Infant formula lawsuits
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Private label marketer PBM's arguments that Mead Johnson has failed to comply with restraining order barring it from circulating "false and misleading" Enfamil promotional materials slated for May 1 hearing in Richmond, Va. federal court. Mead initially filed suit over PBM's infant formula advertising in Evansville, Ind. federal court; PBM filed a counter-suit in Virginia shortly thereafter (1"The Tan Sheet" April 9, p. 15). In addition to entering a restraining order against the Enfamil marketer, U.S. Judge James Spencer in Richmond denied Mead's request to transfer PBM's lawsuit to Indiana. Mead subsequently withdrew its case from Indiana court and filed counter-complaint against PBM in Virginia litigation. Mead says it has withdrawn all questionable promotional materials
You may also be interested in...
Mead Johnson Enfamil Ads Withdrawn After Restraining Order
Mead Johnson distributed roughly 90,000 letters in late April informing pediatricians its previously circulated literature regarding store-brand infant formulas contained incorrect information about calcium and folic acid levels.
PBM/Mead Johnson "False" Infant Formula Ads Cited In Mirror Lawsuits
Mead Johnson's claims that PBM's store brand infant formulas "fall short of recommended intakes" of calcium and folic acid are false because the private label distributor follows the guidelines set forth in the Infant Formula Act of 1980, PBM states in a lawsuit filed in Richmond, Va. federal court March 29.
Supplement GMP Warning Letters Make Modest Debut In 2010
Finalization of a settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Rexall Sundown regarding unsupported cellulite treatment claims for the firm's Cellasene dietary supplement hinges upon approval of two related class action settlements pending in California and Florida, according to FTC