Parents of premature infants continue to push Similac lawsuits forward as early 2026 begins, and the pressure on Abbott Laboratories shows no sign of slowing. Families say their babies suffered necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed cow-milk–based Similac formulas in NICU settings. The claims point to a failure to warn that a formula designed for fragile infants carried a risk tied to one of the most devastating gastrointestinal diseases in newborn care. Courts now hold hundreds of these cases inside a federal multidistrict litigation. Lawyers for families describe a system that moved too slowly for years while infants faced catastrophic harm.
The mounting litigation reflects years of concern from neonatologists and researchers who noted that cow-milk formulas may sharply increase NEC risk in premature infants. Families argue that Abbott had access to scientific literature that signaled danger and that the company continued marketing products without meaningful warnings. The stakes remain high. NEC can kill. Survivors often need surgery, long-term feeding support, or lifelong medical care. Parents now call the lawsuits a necessary path after what they describe as avoidable suffering.
How the Lawsuit Started
The earliest NEC lawsuits arose when families realized their infants developed severe intestinal injury shortly after consuming Similac products in NICUs. Medical teams often relied on cow-milk formulas when breast milk was limited. Parents later learned that studies had documented higher NEC rates among preterm infants fed formula rather than human milk. Those studies circulated for years in pediatric literature. Some plaintiffs describe shock when they uncovered research suggesting risks that had never been communicated to them.
Legal action gained momentum as more families discovered similar injury patterns. Attorneys began linking medical records, expert reviews, and feeding histories. A growing body of parents filed claims alleging that Abbott withheld crucial safety information. The push for accountability accelerated once early state-court trials resulted in plaintiff verdicts, reinforcing concerns that formula-related NEC harm had gone unaddressed for too long.
Background of the Case
NICUs often struggle to meet the nutritional demands of premature infants. Similac products filled that gap in thousands of hospitals. Families now argue that reliance on formula masked a deeper problem: the absence of clear warnings about NEC risk. Neonatal researchers published findings on cow-milk exposure and intestinal injury long before litigation began. Some studies showed significantly higher NEC incidence among formula-fed preemies. These findings were widely available in medical settings.
Parents say they were never told that Similac carried any risk difference from breast milk or donor milk. Many assumed the formula offered complete safety, especially when hospital teams used it routinely. As more NEC cases surfaced, attorneys began documenting patterns they say Abbott should have addressed decades earlier. By the time lawsuits were consolidated, the litigation had become one of the most emotionally charged product-liability battles in infant-care history.
Key Allegations
Plaintiffs allege that Similac’s cow-milk–based formulas pose a heightened NEC risk for premature infants and that Abbott failed to warn parents and medical professionals. Families argue that the company ignored or downplayed evidence linking cow-milk formulas to NEC. The complaints assert negligence, design defect, and failure to warn. Parents say they would have chosen donor milk or human-milk fortifiers if they had been told the truth.
The allegations also focus on marketing. Plaintiffs claim Similac products were promoted for vulnerable preterm infants despite the body of research showing increased NEC risk. Attorneys argue that promoting these products in NICUs without a clear warning left families unaware of consequences that could be life-changing. Abbott denies liability and continues to defend its products as safe and essential for infant nutrition.
Timeline of the Similac NEC Lawsuit
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Parents began raising questions as medical studies on NEC risk became more widely discussed among families of premature infants. Some parents learned through support groups or online forums that other families faced similar injuries after feeding Similac in NICUs. Neonatal research had documented cow-milk–related NEC patterns, and families now say those signals should have prompted earlier warnings. Sources from legal and medical communities pointed to decades of accessible research connecting formula use and NEC incidence in premature infants.
Company Response
Abbott continued marketing Similac formulas for hospital use. The company did not issue broad NEC-specific warnings for premature infants despite growing scientific concern. Plaintiffs argue that this silence left families without the information needed to make informed feeding decisions. Abbott maintains the formulas are safe and medically important when breast milk is unavailable.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
Federal courts consolidated NEC lawsuits involving Similac and other cow-milk formulas into MDL 3026 in the Northern District of Illinois in 2022. Hundreds of individual lawsuits joined the MDL as discovery expanded. Public records show more than 750 cases pending heading into early 2026. The litigation includes state-court actions as well, and at least one state-court jury verdict in 2024 resulted in a $495 million award for a family whose infant developed NEC after using Similac. Some bellwether cases in the MDL ended in summary judgment for Abbott when judges found plaintiffs’ expert evidence insufficient under federal standards. Those rulings now shape strategy for the next wave of cases.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
A pattern of summary-judgment decisions in early bellwether cases sent a clear signal: plaintiffs must present expert testimony that meets exacting federal thresholds. Judges found gaps in certain causation analyses, which narrowed the path for future plaintiffs. The contrasting 2024 state-court verdict demonstrated that juries may reach different conclusions when weighing the same scientific debates. Attorneys now describe the split outcomes as a roadmap showing that NEC claims face an uphill battle in federal court but remain viable in state venues.
Government or Regulatory Actions
FDA actions to date have focused on contamination issues in powdered formulas rather than NEC risk. Regulators have not issued warnings, recalls, or safety bulletins linking cow-milk formula to NEC. Families argue that this regulatory silence contributed to years of confusion about infant feeding risks. Attorneys say the absence of warnings from Abbott or federal agencies left parents without guidance while medical literature pointed to increased NEC risk.
Settlement Timeline
No global settlement has emerged. Plaintiffs and defendants continue pretrial discovery inside the MDL. Attorneys expect further bellwether activity in 2026. Individual state-court cases continue progressing on separate tracks. Some families have resolved claims privately, but no public settlement numbers exist that define the litigation as a whole.
Current Status (Early 2026)
The MDL holds more than 750 active NEC lawsuits involving Similac and other cow-milk formulas. Parties continue briefing expert issues and case-specific evidence. Lawyers for families are preparing new rounds of filings designed to address earlier judicial concerns about causation standards. The state-court verdicts remain a driving force for plaintiffs who view them as proof that the harm can be recognized and compensated when presented to a jury. Abbott maintains its defense and continues to contest causation arguments. Litigation momentum remains high as families seek accountability and structural change in infant-formula safety.
Additional Case Details
Some hospitals have shifted feeding practices toward donor milk programs in response to the growing NEC scrutiny. Parents involved in lawsuits say these shifts underscore concerns that should have been addressed earlier. Advocacy groups push for broader adoption of human-milk protocols for premature infants. Attorneys describe these developments as evidence that reliance on cow-milk formulas carried overlooked risks.
Final Summary
Similac NEC lawsuits in early 2026 present a stark dispute between grieving families and one of the largest formula manufacturers in the country. Plaintiffs argue that infants were exposed to preventable harm. Abbott defends its products. Courts now evaluate complex science, decades of neonatal research, and competing expert testimony. Families continue pressing for answers and accountability. The litigation remains one of the most consequential infant-safety cases in recent memory.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you have any questions about this, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
