Gerber Probiotic Formula Class Action Lawsuit

A federal class action lawsuit claims Gerber and Nestle have been using deceptive labeling that leads consumers to believe their infant and toddler formula products are healthier and more nutritious than other, less costly formula products that do not contain prebiotics and probiotics.

The Gerber baby formula class action lawsuit claims consumers were tricked into paying more for Gerber’s prebiotic and probiotic baby formula products through false representations that the products create immunity protection, digestive health, brain and eye development and heart healthiness, “when the products have no ability to cause any such consequences.”

“Plaintiff and other Class Members would not have purchased the products had they known Defendants’ claims were either unfounded or untrue, and the true nature of the products,” the Gerber infant formula class action lawsuit states.
The consumer protection class action lawsuit takes aim at the following Gerber and Nestle baby formula products:

Gerber DHA & Probiotic Single Grain Cereal (Stage = Supported Sitter)
Good Start Formula (Stage = Birth)
Good Start Protect Infant Formula (Stage = Birth)
Good Start 2 Gentle Formula (Stage = Crawlers)
Good Start 2 Protect Formula (Stage = Crawlers)

The Gerber infant and toddler formula class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more of these products from January 1, 2005 through the present. It is seeking compensatory damages, double damages, treble damages, statutory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

A copy of the Gerber & Nestle Baby Formula Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is Saba Siddiqi v Gerber Products Company and Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1188, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

UPDATE: Multiple class action lawsuits were filed alleging that Gerber probiotic products are deceptively marketed. The cases were consolidated but a federal judge dismissed them on August 23, 2013, after finding the plaintiffs only have standing to challenge the labeling despite making much broader claims.