Similac Pro-Advance Infant Formula Not As Similar To Human Breast Milk As It Claims, Says Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Similac Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: Sarah Conner filed a class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories Inc.  
• Why: Conner claims Abbott deceives consumers by marketing its Similac brand Pro-Advance infant formula as a near-equivalent to human breast milk.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court.

Abbott Laboratories Inc. misleads consumers about its Similac brand Pro-Advance infant formula’s closeness to human breast milk, a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

Plaintiff Sarah Conner claims Abbott falsely touts its formula as containing the same benefits as human breast milk, deceiving consumers. 

Conner wants to represent an Illinois Class and North Dakota, Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming, and Delaware subclasses of consumers who purchased the Similac Pro-Advance infant formula. 

Conner says she purchased the Similac formula on multiple occasions while under the impression it would have a positive effect on her infant’s brain and eye development, due to its representation as containing nutrients that are in human breast milk. 

“The Product’s comparisons to breast milk expressly and impliedly claim that it can confer the structure/function benefits of breast milk,” states Conner’s Similac lawsuit.

The Similac Pro-Advance formula includes labeling indicating it contains nutrients such as lutein, vitamin E, DHA, Human Milk Oligosaccharide, while touting that it is “Our Closest Formula to Breast Milk,” according to the class action lawsuit. 

Conner claims she paid more for the formula because of its labeling, which she argues turned out not to be backed by any scientific evidence or proper control group testing. 

“No competent and reliable scientific evidence, which would include studies with control groups of exclusively breastfed infants, compared to infants fed the Product, and show the similarities between breast milk and the Product, exists,” states the class action lawsuit. 

Further, Conner argues that, because of the misleading nature of the Similac formula, mothers are dissuaded from breastfeeding because they are under the false impression the product is a proper substitute. 

Conner claims Abbott is guilty of fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability, and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, various state consumer fraud acts, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. 

Conner is demanding a jury trial and seeking injunctive relief along with monetary, statutory, and/or punitive damages for herself and all Class Members. 

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Abbott in 2013 by a consumer who claimed the company recorded a phone conversation without her consent while she was talking to a representative about its Similac infant formula. 

Have you purchased Similac brand Pro-Advance infant formula? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 

The Similac Class Action Lawsuit is Conner v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01463, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Procter & Gamble’s Pampers ‘Pure’ Baby Diapers Are Mostly Petrochemicals, Not Plant-Based, Claims Class Action
• Owlet Failed To Disclose Its Smart Sock Devices Would Need FDA Approval, Says Class Action
• Recall Check: Dole Recalls Garden Classic Salads Over Listeria Contamination Fears
• Sugar Babies, Junior Mints Underfilled Boxes Class Action Claims Tossed—For Now