court concluded that claims alleging violations of New York consumer protection laws and fraudulent misrepresentation can proceed. In pointing to a consumer survey, the court held that the consumers sufficiently alleged claims of misrepresentations with the packaging of the infant formula (Choudhry v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-09480 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2026)).

Consumers in New York state who purchased Enfamil infant formula, manufactured by Mead Johnson, alleged that the packaging of the products contains misrepresentations, partial misrepresentations, and omissions. Specifically, the consumers alleged harm from the presence of heavy metals in the infant formula, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. The consumers alleged that they paid a price premium for the infant formula based on the reasonable assumption that the packaging was accurate and the product free from heavy metals. The consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit in New York state court. The manufacturer removed the case to federal district court. The complaint alleged violations of New York’s consumer protection laws in Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (GBL), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, implied warranty claims, and unjust enrichment. The infant formula maker moved to dismiss.

GBL Sections 349 and 350. The court first concluded that the complaint sufficiently alleged violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350. The touchstone of the court’s analysis was whether the complaint plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the packaging. Here, the complaint relied on a consumer survey that approximately 78% of all respondents indicated that they would not expect arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury in the infant formula. The complaint adequately demonstrated that the majority of consumers would assume the product did not contain heavy metals based on its label.

In addition, the complaint satisfied the materiality requirement. The consumers contended that the manufacturer had superior knowledge about the quality and nutritional value of the products, including the presence or material risk of heavy metals. The consumers also alleged that consumers reasonably expected the manufacturer to test for heavy metals and disclose that information to the public, that the manufacturer deceptively hid that it failed to monitor the presence of heavy metals in its products, and that consumers could not detect the presence of heavy metals in the infant formulas without conducting scientific tests. The complaint alleged reasonable consumers would not have known that the infant formulas contained heavy metals because of the manufacturer’s deceptive acts. Furthermore, the consumers sufficiently alleged injury under a price premium theory of injury by alleging that the infant formulas were marketed as having a unique quality, the consumers paid a premium price because of that quality, and the products were not actually high quality, healthy, and nutritious because of the undisclosed presence of heavy metals.

Fraudulent misrepresentation. The court also denied the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. The consumers sufficiently alleged that the manufacturer sought to capitalize on the mistaken beliefs of reasonable consumers about the health and quality of the infant formulas. The consumers alleged facts that provided strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. The complaint asserted that the manufacturer knows its customers trust the quality of its products, that customers seek out and wish to purchase infant formulas that possess nutritious ingredients free of toxins, contaminants, or chemicals, and will pay for infant formulas they believe possess these qualities.

Dismissed claims. While the court denied the motion to dismiss certain claims, the court granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The consumers decided not to pursue the negligent misrepresentation and implied warranty claims after the motion to dismiss. Finally, the court held that the unjust enrichment claim merely duplicates the other claims.

Therefore, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claims alleging violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the GBL and fraudulent misrepresentation, but granted the motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.

The case is No. 25-cv-09480 (ER).

Judge: Ramos, E.

Attorneys: Rebecca A. Peterson (Hecht Partners LLP) for Moona Choudhry. Brianna Soltys (Tucker Ellis LLP) for Mead Johnson & Co., LLC.

Companies: Mead Johnson & Co., LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions FoodNews LabelingNews NewYorkNews