Class Action Alleges Similac Pro-Advance Formula Falsely Advertised as Similar to Breast Milk

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges certain label claims touting Similac Pro-Advance infant formula as able to confer benefits the same as or similar to those of breast milk are false and misleading.

The 11-page lawsuit contends that the misrepresentation that defendant Abbott Laboratories’ formula is “Our Closest Formula to Breast Milk” has both dissuaded consumers from breastfeeding, even though it is widely recommended by pediatricians and global health bodies, and led buyers to wrongly believe Similac Pro-Advance is “almost equivalent” to real breast milk. Moreover, the suit alleges Abbott Labs’ claim that Similac Pro-Advance is “non-GMO” is misleading and a “half-truth” given the product is made from dairy ingredients from cows who have consumed genetically modified feed.

“These claims are false, deceptive and misleading,” the complaint alleges. “No competent and reliable scientific evidence, which would include studies with control groups of exclusively breastfed infants, compared to infants fed the Product, and show the similarities between breast milk and the Product, exists.”

The filing argues that consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a product relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives. By labeling Similac Pro-Advance in the manner at issue in the suit, Abbott Labs, the case alleges, has gained an advantage over other companies and consumers looking to buy infant formula that can confer immune system and brain and eye development benefits similar to breast milk. 

“The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by defendant,” the suit charges. 

According to the filing, representations found prominently on the formula’s front label include “Immune Support,” “Brain & Eye Development,” “Lutein,” “Vitamin E,” “DHA,” “‘2’-FL HMO – Human Milk Oligosaccharide (not from human milk),” “NON-GMO” and “Our Closest Formula to Breast Milk.” The case relays that breast milk, which contains myriad molecular and live tissue components unique to each mother and that cannot be manufactured, is the “gold standard” for infant feeding, according to the World Health Organization and U.S. authorities. 

Noting that infant formula is critical for children whose mothers may be unable to breastfeed or produce enough milk, the marketing of infant formula, according to the suit, “sometimes goes beyond meeting these limited needs, to tout itself as equivalent to breast milk.” With regard to Similac Pro-Advance, the complaint contends that the defendant’s representations that the product contains lutein, vitamin E, DHA and HMO imply that the inclusion of these constituents “can approach the benefits from breast milk.” As such, appropriate studies to substantiate these claims should include a control group of breastfed infants given the structure/function benefit of the formula is compared to outcomes for breastfed infants, the case says. 

According to the lawsuit, however, no competent and reliable scientific evidence exists to back the close-to-breast-milk claims on which Similac is touted. 

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers in Illinois, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming and Delaware who bought Similac Pro-Advance infant formula during the relevant statute of limitations period. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.