heavy weather for heavy metals in infant food

Choudhry v. Mead Johnson & Co., 2026 WL 2349932, No. 25-cv-09480 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2026)

Plaintiffs alleged that various Enfamil infant formulas contained arsenic, cadmium, and lead, heavy metals that present significant health risks, particularly to young children, and “can cause serious and often irreversible damage to brain development,” including from “low levels of exposure.” They sued for false advertising under NY law.

They allegedly relied on the following claims on the packaging: “ ‘Brain Building,’ ‘#1 Recommended Brand by Pediatricians,’ ‘The Only Hypoallergic [sic] Formula With LGG® Probiotic,’ ‘No Artificial Growth Hormones,’ ‘LGG® probiotic to help support digestive health’ and ‘does not use table sugar,’ ” along with “expert recommended,” and some others. They alleged that reasonable consumers would not think these products contained heavy metals.

A consumer survey conducted by their counsel found that 77.8% of survey participants answered “No” when asked, “After seeing the label would you expect arsenic, cadmium, lead, and/or mercury in the infant formula?” The survey followed up:, “how important, if at all, would it be to your purchasing decision if the infant formula you purchased contained, or risked containing, even a small amount of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and/or mercury,” and 71.0% of participants answered “Very important,” 25.4% “Important,” and 3.6% “Not at all important.” Mead Johnson received judicial notice for the fact that, “[i]n April 2026, the FDA released a report finding low levels of Heavy Metals in many infant formulas, cautioned that this was not automatically reason for alarm, and that additional guidance is forthcoming, but did not provide a timeline for that guidance.”

The court declined to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine. White v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., 2024 WL 194699 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) vacated the district court’s dismissal of a similar case based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine; detailed consideration wasn’t required because “the FDA had no expected timeline to provide actionable guidance on the safe levels of Heavy Metals in infant formulas, which outweighed ‘any advantages of deferring to the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.’” That was still true.

Also, courts are well-suited to determine if a product’s packaging was misleading or deceptive. This case didn’t require the court to determine what levels of heavy metals should be permissible, so there is not “a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings.”

Standing for unpurchased products: although the ingredients weren’t identical, the same alleged misrepresentation was on all of them, which was enough at this stage.  

GBL §§ 349 and 350: Not subject to 9(b) pleading requirements. Mead Johnson questioned plaintiffs’ reliance, but they alleged that they “read and relied upon the packaging of the Infant Formulas when making their purchasing decisions,” which sufficed.

Material misleadingness to “a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted customers, acting reasonably in the circumstances”: Courts will not permit such claims “where the plaintiffs’ alleged inference appeared fundamentally incompatible with basic common sense.” Plaintiffs didn’t allege that the formulas advertised that they didn’t have heavy metals, “but that the packaging misleadingly represented the products as healthy, safe, and nutritious when they contained or risked containing Heavy Metals,” with claims like “Brain Building,” “expert recommended,” and “#1 Recommended Brand by Pediatricians.” The court agreed that the survey bolstered this inference.

Interesting comment:  

Plaintiffs’ pleading satisfies this low burden because it demonstrates that the majority of consumers would assume the product did not contain Heavy Metals based on its label. This does not definitively establish that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the packaging. However, at this stage, despite certainly requiring an inferential leap, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that this supposed deception is not “patently implausible” such that the Court can determine as a matter of law that reasonable consumers could not be misled by the packaging. (emphasis added)

Is the court saying that a majority of consumers could still be unreasonable? Empirical v. normative claims about reasonable consumers are scattered throughout cases, with courts rarely articulating the relationship between “reasonable” and “common.”

Anyway, implicit misrepresentation was plausible. What about an omission theory?  Mead Johnson argued that plaintiffs failed to allege that knowledge about heavy metals was solely in its possession and that consumers could not obtain the information, and also that heavy metals in food is widely known.

At the motion to dismiss stage, “a plaintiff bringing an omission-based claim for § 349 liability must show that ‘the business alone possesses material information that is relevant to the consumer and fail[ed] to provide this information,’ or that plaintiffs could not ‘reasonably have obtained the relevant information they now claim the [defendant] failed to provide.’ ” This was sufficiently alleged. Plaintiffs alleged Mead Johnson’s superior knowledge; that consumers reasonably expected Mead Johnson to test for heavy metals and disclose that information to the public; that Mead Johnson deceptively hid that it failed to monitor for the presence of heavy metals in its products; and that consumers could not detect their presence without conducting scientific tests.

Materiality to a reasonable consumer: not a separate element, but it would be reasonable to assume that heavy metals’ presence would be material because of their health risks.

For common law fraudulent misrepresentation, Mead Johnson argued that its efforts as part of a trade organization to lobby against a California bill that would require disclosure of heavy metals content was insufficient to plead scienter because it is “legitimate First Amendment activity,” not “conscious misbehavior.” That alone wasn’t sufficient to establish the required “strong circumstantial evidence” of scienter, but it could bolster the claims.

However, unjust enrichment was dismissed as duplicative.