Abbott Laboratories’ $670 Million NEC Settlement, Does It Cover Your Baby’s Case? — Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 2322-CC01251

Abbott just agreed to pay $670 million to resolve about 2,000 claims that its premature infant formula caused a bowel disease called necrotizing enterocolitis. If your baby was in a NICU, fed a cow’s milk-based formula, and later diagnosed with NEC, you’re probably wondering if you’re one of the 2,000. Short answer: probably not yet — and here’s why that matters.

Abbott NEC Infant Formula Settlement — Key Facts

Detail	Information
Settlement Amount	$670 million
Claims Resolved	Approximately 2,000
Announced	August 20, 2026
Public Claim Form	None exists — this settlement is not open to new claimants
Lead Case	Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 2322-CC01251
Court	22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis)
Underlying Verdict	$495 million (July 2024), upheld on appeal May 2026
Law Firms Involved	Three firms represented the settling plaintiffs; TorHoerman Law is the only one named in public reporting
Remaining Litigation	Roughly 1,700 lawsuits still pending against Abbott and Mead Johnson
Products at Issue	Cow’s milk-based hospital formulas and fortifiers, including Similac Special Care
Settlement Status	Reached; not yet court-approved for all underlying cases
Last Updated	August 28, 2026

Who Is Abbott Laboratories and Why Is It Being Sued Over NEC?

Abbott makes Similac, and a version of it — cow’s milk-based formula and human milk fortifier built specifically for hospital neonatal units — sits at the center of this litigation. Families allege Abbott knew its hospital-use formula raised the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in premature babies and didn’t warn doctors or parents. Abbott denies that, and points to a 2024 National Institutes of Health working group that concluded a shortage of breast milk, not formula exposure, drives most of the elevated NEC risk in preterm infants. We’ve covered a similar dispute over data and causation in the Ozempic vision-loss litigation, where the science is still unsettled and no settlement exists yet.

What Happened in the Abbott NEC Litigation?

The case that forced Abbott’s hand was Margo Gill’s. Her daughter developed NEC after being fed Abbott’s formula in a Missouri NICU, and in July 2024, a St. Louis jury awarded the family $495 million — $95 million in compensatory damages, $400 million in punitive damages. Abbott appealed. A Missouri appeals court upheld the verdict in May 2026, and Abbott says interest on that single case would have pushed its bill to roughly $600 million if it kept fighting.

That math is most of the story here. Rather than pay close to $600 million on one case and keep appealing, Abbott agreed to pay $670 million across three law firms’ entire client rosters — about 2,000 people combined. Abbott has not admitted wrongdoing. The company still faces somewhere between 1,700 pending lawsuits and, by its own count, claims from as many as 12,700 people, though Abbott says that larger number is inflated by duplicate filings and cases that don’t clearly identify which formula brand was used.

So what does that mean for you if your child developed NEC after formula feeding? It means the fight isn’t over — this settlement closed the door for roughly 2,000 people, not for everyone who might have a case.

Are You Part of the Group This Settlement Actually Covers?

Here’s exactly how to know if this settlement touches your situation.

• Families already represented by one of the three law firms in this settlement are covered — check with your attorney directly if you’ve already filed
• Parents whose baby received a cow’s milk-based hospital formula or fortifier, not retail formula bought at a store, fall into the category of product at issue
• A NEC diagnosis tied specifically to formula feeding, documented by medical records, is what the underlying claims require
• People who haven’t filed a lawsuit yet are not part of this $670 million settlement, full stop — there is no claim form waiting for them
• Cases naming both Abbott’s Similac and Mead Johnson’s Enfamil, where the exact product isn’t identified, may face extra scrutiny under Abbott’s own count of the claims

Families Outside Missouri — Are You Still Covered?

This isn’t a state-specific settlement. The underlying lawsuits are pending nationwide — more than 800 in a federal court in Illinois, with others in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Where your baby was treated doesn’t rule you out of the broader litigation. It just determines which court your individual case would eventually sit in.

Not sure if your child’s NEC diagnosis connects to formula exposure in a way that supports a legal claim? A free consultation with a product liability attorney experienced in NEC cases can tell you quickly whether the medical timeline supports one.

Is There Money Available for New Claims Right Now?

No. This is the part worth saying plainly: there’s no settlement fund open to the public, no administrator, and no deadline to file a claim form into this $670 million agreement. The pattern is similar to what we’ve seen in the 3M earplug litigation before its global settlement came together — early settlements resolve specific plaintiffs first, and a broader resolution for everyone else can follow months or years later, if it happens at all.

That doesn’t mean nothing is available to you. It means the path is different. If your baby was diagnosed with NEC after formula feeding, an attorney can file an individual lawsuit on your behalf and add it to the pending litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson. Nobody can promise you what that case would be worth — settlement amounts in cases like this depend on the severity of the injury, the strength of the medical evidence, and how the broader litigation plays out.

What Should Families With a Possible NEC Claim Do Right Now?

1. Gather NICU records showing exactly which formula or fortifier your baby received, and when.
2. Save the NEC diagnosis, surgical records, and any long-term care documentation.
3. Note whether the formula was Similac, Enfamil, or another brand — this affects which company you’d be filing against.
4. Contact a product liability attorney who specifically handles NEC formula litigation, not a general personal injury firm.
5. Ask about filing deadlines in your state — statutes of limitations vary and can run out faster than you’d expect.
6. Watch for updates on this litigation. A broader settlement covering more families is possible as the pending cases move forward.

Abbott NEC Settlement — Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Abbott $670 million NEC settlement legitimate?

 Yes. Abbott confirmed the agreement in an August 20, 2026 statement, and it’s been reported by Reuters, Bloomberg, and Law360, tied directly to the Gill v. Abbott Laboratories verdict.

Can I file a claim to get part of the $670 million?

 No. This settlement covers specific plaintiffs already represented by three law firms. There’s no public claim form or deadline for new claimants.

My baby had NEC after formula feeding — do I still have a case? 

Possibly. The broader litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson is still active, with roughly 1,700 lawsuits pending. An attorney can evaluate whether your medical records support a new individual claim.

Does this settlement mean Abbott admitted its formula causes NEC?

 No. Abbott specifically denied wrongdoing as part of the agreement and continues to say there’s no reliable scientific evidence linking its products to NEC.

What’s the difference between Similac and Enfamil in this litigation?

 Similac is Abbott’s brand. Enfamil is made by Mead Johnson, a Reckitt unit, named in a separate but related set of lawsuits. Some cases name both companies when the exact product used isn’t clear from hospital records.

How much could a new NEC lawsuit against Abbott be worth? 

There’s no fixed number. The Gill verdict topped $495 million before appeal, but individual case values depend heavily on the severity of the child’s injury and the strength of the medical evidence — a product liability attorney can give you a realistic range after reviewing your records.

Sources Used in This Article

• Bloomberg — “Abbott Will Pay $670 Million to End 2,000 Infant Formula Claims,” August 20, 2026: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/abbott-will-pay-670-million-to-end-2-000-infant-formula-claims
• Law360 — “Abbott Inks $670M Deal To End Some Preterm Formula Claims,” August 20, 2026: https://www.law360.com/corporate/articles/2516196/abbott-inks-670m-deal-to-end-some-preterm-formula-claims
• Insurance Journal — “Abbott Agrees to $670 Million Settlement of Infant Formula Cases,” August 21, 2026: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/08/21/882383.htm
• Reuters, via Yahoo Finance — “Abbott to Pay $670 Million to Settle Preterm Formula Lawsuits,” August 20, 2026: https://finance.yahoo.com/healthcare/articles/abbott-pay-670-million-settle-114825106.html
• Courtroom View Network — “Missouri Jury Delivers $495M Verdict In Bellwether Baby Formula Trial,” case number 2322-CC01251, 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri: https://blog.cvn.com/missouri-jury-delivers-495m-verdict-in-bellwether-baby-formula-trial-watch-gavel-to-gavel-via-cvn

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against Reuters, Law360, and court reporting on Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 2322-CC01251, as of August 28, 2026. Last Updated: August 28, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney or your child’s healthcare provider.