Timeline and Current Status
This page tracks the procedural history of the coordinated federal litigation alleging that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, caused autism or ADHD in children. The lawsuits have not yet gone to trial, and no court has ruled on whether the allegations are true. What follows is a chronological account of the major procedural steps in the record.
October 2022: Federal Cases Consolidated
On October 5, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined federal lawsuits alleging prenatal acetaminophen use caused autism or ADHD into a single coordinated proceeding. The new proceeding was designated MDL No. 3043 and assigned to Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York.[1]
A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a procedural tool used when many similar cases are filed in different federal courts. The cases are transferred to one judge for pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motions. The goal is efficiency: one judge resolves common questions of law and fact rather than having dozens of judges address the same issues separately.
December 2023: Trial Judge Excludes General Causation Experts
On December 18, 2023, Judge Cote excluded all of the plaintiffs' general causation experts.[2] General causation refers to whether a substance can cause a disease in humans at all, as opposed to whether it caused disease in a particular person. Expert testimony on causation is typically essential in cases alleging that a product caused injury, because the question is scientific and beyond the common knowledge of jurors.
The exclusion of all general causation experts effectively ended the federal cases at the trial court level. Without admissible expert testimony that acetaminophen can cause autism or ADHD, plaintiffs could not prove their claims.[2]
July 2024: Last ADHD Expert Rejected and Appeals Filed
In July 2024, Judge Cote rejected the plaintiffs' last ADHD expert. The plaintiffs then filed appeals.[1] The record we track does not show the exact date of this ruling.
November 2025: Oral Argument Before the Second Circuit
On November 18, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals. The case name on the docket was Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., No. 24-916.[3]
An appeal in federal court is heard by a panel of three judges from the circuit court of appeals. The panel reviews the trial judge's decision for legal error. At oral argument, lawyers for each side present their positions and answer questions from the judges.
July 2026: Second Circuit Revives the Cases
On July 13, 2026, the Second Circuit issued a ruling that revived more than 500 lawsuits against Tylenol maker Kenvue. The court ruled that the trial judge improperly excluded testimony from three of the plaintiffs' experts.[4]
The Second Circuit stated that it was not deciding whether acetaminophen causes autism or ADHD. The appeals court was reviewing only whether the trial judge applied the correct legal standard when deciding to exclude the expert testimony.[4]
Kenvue stated in response that independent science shows no proven link between acetaminophen and autism or ADHD.[4]
August 2026: Defendants Seek Rehearing
In August 2026, Kenvue and the retailer defendants asked the full Second Circuit to rehear the case. Because of that petition, the July 2026 ruling was not yet final.[5] The record we track does not show the exact date of the rehearing petition.
After a three-judge panel issues a decision, a party may ask the entire circuit court to rehear the case en banc, meaning before all active judges on that circuit. Rehearing en banc is granted rarely, typically only when the panel decision conflicts with prior precedent or involves a question of exceptional importance. While a rehearing petition is pending, the panel's decision does not take effect.
Where Things Stand Now
As of the most recent entry in the record we track, the defendants' petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the full Second Circuit. The July 2026 ruling that revived the cases is not yet final.[5]
No settlement exists.[5] The record we track does not show a trial date, a remand order sending cases back to the trial court, or any further briefing schedule.
What the Record Does Not Show
The allegations in these lawsuits have not been proven or disproven in court. No trial has taken place. No jury has heard evidence or returned a verdict. The only rulings to date have addressed whether expert testimony should be admitted, not whether acetaminophen actually causes autism or ADHD.
The record we track does not show whether the Second Circuit will grant rehearing, when it might rule on the rehearing petition, or what will happen to the cases if the July 2026 decision becomes final. If that decision stands, the cases would return to the trial court for further proceedings, but no schedule for those proceedings has been set.
The record we track does not show the number of cases filed in state courts, the status of any state court cases, or whether any individual case has settled privately.
Sources
- In re Acetaminophen ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3043 (S.D.N.Y.) (2022-10-05). Secondary report: tavrn.ai
- MDL No. 3043 (S.D.N.Y.) (2023-12-18). Secondary report: tavrn.ai
- Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., No. 24-916 (2d Cir.) (2025-11-18). Secondary report: napolilaw.com
- Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., Nos. 24-916 et al. (2d Cir.) (2026-07-13). Secondary report: molawyersmedia.com
- Rutledge v. Walgreen Co. (2d Cir.) (2026-08-03). Secondary report: openclassactions.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.