What It Actually Cost the Families

Monica Castro lives in Cathedral City, California. She has a one-year-old. She went to the store, saw a can with the same branding she’d trusted through infant formula, saw the words “Immune Support” and “28 Important Nutrients,” and paid more than $30 for it. She believed she was doing the right thing for her child. The company that made the can knew the science, knew the sugar content, and put those health claims on the label anyway.

Damary Santana is in Charlestown, Massachusetts. Same story, same can, same price, same one-year-old. Nancy Helmold is in Chicago, Illinois, which is also where Abbott Laboratories has its principal place of business. Helmold bought it for her two-year-old, paid over $30, and trusted a Stage 3 numbering system that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization both reject as misleading.

These are not wealthy consumers who shrug off a $30 mistake. The complaint seeks class certification for buyers across ten states. It is asking a court to recognize that every single person who picked up one of these cans and read “Digestive Health” on the label was defrauded, because the product’s main health-relevant characteristic was the one thing Abbott kept off the front of the can: added sugar that degrades the very systems the label claimed to support.

The betrayal compounds across time. Children who consume added sugars in early life, according to research cited in the complaint, tend to consume more sugar as adults. The preferences formed in a toddler’s palate become embedded. The product Abbott sold as a “transition” from infant formula was not transitioning anyone to anything healthier. It was creating a preference for sweetness in children at the exact developmental window when food researchers say those preferences are most persistently formed.

Parents trusted the “Stage 3” label because the progression felt logical, the way numbered steps on a child’s growth chart feel logical. Abbott engineered that trust deliberately. The complaint states plainly that the numbering system was designed to imply a medically recommended nutritional sequence that does not exist. What the cans actually delivered, for $30 or more each, was something between a sweetened milk powder and a sugar-sweetened beverage, in a package that looked indistinguishable from the regulated infant formula these same parents had been buying since their child was born. The thirty dollars was not the only cost.

What the Complaint Actually Says, Word for Word

The following are direct quotes from Case No. 25-cv-377, filed in the Northern District of Illinois on January 14, 2025. These are not summaries or paraphrases. This is the language the plaintiffs’ attorneys put into a federal court filing.

“Toddler milk products contain higher saturated fat and sodium and ‘added sweeteners, including sugar, glucose syrup solids, and honey’—added sugars that are not recommended for children under the age of two.” Complaint ¶9, citing UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Baby Food FACTS (2017)

• This establishes that Abbott’s products contain ingredients that authoritative nutrition researchers have specifically flagged as inappropriate for the age group Abbott is targeting with these products.
• The reference to honey is significant because honey is a known botulism risk in children under one year, and the target age range for “Stage 3” begins at twelve months.

“Defendant’s ‘Toddler Drinks’ are labeled ‘stage 3’ so as to imply to caregivers that they are the next nutritionally recommended product for them to purchase after infant formula, which is numbered ‘stage 1’ and supplemental formula, which is numbered ‘stage 2.’ In fact, ‘Toddler Drinks’ are not nutritionally recommended at all.” Complaint ¶13

• This is the core deception claim stated in its most direct form. There is no pediatric body that recommends a “Stage 3” toddler milk product. Abbott invented the stage to manufacture the appearance of a continuous, medically guided nutritional progression.
• Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization are cited in the complaint as opposing the stage-numbering system.

“Abbott’s marketing its Toddler Drinks as providing ‘Immune Support’ is false, or at least highly misleading.” Complaint ¶36

• The complaint backs this claim with a detailed mechanistic explanation: sugar spikes activate protein kinase C, which impairs neutrophil function; high blood sugar prevents immune cells from properly tagging pathogens; and hyperglycemia decreases IL-6, a chemical messenger required for proper immune response.
• The label says “Immune Support.” The product’s primary variable ingredient actively works against three documented mechanisms of immune function.

“Abbott’s marketing of its Toddler Drinks as supporting ‘Digestive Health’ is false, or at least highly misleading.” Complaint ¶41

• The complaint documents four separate pathways by which the sugar in these products damages gut health: feeding harmful bacteria, reducing microbial diversity, promoting growth of C. difficile and C. perfringens, and silencing a gut colonization factor called Roc in a key beneficial gut bacterium.
• The label says “Digestive Health.” The gut science says the opposite. Abbott is a sophisticated company with access to the same scientific literature cited in this complaint.

“Defendant sold more of its ‘Toddler Drinks’ at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this deception, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.” Complaint ¶74

• This is the unjust enrichment claim stated plainly. Abbott charged a premium for products it marketed as health-promoting when the health-relevant properties of the product were, in significant respects, the opposite of what was claimed.
• The complaint also notes these products cost nearly four times as much as whole cow’s milk, the expert-recommended alternative Abbott’s marketing actively displaced.

“On information and belief, officers, directors, or managing agents at Defendant authorized the use of the misleading statements about the Products.” Complaint ¶129

• This language supports the intentional misrepresentation cause of action. The complaint is alleging this was not an accident at the label design level but a decision authorized by people in positions of authority at Abbott.
• The complaint further states Abbott “acted recklessly in making the misrepresentations, without regard to their truth” and had “no reasonable grounds for believing its misrepresentations were not false and misleading.”

The Population-Level Damage Abbott’s Business Model Produces

Public Health

The complaint draws on a dense body of peer-reviewed evidence to establish what happens to a population that feeds sugar-sweetened beverages to its youngest members. Each harm below is documented in studies cited in the complaint.

• A meta-analysis of 8 studies covering 310,819 participants found individuals with the highest sugar-sweetened beverage intake had a 26% greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes compared to those with the lowest intake. Larger studies with longer follow-ups showed stronger associations, not weaker ones.
• Analysis of 50,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study showed women who consumed one or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day had an 83% greater relative risk of Type 2 diabetes. Women who consumed one or more fruit punch drinks per day had a 100% greater relative risk. Abbott’s Toddler Drinks contain 4 grams of added sugar per serving.
• An econometric analysis published in 2013 found that a 150-calorie-per-day increase from any food was associated with a 0.1% rise in diabetes prevalence. The same caloric increase from sugar alone was associated with a 1.1% rise in diabetes prevalence: an 11-fold difference, statistically significant.
• A study of more than 2,000 children followed for three years found those who regularly consumed sugar-sweetened beverages between meals had a 240% greater chance of being overweight than non-consumers. Abbott markets Toddler Drinks directly to caregivers of children in this age range.
• Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with dyslipidemia, obesity, increased blood pressure, and elevated cardiovascular mortality. Harvard researchers confirmed a significant positive association between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and weight gain across multiple large studies.
• Children who consume added sugars in early childhood develop lasting preferences for sweet tastes. This early exposure creates a dietary trajectory toward sweetened beverages and sweetened dairy products in adulthood, embedding downstream health risk at the developmental window when food preferences are most durably formed.
• Diabetes affects 25.8 million Americans and is associated with kidney failure, lower-limb amputation, blindness, doubled risk of colon and pancreatic cancers, coronary artery disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. The complaint establishes a direct, scientifically documented pipeline from sugar-sweetened beverages to this disease burden.
• The gut damage caused by the sugar in these products, including increased intestinal permeability, endotoxemia, systemic low-grade inflammation, and disruption of gut microbiota balance, is associated with susceptibility to ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, and irritable bowel syndrome.

Economic Inequality

Abbott’s pricing strategy extracts maximum cost from the parents least equipped to absorb it, while offering a product that is nutritionally inferior to the far cheaper alternative.

• Abbott’s Toddler Drinks cost approximately $0.75 per 15-gram serving and over $30 per can. The expert-recommended alternative for children over 12 months is plain whole cow’s milk, which costs a fraction of this price at any grocery store.
• Research cited in the complaint found that products like Abbott’s Toddler Drinks are nearly four times more expensive than whole cow’s milk per serving. That gap is not nutritional value; it is the price of Abbott’s label design and marketing spend.
• The complaint cites research showing that advertising spending on “transition formulas” quadrupled between 2006 and 2015. This spending was directed at caregivers, creating the false belief that these products were medically necessary. Families who acted on that belief paid a 4x price premium for a product that is, according to experts, unnecessary and potentially harmful.
• 52% of caregivers surveyed expected products like Abbott’s Toddler Drinks to “give toddlers nutrition they wouldn’t get from other sources.” That false belief, manufactured by Abbott’s marketing, locked lower-income families into expensive re-branded powdered milk instead of transitioning to the cost-effective, nutritionally adequate option experts actually recommend.
• Since 2018, the national toddler milk market has averaged over $500 million per year. That half-billion dollars annually flows from family grocery budgets to infant formula companies that created a product category with no scientific basis, built on the back of declining infant formula sales and rising breastfeeding rates.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiffs purchased the product “believing it was necessary and/or valuable to the nutritional needs” of their toddler. This is the economic harm in its most concrete form: parents paying for necessity they were made to believe existed, when the science says it does not.

What Abbott Charged. What It Bought.

Who to Watch and What to Do

The lawsuit is filed. Abbott has been served. Here is who holds accountability levers, and what parents and advocates can do right now.

Corporate Decision-Makers at Abbott

The complaint states that “officers, directors, or managing agents at Defendant authorized the use of the misleading statements.” The source document does not name specific individuals at Abbott by name. The accountability chain runs through:

• Abbott Laboratories, incorporated in Illinois, headquartered at Abbott Park, Illinois. The parent company is responsible for all marketing, labeling, distribution, and sale decisions for the Similac brand and all Toddler Drink sub-brands.
• The Nutrition division of Abbott, which manufactures and markets the Similac line. This is the business unit directly responsible for the product category at issue.
• Executive leadership and the board of directors at Abbott Laboratories, who set strategy, approved marketing budgets, and authorized label content for a product line generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue.

Regulatory Watchlist

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC has authority over deceptive advertising claims in commercial products. Abbott’s label claims meet the textbook definition of deceptive advertising under FTC standards. File a consumer complaint at ftc.gov/complaint.
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA regulates food labeling and nutrient content claims, including the word “healthy.” The FDA proposed rule cited in the complaint limits added sugar in foods bearing health claims to 5% of calories, or 2.5 grams. Abbott’s products have 4 grams per serving. Report food labeling violations at fda.gov/safety/report-a-problem.
• Federal Trade Commission / Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU): CARU specifically oversees advertising directed at children and families with young children. Abbott’s marketing targets caregivers of toddlers directly. CARU complaint submissions go through the BBB National Programs portal at bbbnp.org.
• State Attorneys General in California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington: All ten state subclass jurisdictions have consumer protection offices empowered to act on the same statutes cited in the complaint. Find your state AG’s consumer fraud division through your state government website.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): While primarily financial, the CFPB tracks unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices against consumers including families. Record your experience at consumerfinance.gov/complaint.

Mutual Aid and Grassroots Resistance

• Share the pediatric guidance directly: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization both have free, plain-language resources on toddler nutrition. Send aap.org and who.int links to parents in your community who may be buying these products. No one should be paying $30+ per can for something pediatricians don’t recommend.
• Contact your pediatrician and ask them to post warnings: Pediatric offices are a direct communication channel to the exact population Abbott targets. Ask your child’s doctor to display AAP guidance on toddler milk products in the waiting room or in post-visit materials.
• Support the class action: If you or someone you know purchased Abbott’s Go & Grow Toddler Drink or Pure Bliss Toddler Drink in California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, or Washington within the relevant statute of limitations period, you may be a class member. The law firm handling this case is Reese LLP (mreese@reesellp.com, 212-643-0500) in conjunction with the Public Health Advocacy Institute (arainer@phai.org).
• Organize at the grocery store level: Talk to store managers about shelf placement. Abbott’s Toddler Drinks are shelved alongside regulated infant formula, which contributes to the consumer confusion the complaint documents. Ask your local store to separate these products and add shelf-level consumer information.
• Amplify WIC-adjacent advocacy: The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is a primary channel for nutritional support for low-income families with toddlers. Advocate with your local WIC office and state WIC administrators to ensure that toddler milk products without expert nutritional basis are not included or implicitly endorsed in WIC educational materials.