Overview
Hundreds of lawsuits have been consolidated in federal court in California over allegations that commercial baby food products containing heavy metals caused autism or ADHD in children. The litigation stems from a 2021 Congressional report that found toxic heavy metals in commercial baby foods.[1] The companies named in the lawsuits deny the claims and say the metals occur naturally.[1]
The cases are coordinated in what is called a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. An MDL is a procedural tool that gathers similar cases from around the country before one judge to handle pretrial matters efficiently. The judge oversees discovery, rules on motions, and may select a small number of cases for early trial. Individual cases remain separate and can be sent back to their home courts later.
April 2025: Claims Allowed to Proceed
In April 2025, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed parents to move forward with claims that more than 600 baby food products contributed to autism or ADHD.[1] This ruling meant the cases survived an early challenge and would proceed to the next stages of litigation. It did not decide whether the allegations are true, only that the parents had stated claims that could go forward under the law.
December 2025: Expert Testimony Hearing
On December 8, 2025, Judge Corley held a multi-day hearing on whether the plaintiffs' experts could testify that heavy metals in baby food can cause autism or ADHD.[2] In complex litigation like this, both sides typically rely on expert witnesses to explain scientific and medical issues to the court. Before experts can testify at trial, the judge must determine whether their methods and conclusions are reliable enough to be admitted as evidence. This hearing was part of that gatekeeping process.
February 2026: Most Experts Excluded
On February 27, 2026, Judge Corley issued a ruling that excluded nearly all of the plaintiffs' general causation experts.[3] General causation refers to whether a substance can cause a disease in the general population, as opposed to whether it caused disease in a specific person. The judge found that no studies had looked at whether eating baby food is associated with autism or ADHD.[3] Only one expert, a neurologist, was allowed to testify.[3]
This type of ruling is often critical in mass tort cases. Without expert testimony linking the product to the injury, plaintiffs may struggle to prove their claims. The exclusion of most experts does not end the litigation, but it significantly narrows the evidence the parents can present.
March 2026: Some Defendants Dismissed
In March 2026, the judge in the baby food MDL ordered dismissal of claims against certain defendants.[4] The record we track does not show which companies were dismissed or the reasons for dismissal.
August 2026: Case Count
As of August 2026, 478 actions were pending in the baby food MDL.[5]
Where the Litigation Stands Now
The MDL remains in pretrial proceedings before Judge Corley in the Northern District of California. The February 2026 ruling excluding most expert testimony represents a significant setback for the plaintiffs, though one expert remains available to testify on general causation.[3] Some defendants have been dismissed from the litigation.[4]
The record we track does not show a trial date, a settlement, or any ruling on the merits of whether baby food caused autism or ADHD in any child. The companies continue to deny the allegations.[1]
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not identify which defendants were dismissed in March 2026 or the legal basis for those dismissals. It does not show whether any bellwether trials have been selected or scheduled. Bellwether trials are early test cases chosen to help both sides evaluate the strength of their claims and defenses.
The record does not show whether plaintiffs have appealed the exclusion of their experts, whether they have sought to add new experts, or whether discovery is complete. It does not show whether settlement negotiations are underway or what the next procedural step will be.
No court has yet ruled on whether heavy metals in baby food actually caused autism or ADHD in any child.
Sources
- U.S. House report (2021) (2021-02-01). Secondary report: consumeraffairs.com
- MDL No. 3101 (N.D. Cal.) (2025-12-08). Secondary report: millerandzois.com
- MDL No. 3101 (N.D. Cal.) (2026-02-27). Secondary report: kslaw.com
- MDL No. 3101 (N.D. Cal.) (2026-03-01). Secondary report: wisnerbaum.com
- MDL No. 3101 (N.D. Cal.) (2026-08-01). Secondary report: wisnerbaum.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-10-24. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.