Mead Johnson Sued a 3rd Time Over Alleged False Baby Formula Ads

Mead Johnson has been sued a third time over alleged false and misleading advertising for its Enfamil baby formula brand.

Mead Johnson is developing a reputation as a recalcitrant advertiser that doesn’t seem to care whether its ads tell the truth or not. That’s not a good reputation for a baby brand to have. As BNET readers know, Mead Johnson also made its way into the FTC’s inbox on the very same issue back in February. In the latest case, PBM Products — a maker of store-brand baby formula for Walmart, Sam’s Club, Target, Kroger and Walgreens – makes these claims against Mead Johnson:

Mead Johnson’s new direct “mailer” promotional advertisements state, “En-Fact: Enfamil LIPIL’s unique formulation is not available in any store brand.”

Mead Johnson also includes in its print ads and on its Web site an alarming blurry picture of a child’s cartoon duck, which suggests feeding infants anything but Enfamil® LIPIL® will result in reduced vision and brain development.

The ingredients are identical, PBM alleges in its suit, as the two companies get the same ingredients “sourced from the same supplier.”

The recalcitrance comes in when you compare the details of PBM’s latest suit and the FTC referral, which came from the National Advertising Division, an industry sel-policing group.

PBM claims that it has twice before sued Mead Johnson and won over false claims made about baby formula:

Both times Mead Johnson’s senior executives and scientists admitted that Mead Johnson’s statesments were literally false.

The court banned Mead Johnson from making more false advertising, but, PBM claims:

This Court subsequently found that Mead Johnson failed to comply with that order, choosing instead to engage in the spoliation of evidence by destroying rather than retrieving the false ads.

Now look at what happened with NAD. After calling in the company to defend its ads, NAD ruled:

NAD is incredulous that after two compliance proceedings, with the second compliance proceeding making explicit that any noncompliant advertising would result in a referral to the appropriate government agency, that the advertiser would disseminate advertising that clearly does not comply with NAD’s decision.

Ironically, PBM’s main beef with Mead Johnson is that the latter asserts that store brands don’t have the ingredients that help brain and vision development in babies, whereas NAD’s beef is that there’s little to no evidence demonstrating that those ingredients do any such thing.

PBM wants an immediate injunction from the court.

• See previous coverage of Mead Johnson and Enfamil:
• Mead Johnson’s Enfamil Advertising Referred to FTC Over Dubious Baby IQ Claims