Similac Infant Formula Lawsuit: Are Toxic Metals Lurking in Powdered Baby Products?

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit accuses Abbott Laboratories of failing to disclose the presence of toxic metals in Similac powdered infant formulas.

Consumers Affected: Parents who purchased Similac powdered formulas, including Similac Pro Advance, Similac Advance OptiGRO, Similac 360 Total Care, Similac Soy Isomil, Similac Neosure, and Similac Total Comfort.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Two parents have filed a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that several powdered Similac infant formulas contain toxic metals that were never disclosed to buyers. The complaint claims consumers were misled into believing these products were safe for everyday use by infants, despite the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury in most tested samples.

Lawsuit Claims Similac Formula Contains Undisclosed Heavy Metals

Filed on behalf of consumers who purchased Similac products, the lawsuit states that Abbott failed to warn parents about the inclusion—or risk—of harmful contaminants in its powdered formulas. Cited products include Similac Pro Advance, Similac Advance OptiGRO, Similac 360 Total Care, Similac Soy Isomil, Similac Neosure, and Similac Total Comfort.

According to the complaint, testing conducted in 2022 and 2023 revealed that nearly every formula sample contained detectable levels of at least one heavy metal. Only two out of 121 tested samples returned no positive results, the plaintiffs say. 

The lawsuit further alleges that Abbott’s packaging omitted any reference to these substances while portraying the products as safe, nutritious, and appropriate for infant consumption.

“Parents reasonably expect formula marketed for babies to be free of substances known to carry risks,” the complaint reads. “That includes ingredients that may affect early growth and brain development.”

Parents Say Abbott Misled Them About Formula Safety

The lawsuit centers on how Similac products are promoted in stores and online. Abbott is accused of presenting Similac as safe and high quality while leaving out any mention of toxic metals. The plaintiffs say these omissions made it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions.

Both named plaintiffs—Tiffany Huggins of Washington and Lauren Nunez of California—say they purchased the formulas repeatedly, believing them to be healthy options for their children. Huggins and Nunez allege they never would have purchased Similac, or would have paid less, had they known about the presence of heavy metals.

Abbott has acknowledged in prior public statements that trace levels of these substances may appear in foods due to their presence in the environment. However, the lawsuit claims the company failed to take adequate steps to remove or reduce those levels in infant products where health risks are highest.

Parents’ Concerns Over Long-Term Health Effects

The concern behind the lawsuit lies in what exposure to these metals could mean for young children. Arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead have each been studied for their potential effects on cognitive development. Researchers have warned that even small amounts—when consumed regularly—can build up in the body over time.

Plaintiffs argue that Abbott’s failure to disclose the test results deprived buyers of the opportunity to choose safer alternatives. Given that infant formula may be the sole source of nutrition during early life, the complaint claims that full transparency was especially necessary.

Similar Baby Product Lawsuits Have Emerged

Similac is not the only brand under fire over this issue. Other manufacturers have been targeted in recent filings over similar claims. Hain Celestial Group, Aldi, and Kroger have each been named in separate lawsuits involving baby food or formula products sold under different brand names.

In those lawsuits, plaintiffs also alleged the presence of heavy metals in everyday baby products and pointed to marketing that emphasized purity, safety, or nutritional value. In some cases, judges have allowed the lawsuits to proceed despite manufacturer efforts to dismiss them.

What the Similac Baby Formula Class Action Lawsuit Seeks

In the Similac toxic baby formula class action lawsuit, Nunez and Huggins seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Similac powdered formulas for household use. Their goal includes obtaining compensation and requesting that Abbott modify its product labeling to include information about heavy metals.

They also ask for a jury trial and seek financial relief in the form of repayment and other damages for those affected. If certified, the class could include millions of parents or caregivers who bought Similac during the timeframe outlined in the complaint.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Huggins et al. v. Abbott Laboratories
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-02460
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Kenneth Wexler and Kara A. Elgersma (Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP)
• Rebecca A. Peterson, Lori Feldman, Janine Pollack (George Feldman McDonald PLLC)
• Daniel E. Gustafson and Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith (Gustafson Gluek, PLLC)
• Simon B. Paris and Patrick Howard (Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, PC)
• Katrina Carroll and Kyle A. Shamberg (Caroll Shamberg LLC)
• Jason Gustafson (Throndset Michenfelder, LLC)

Have you purchased Similac formula? What are your thoughts on this lawsuit? Share your concerns below.