"toddler drink" plausibly misleads about suitability as next stage after infant formula

Castro v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2026 WL 184533, No. 25 CV 377 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026)

Abbott makes Similac, a milk-based formula powder drink for infants and toddlers. “Go & Grow Toddler Drink by Similac” and “Pure Bliss Toddler Drink by Similac” purport to meet the nutritional needs of children between the ages of twelve and thirty-six months. The labels were allegedly similar to the labels for infant drink formula and indicate that toddler drinks are the next step drink following infant formula. Plaintiffs sought to represent consumers from Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

The toddler drink cans’ similarities to the infant drink cans allegedly falsely represent “that the toddler drink is the logical next nutritional step in formula, even when doctors and experts do not necessarily recommend toddler formula drinks.” The labels were also allegedly false and misleading “because they focus on the products’ purported health benefits while omitting information regarding the health harms of their added sugar content.”

The toddler formula label includes the words “Stage 3,” and that label is visually similar to the infant formula label containing the words “Stage 1” and “Stage 2.” Abbott argued that a reasonable consumer would not ascribe the “next stage” meaning to the label because the similarity of the labels and the words “Stage 3” are not nutritional recommendations.  The court disagreed, given the pleading stage. “Stage” can plausibly indicate a progression. “And the similarity of the cans, as well as their placement on the same shelves as the infant formula, could lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that the toddler formula is nutritionally recommended for children aged twelve to thirty-six months in the same way that infant formula is nutritionally recommended for children up to twelve months.”

The court distinguished Martelli v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 21-CV-10079 (PMH), 2023 WL 2058620 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2023), which dismissed a similar claim, but there the label also included a disclaimer stating that the product was “intended to supplement the solid-food portion of the older baby’s diet” and was “not intended to replace breast milk or starter formulas.” Whether the disclaimer made a difference was an issue for later.

Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that Abbott’s representations about the health benefits of the drink were misleading because the formula contains four grams of added sugars, which are decidedly unhealthy. The cans did disclose their sugar content on the back labels, but again it was plausible that a reasonable consumer could think they didn’t have to consult the back.

This reasoning also allowed a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability: plaintiffs alleged that “a balanced, nutritious diet excludes sugar-sweetened beverages for children above 12 months, and otherwise limits added sugar to less than 5% of calories, whereas regular consumption of the Toddler Drinks is detrimental, rather than beneficial to health.” They sufficiently alleged that the toddler formula is not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” namely, to provide a healthy supplement to a toddler’s nutrition.

"complete nutrition" claims for supplements are obviously untrue, but GLP-1 related claims could live again

Cavallaro-Kearins v. Grüns Nutrition Inc., 2026 WL 1398422, No. 25-cv-4998 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2026)

The court dismissed this California & New York false advertising claim against Grüns based on its Superfood Greens Gummies for Adults and Grüns Cubs for Kids, challenging its claims to offer a “comprehensive” and “complete” solution for daily nutrition, to provide “100% of kids’ daily nutrition,” “all-in-one” support for GLP-1 users, and to act as a replacement for essential nutrients. In this specific context, these claims were unbelievable and demanded reference to the ingredient list, which would clarify matters. Grüns also advertised Grüns Adults as containing “more fiber than 2 cups of broccoli per pack,” the same amount as “9 cups of raw spinach,” and as containing more than 6 grams of fiber, stating that “you’d need a whole salad bar to match the fiber in just one pack of Grüns.” Grüns Kids also claimed it was the “very best way to get all the vitamins, minerals, fruits and veggies growing kids … need” and specifically targeted parents of children with sensory processing difficulties.

But protein, fats, and omega-3 fatty acids are necessary nutrients that aren’t included. Also, the Gummies “contain only minimal amounts of other key minerals like iron and lack others such as calcium altogether.” And the daily recommended amount of fiber for an adult is 28 grams of soluble and insoluble fiber per day, whereas Grüns contain only six grams of “soluble fiber”; the fiber contained in real fruits and vegetables is allegedly fundamentally different from that contained in Grüns, which “may aggravate rather than relieve the very conditions it claims to solve.” Grüns also claimed testosterone benefits that were allegedly misleading, as were claims to multiply, enhance, or substitute for protein. Without calcium or magnesium, the gummies were allegedly not even qualified as a standard multivitamin.

While these challenges (and others) are serious, the court focused on the “comprehensive nutrition” and similar claims. And because it’s obvious that you can’t get complete nutrition from gummies, those claims weren’t plausibly deceptive: combining puffery with ambiguity doctrine, a reasonable consumer would have had to look at the ingredients to figure out the actual nutrient profile:  

Plaintiffs do not contend that the language of the package should be taken literally—that the Gummies provide either complete or comprehensive nutrition such that a person who eats a pack of the Gummies need not eat anything else in order to survive. That is what the plain text read in isolation states. … Such a representation might be reasonably credited if made by a wellness resort or health food spa about the program it offers for visitors. When made by a purveyor of gummies, it is plainly hyperbolic, and no reasonable consumer could understand that a small packet of gummy bear supplements that weighs .7 ounces and that is advertised as a “Dietary Supplement” could replace the need to eat any other foods.

The court thus distinguished Weinstein v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 2024 WL 4250353 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), which found plausible misleadingness when the advertiser touted “complete multivitamin gummies” accompanied by the language that the product contained “B Vitamins” and “13 Essential Nutrients” but the product did not in fact contain Victims B1, B2, and B3. Likewise, Cabrera v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, 2019 WL 1146828 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019), held that the claim that a product was a “complete” multivitamin was plausibly misleading when the product was missing 13 vitamins that the body requires. In both cases, the adjective “complete” modified the noun “vitamin.”

Do reasonable consumers understand that, on gummies, “nutrition” literally means all the macro and micronutrients we need? Plaintiffs walked into this problem by talking about fats, protein, etc. They offered the argument that a reasonable consumer would understand that Gummies supply “all essential nutrients,” or “essential nutrients such as calcium and magnesium,” or “all other supplements,” or that the “Gummies provide what fruits and vegetables provide—the same nutrition, in another form.”

But, the court reasoned, if the term “comprehensive nutrition” is not understood by its dictionary definition, then it is ambiguous. [I’m more sympathetic to the “all essential [micro]nutrients” interpretation because that’s what you’d expect from a “comprehensive” supplement: one pill to take! At least I can imagine a substantial number of ordinary consumers thinking that.] And we know that, when there’s ambiguity, a reasonable consumer must consult the ingredient list (and apparently keep track of things like magnesium and iron being missing). I think this is an example of why “ambiguity” is troublesome: the court doesn’t ask whether a reasonable consumer could read the claim as unambiguous and not seek further information, but only whether there’s ambiguity in the abstract.

“No reasonable consumer could understand from the package as a whole that the Gummies contained ‘key macronutrients like protein and fat,’ that it contained adequate “amounts of critical nutrients like fiber and iron,’ or that it contained ‘calcium and omega-3 fatty acids,’ much less that it could ‘replace the nutritional complexity of fruits and vegetables and all other targeted supplementation.’”

As for the off-package claims, they mostly “parrot” the language of “comprehensive nutrition,” or use the adjective “comprehensive” “in an even less specific manner than on the packaging.” They could not save the claim.

What about the specific health issues touted? Some were mere puffery: “Gut health that fits in a lunchbox” and “#1 energy hack.” Grüns also advertises that the Gummies “help reduce colds by 70%,” result in “stronger hair in just 30 days,” and “boost T-levels,” but neither plaintiff alleged that she relied on those ads.

A subset of statements were plausibly misleading: those targeting GLP-1 users in particular. “Even if the advertisements could be understood to be ambiguous, there is no surrounding context that would dispel a reasonable consumer’s understanding that the Gummies contain the nutrients needed to fill gaps created by the medication.” However, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that use of GLP-1 medications creates specific nutritional gaps and that the Gummies do not in fact fill those gaps. It wasn’t enough to allege that the “formulation is not tailored to the specific needs of GLP-1 users and lacks the dosage strength, clinical targeting, or comprehensiveness to meaningfully address the deficiencies it invokes.” This part of the claim was dismissed without prejudice.

it doesn't infringe to use a similar concept in ad photos

Kitsch LLC v. Viori Beauty PBC, 2026 WL 1356424, No. 2:25-cv-10830-SPG-AGP (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2026)

Kitsch is “a leading beauty product and accessories manufacturer and sells its products in major retail stores and online through its website and third-party websites, such as Amazon.” It sells solid shampoo and conditioner products, marketed on Amazon with a photograph depicting the shampoo and conditioner placed on top of the packaging, with images of the ingredients contained in the bars scattered below the packaging.

L: defendant; R: plaintiff. Obvious substantial similarity, right?

Viori also sells solid shampoo and conditioner, including through Amazon’s online marketplace. Its advertising is allegedly highly similar to Kitsch’s, in that “both feature the products shown next to each other with the physical products being placed on top of the packaging and with images of the ingredients contained in the bars scattered below the packaging,” and its packaging contains wording shown in the same order as Kitsch’s packaging, with the same words in larger font.

Viori allegedly didn’t use this ad style until after Kitsch entered the market. Kitsch also alleged that there’s no need for it because other sellers display their products in distinct ways, and that Viori didn’t use this photo on its own website, only on Amazon. 

Plaintiff's examples of noninfringing packaging

Further, purchases from Viori allegedly arrived in different packaging.

All of this allegedly was in the service of confusing consumers, so Kitsch alleged claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court dismissed the complaint because look at those pictures.

Kitsch didn’t plausibly allege any false statement of fact, which defeated both federal false advertising and state UCL claims. Among other things, the product shown in the supposedly different packaging was not the same product as the product shown in the Viori photo. “Viori Hidden Waterfall Shampoo and Conditioner Bar Set Made with Rice Water” is not “Viori Shampoo Bar & Conditioner Bar + Bamboo Holder.” They didn’t show that Viori’s advertised packaging is any different from the actual product. Where, as here, “the allegations of the complaint are refuted by an attached document, the Court need not accept the allegations as being true.”

Even if the actual packaging differed from that in the image, that didn’t plausibly injure Kitsch. Kitsch argued that it was injured because Viori copied its advertising. “Thus, it would make no difference to Plaintiff’s alleged injury whether Defendant’s products arrive in the same packages as advertised.”

Copyright infringement: Not always resolvable at the motion to dismiss stage; very much so here. The photos here received relatively thin protection: a “commercial product shoot” allows for only a “narrow range of artistic expression.” None of the photos contained any particularly unusual elements that defy “the conventions commonly followed” in such photos. Indeed, the competitors’ submitted photographs “bear numerous similarities to the parties’ photographs”:

(1) all five photographs depict a set of two products, including both solid shampoo and conditioner; (2) all five photographs depict both the packaging and the shampoo and conditioner outside the packaging; (3) all five photographs are set against an off-white background with no other foreground or background features; and (4) three of the five photographs include images of the ingredients contained inside the products. Thus, these elements appear to be standard features commonly associated with such advertising images.

Given the thinness of the copyright, only “virtual identical” copies would infringe; those were not present:

Most significantly, while Plaintiff’s photograph places the products directly on top of the packages, Defendant’s photograph places the products behind the package, suspended in mid-air and partially obscured by the package. Defendant’s image also contains reflections underneath the packaging and ingredients, while Plaintiff’s image contains no reflections. Further, Defendant’s photograph contains a larger foreground and places the ingredients closer to the packaging than Plaintiff’s photograph.

For some reason, the court grants leave to amend.