The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling in a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, involving the tragic death of a preterm infant. The case centers on the claim that Abbott failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of its infant formula, which was linked to the infant's diagnosis of a serious gastrointestinal disease. This ruling affects families and advocates concerned about infant nutrition and the safety of formula products.
In the case of Ericka Mar v. Abbott Laboratories, docket number 25-2587, the court ruled on July 24, 2026, affirming the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Abbott. The ruling means that the court found no sufficient evidence to support Mar's claims that a different warning from Abbott would have prevented her daughter's death. This decision is significant as it sets a precedent regarding the responsibilities of formula manufacturers in providing warnings about their products.
Ericka Mar is the mother of RaiLee Mar, who was born 12 weeks premature in 2014. After initially being fed her mother's breast milk, RaiLee was switched to Abbott's Similac Special Care 24 formula when her mother could no longer produce usable milk. Shortly after starting the formula, RaiLee was diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious condition that affects premature infants. Tragically, she died the following day. Mar subsequently sued Abbott, alleging that the company failed to warn about the risks associated with its formula, particularly the potential link to NEC.
The case was part of a larger multidistrict litigation against Abbott, which included hundreds of similar lawsuits. Mar's case was selected as a bellwether, meaning it was one of the first cases to be tried to help gauge how other cases might be resolved. After extensive discovery, the district court granted Abbott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mar had not shown that a different warning would have made a difference in RaiLee's care.
In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit, led by Chief Judge Brennan, stated, "Mar has not shown that the warning she believes Abbott should have used would have prevented her daughter's death." The court noted that the existing warning on Abbott's formula instructed users to "USE AS DIRECTED BY A DOCTOR," and that the hospital had no other food source available at the time.
The court further explained that Mar's proposed alternative warning—that human milk has a lower risk of NEC than formula—would not have changed the outcome because the hospital had no access to donor breast milk and Mar could not provide more usable milk. The judges emphasized that any inferences drawn from Mar's arguments were speculative and not supported by sufficient evidence. The court also ruled that Mar's motion to reconsider the summary judgment was properly denied, as the new evidence she sought to present was not newly discovered.
This ruling has significant implications for the future of infant nutrition lawsuits. It reinforces the idea that manufacturers may not be held liable for failure to warn if it cannot be demonstrated that a different warning would have changed the outcome of a tragic situation. The decision also highlights the challenges that families face when navigating the complexities of infant nutrition, particularly for premature infants who are at higher risk for conditions like NEC.
Moving forward, this ruling may deter similar lawsuits against Abbott and other formula manufacturers unless plaintiffs can provide strong evidence linking product warnings to specific adverse outcomes. The case also highlights the importance of understanding the nutritional needs of preterm infants and the potential risks associated with formula feeding.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if Mar will seek further appeal to a higher court. There may also be related cases pending in the multidistrict litigation against Abbott, but details were not available in the court filing.