SAN DIEGO (CN) - A federal judge will allow claims against the pediatric nutrition giant Mead Johnson & Company after a group of parents filed a class action, claiming that it misbranded its nutritional drinks for toddlers.

The parents say the baby formula company labeled and marketed two of its Enfagrow toddler nutritional drinks with nutritional representations that are prohibited for foods intended for children under 2 under federal and state laws. As a result, the parents say they paid a premium for the unlawful labels and are entitled to restitution. 

The parents say the company's products are a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. More specifically, they say the products violate the state's Sherman Law advertising provisions, including the California Health & Safety Code, which incorporates federal regulations. 

Mead Johnson argues California's laws are preempted under federal law and that private claims against it are prohibited under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, a Barack Obama appointee, denied in part and granted in part the company's motion to dismiss the parents' claims. 

In a ruling filed on Monday, Bashant allowed the parents' core claim that the company mislabeled its products to proceed. 

California's Sherman Law incorporates the FDCA labeling regulations into state law, while federal law simultaneously allows states to adopt labeling requirements identical to federal standards under its Section 343-1, Bashant wrote. 

Citing a Ninth Circuit ruling, Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Bashant wrote that the plaintiffs' claims were not preempted under federal law. 

"In Davidson, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's UCL claims were not expressly preempted by Section 343-1 because they are based in California Sherman Law provisions incorporating federal regulations by reference, which are identical to FDCA provisions doing the same," she wrote. "Here, plaintiffs' California Sherman Law claims under California Health & Safety Code are not expressly preempted by Section 343-1 - since their text does not apparently deviate from any substantive requirements in the FDCA. Additionally, defendants do not point out how the text of these laws deviates from substantive requirements in the FDCA in their motion to dismiss; so, defendants do not meet their burden to overcome the presumption against preemption."

However, Bashant granted Mead Johnson's motion to dismiss the parents' claim for declaratory relief.

"Here, defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief on grounds that plaintiffs' claim does not appear to be meaningfully distinct from the substantive claims underlying plaintiffs' UCL cause of action," Bashant wrote. "Though plaintiffs contest instead that their request for declaratory relief is forward-looking, plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief ultimately seems to seek the same damages and restitution that plaintiffs' UCL claims do."

In their complaint, the parents also sought claims for restitution for the overpayment of the toddler formula. The parents say the company used marketing and labeling techniques to overprice its Enfagrow products. 

"To fetch a price premium, defendants, in their marketing and packaging, echo parents' well-known nutritional concerns regarding their children - especially those children under 2 years of age - by making claims and graphics about brain development and immune health," they write in their complaint. "These claims are intended to create the impression in parents that they are selling premium products - one needs not look further than the products' very names: Enfagrow Premium Toddler Nutritional Drink, and Enfagrow NeuroPro Toddler Nutritional Drink."

The labels explicitly included references to immune health, brain development and nutrients specifically to support child growth, they say. 

The parents first filed their lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court in July 2024 before it was moved to federal court in late 2025.

Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.

Source: Courthouse News Service