A closely watched courtroom fight is set to unfold in Chicago as four families bring allegations against Abbott Laboratories, claiming its formula for premature infants contributed to a dangerous intestinal illness in their children.
The case centers on a condition known as Necrotizing Enterocolitis—often shortened to NEC—a severe bowel disease that primarily strikes premature babies and can prove fatal when sections of intestinal tissue die.
The families say their infants developed the condition after being fed cow’s-milk-based formula manufactured by Abbott. The children were born in hospitals around Chicago between 2012 and 2019. According to the court filings, all survived but continue to face lingering medical complications. Three of them required surgery soon after the illness developed.
Jury selection is expected to begin in a Cook County courtroom, combining the four lawsuits into a single trial projected to stretch across several weeks.
A Growing Legal Storm Around Infant Formula
The dispute is one thread in a much larger wave of litigation aimed at major formula manufacturers. Nearly a thousand lawsuits have been filed against Abbott and Mead Johnson—the maker of the Enfamil brand—by families who argue that cow’s-milk-based formulas used in neonatal care raise the risk of NEC in premature infants.
Most of the cases claim manufacturers failed to adequately alert doctors to the potential risk when formula is used instead of human breast milk or donor milk. The products at the center of the litigation are specialized hospital-grade formulas and milk fortifiers designed for fragile newborns, not the standard infant formula commonly sold in grocery stores.
Abbott has rejected the allegations, maintaining that its products are vital in neonatal care when mothers cannot produce sufficient breast milk. The company argues that while breast milk is known to reduce the likelihood of NEC, the presence of formula itself has not been proven to cause the disease.
Science, Medicine and Legal Claims Collide
A joint scientific report released in 2024 by federal regulators and researchers working with the National Institutes of Health concluded that current evidence suggests the risk may stem more from the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula.
Even so, the lawsuits contend that manufacturers should have warned medical professionals about the heightened risk when formula is used in premature infants.
NEC remains one of the most feared complications in neonatal intensive care units. The disease affects mainly premature babies and carries an estimated mortality rate exceeding 20 percent.
Courtroom Results So Far: A Split Record
The litigation has already produced dramatic verdicts in several trials.
A jury in Illinois previously ordered Mead Johnson to pay $60 million to a mother whose premature infant died after being fed formula. In another case in Missouri, Abbott was hit with a $495 million damages award. Both decisions are currently under appeal.
The courtroom outcomes haven’t been uniformly against the manufacturers. In a separate Missouri trial, Abbott and Mead Johnson initially prevailed before a judge later ordered a retrial after determining defense attorneys had acted improperly. That decision is also being challenged.
Meanwhile, federal proceedings handling hundreds of related cases have yet to produce a full trial. Several bellwether cases selected to test the claims were dismissed by the presiding judge, who cited evidence presented by Abbott supporting the medical necessity of formula in certain circumstances.
Another Chapter Begins
Against that backdrop, the Chicago trial now beginning will be watched closely. For the families involved, it is a chance to argue that the risks were never fully explained. For the formula maker, it is another opportunity to defend products that neonatal units around the world have relied on for decades.
The jury’s verdict could become another influential milestone in a legal fight that is far from over.
