Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning we get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through our links, at no cost to you. Please read our disclosure for more info.
In a recent landmark decision, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia delivered a resounding verdict against Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil, in a multi-million dollar false advertising case. The court awarded $13.5 million in damages to PBM Products, LLC, a leading infant formula company that supplies store-brand infant formulas to major retailers including Walmart, Sam’s Club, Target, Kroger, and Walgreens.
In This Post:
The Deceptive Marketing Tactics Exposed
PBM Products filed a lawsuit against Mead Johnson, accusing them of engaging in false and misleading campaigns against PBM’s store-brand infant formulas. The lawsuit highlighted Mead Johnson‘s claims that implied a nutritional disparity between their national-brand Enfamil® LIPIL® Infant Formula and PBM’s more affordable store-brand alternatives. Despite the misleading advertising, PBM’s store-brand infant formulas offer the same high-quality nutrition at a significantly lower cost – up to 50 percent less than Enfamil® LIPIL®.
A Jury Verdict That Speaks Volumes
The jury’s decision, accompanied by a $13.5 million damages award, affirmed that Mead Johnson’s ads were indeed false. The verdict emphasized that the only substantial difference between the two brands was the price. PBM CEO Paul B. Manning stated, “This decision by a jury of the people confirms that Mead Johnson’s ads have been false in suggesting that there is a nutritional difference between our store-brand formula products and their products, when in fact the only major difference is price.”
Legal Actions and Permanently Enjoining False Claims
U.S. District Court Judge James R. Spencer, in his written rulings, permanently enjoined Mead Johnson from making any false statements regarding PBM’s infant formula. Specifically, the court targeted Mead Johnson’s claims that Enfamil LIPIL® is clinically proven to improve brain and eye development, and that store-brand formulas are a “cut-back in nutrition.” The court further ordered Mead Johnson to retrieve from the public domain all advertising materials containing such false claims.
The Focus on Nutritional Supplements: DHA and ARA
At the heart of the false advertising case were two crucial nutrients, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid), marketed by Mead Johnson as “LIPIL®.” PBM’s argument exposed Mead Johnson’s alarming direct mailing campaign, featuring misleading images that suggested inferiority of anything other than the Enfamil LIPIL® blend of ingredients for infant brain and eye development. The court recognized that PBM’s store-brand infant formulas contained the same nutrients at equal or higher levels than Enfamil.
Historical Context: Third Lawsuit Against Mead Johnson
This isn’t the first time PBM Products has taken legal action against Mead Johnson for false advertising claims. In prior cases, Mead Johnson admitted to making false claims about PBM’s products. However, this case holds additional significance as it is the first to focus on the nutritional ingredients DHA and ARA in formula, introduced in 2003 and now widely acknowledged as essential for infant development. PBM Products was represented by the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Partners from the firm’s advertising practice, Harold P. Weinberger and Jonathan M. Wagner in New York, led the team.
The Message to Mead Johnson and the Industry
PBM CEO Paul B. Manning stated, “This jury verdict should send a significant and clear message to Mead Johnson about the way it conducts marketing and advertising for its brands.” The lawsuit underscores PBM’s unwavering commitment to defending its products and the brands of its retail partners. Manning emphasized the importance for parents to know that there are lower-priced yet highly nutritious store-brand formulas that provide the same benefits as any national brand-name formula product.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the jury’s decision not only exposes Mead Johnson’s deceptive marketing practices but also serves as a milestone in the broader context of false advertising cases within the infant formula industry. The verdict emphasizes the need for transparency and accuracy in advertising, ensuring that parents can make informed choices about their children’s nutrition without falling prey to misleading claims.