In a decisive legal victory, Abbott Laboratories Inc. has secured its third straight bellwether win in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) accusing the company’s cow-milk-based baby formula of causing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer handed down the ruling Thursday, siding with Abbott after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the feasibility of a human-milk-based alternative to the company’s Similac Special Care formula. The order granted Abbott summary judgment, marking another major defense triumph in the high-stakes litigation.

Judge Finds Alternative ‘Prolacta’ Not a Practical Substitute

The lawsuit, brought by Deondrick Brown Sr. and Rebekah Etienne, claimed their premature son developed NEC and died after being switched to Similac Special Care 24. Before that, the infant had been fed fortified human milk for two months while Etienne was unable to produce breast milk.

However, Judge Pallmeyer determined that the plaintiffs failed to refute Abbott’s evidence showing that “Prolacta,” the proposed human-milk-based product, was not feasible at scale. Abbott’s experts testified that producing such a formula would require an enormous and unavailable supply of human donor milk — enough to feed 62,000 infants between 2010 and 2022.

Under Louisiana law, which governs this case, the burden rested on Abbott to prove infeasibility. The court agreed that Abbott met that burden. The judge highlighted that only lactating women can donate milk, regulations restrict who can qualify, and logistical barriers — from donor screenings to limited insurance coverage — make mass production of a human-milk-based formula “unrealistically expensive and ethically complex.”

Ethical and Practical Barriers to a Human-Milk Market

Pallmeyer’s ruling went beyond science, delving into the ethical and economic barriers of relying on human milk. “Milk banks depend on altruism,” she noted, warning that paying donors could risk depriving their own infants of essential nutrition. Even qualified donors might hesitate to undergo rigorous screening or part with milk needed for their babies.

The judge added that even if supply and cost challenges were solved, intermittent shortages would still force reliance on cow-milk-based products like Similac Special Care — a product she described as “necessary and lifesaving when no other options exist.”

In a striking analogy, Judge Pallmeyer compared the formula’s risks to a desperate safety measure:

“A lifeboat is not as safe as a cruise ship, but that fact alone does not render the lifeboat defective.”

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Evidence and Arguments

The court also criticized the plaintiffs’ reliance on Abbott’s internal documents, which discussed potential acquisitions involving Prolacta. Pallmeyer clarified that these referred to fortifiers, not formulas, and reflected Abbott’s recognition that breast milk is preferred — not evidence of wrongdoing.

Ultimately, she concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the product’s risks outweigh its benefits, emphasizing that Similac Special Care remains an essential backup for infants with no feeding alternatives.

Abbott Applauds Ruling; Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Silent

In a statement Friday, an Abbott spokesperson welcomed the court’s “thoughtful consideration” of scientific evidence, reaffirming that the company’s products are “safe and vital to the care of premature infants.”

Attorneys for Brown and Etienne, represented by Irpino Avin & Hawkins, were not immediately available for comment.

Other plaintiffs in the MDL are represented by Johnson Becker PLLC, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP, and Levin Rojas Camassar & Reck LLC, with Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise serving on the plaintiffs’ executive committee.

Abbott is represented by powerhouse firms Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP.

The Broader Picture

This marks Abbott’s third victory in the first four bellwether trials of the MDL — a strong indication of the defense’s momentum as hundreds of similar claims remain pending.

With science, scale, and practicality on its side, Abbott’s courtroom streak underscores a harsh reality: in the delicate balance between risk and necessity, sometimes even imperfect solutions are indispensable.