Perrigo $10 Million Baby Formula Settlement, Who May Be Covered, Claim Status and What Happens Next

Perrigo Company plc has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a proposed nationwide class action by shoppers who allege Perrigo and Gerber Products Company made an anticompetitive agreement that kept store-brand infant formula prices high. The settlement was presented in a motion filed in federal court in Brooklyn on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, and reported October 14. It needs the judge’s approval. Reports say it would cover purchasers of store-brand infant formula manufactured or sold by Perrigo since April 2020, and plaintiffs’ lawyers estimate millions of class members.

Right now there is no claim form, settlement website or deadline. The case is Conry et al. v. Gerber Products Company et al., No. 1:24-cv-06784 (E.D.N.Y.). Gerber, which denies wrongdoing, is not part of this settlement and remains a defendant. Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/1%3A2024cv06784/521331

Independent publisher notice: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information website. We are not a law firm, we do not represent Perrigo, Gerber or any class member, and we do not administer claims. Allegations are not findings of liability. Beware of websites claiming to take claims now.

Quick Facts: Perrigo Infant Formula Settlement

Item	Details
Official case docket	https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/1%3A2024cv06784/521331 (U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.)
Claim form / settlement website	None yet. Wait for court-approved notice
Reported settlement amount	$10,000,000
Case	Thomas Conry et al. v. Gerber Products Company et al., No. 1:24-cv-06784-NG-AYS
Court	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
Defendants	Perrigo Company plc, L. Perrigo Company, PBM Nutritionals LLC and Gerber Products Company
Settling defendant	Perrigo only. Gerber is not part of this settlement
Proposed class period	Purchases beginning April 2020 (April 22, 2020 in the complaint)
Products	Store-brand infant formula manufactured or sold by Perrigo, bought for personal use, not national brands
Other terms reported	Perrigo to cooperate in the case against Gerber (witnesses and transaction data) and, for three years, avoid agreements that limit store-brand formula competition without a legitimate business reason
Admission of liability	None. Perrigo denies wrongdoing
Status	Needs court approval. Class certification not yet granted in the sources reviewed
Related case	A competitor suit, P&L Development v. Gerber et al., which Perrigo has also agreed in principle to settle

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint alleges that P&L Development, LLC, a would-be competitor, reached an agreement with Gerber to get excess infant formula to sell as a rival store brand, and that Gerber backed out because of an agreement with Perrigo giving Perrigo first right of refusal on Gerber’s excess supply. Plaintiffs also allege Perrigo’s 2022 acquisition of Gerber’s Good Start rights and the Gateway formula manufacturing facility in Wisconsin entrenched its position. They say shoppers paid more as a result. Perrigo’s SEC filings describe the same allegations, including that the Gateway acquisition was anticompetitive.

Perrigo and Gerber deny wrongdoing. A judge in the case previously denied the companies’ effort to dismiss it, but there has been no trial or finding that they violated the law.

Who May Be Covered?

The class definition is not final until the court approves it. The complaint and reports point to:

• People in the U.S. who indirectly purchased (for example, at a store) store-brand infant formula manufactured or sold by Perrigo, for personal use and not resale.
• Purchases starting in April 2020.
• Retailers named in the complaint include Walmart, Kroger, CVS, Target, Meijer, Rite Aid, Costco and Walgreens, but buying at those stores alone does not prove the formula was a Perrigo product.

Not covered: national brands such as Similac or Enfamil, and formula made by other manufacturers, unless the final settlement says otherwise. Retain receipts, loyalty-card or online order histories and photos of packaging, which may help if proof is requested.

How Much Could Consumers Get?

Nothing is verified. A $10 million total is not a per-person amount. The net available to class members depends on the number of claims, court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, notice and administration expenses, and any service awards. With millions of potential class members, individual payments may be small, and some settlements pay only a set amount per claimant or distribute on a pro rata basis. No reliable individual estimate exists.

What Happens Next

1. Preliminary approval. The court reviews whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether to send notice.
2. Notice and claims. If approved, a settlement administrator and website will give the class definition, how to file a claim, deadlines and rights to opt out or object.
3. Final approval hearing. The judge considers objections and decides whether to approve the settlement, fees and distribution.
4. Payment. Distributions come after final approval and any appeals.
5. Gerber case continues. Fact discovery is closed, expert discovery is ongoing, and class certification and summary judgment have yet to be briefed, according to Perrigo’s latest SEC report.

Laws Behind the Case

Sherman Act § 1 (15 U.S.C. § 1). Prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. The core claim is an alleged agreement between Perrigo and Gerber limiting a competitor’s access to formula.

Sherman Act § 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2). Prohibits monopolization and conspiracies to monopolize. The complaint alleges Perrigo maintained monopoly power in store-brand formula. Being a large supplier alone is not illegal.

Clayton Act § 7 (15 U.S.C. § 18). Bars acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition. Plaintiffs’ allegations about the Gateway facility acquisition fit this theory.

Clayton Act § 16 (15 U.S.C. § 26). Lets private plaintiffs seek injunctions against threatened antitrust harm, the basis for the nationwide injunctive class.

Clayton Act § 4 (15 U.S.C. § 15) and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977). Treble damages are generally limited to direct purchasers under federal law. Because shoppers buy from retailers (indirect purchasers), their damages claims rest on state “Illinois Brick repealer” laws and state consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment laws, confirmed as permissible in California v. ARC America Corp. (1989). That is why the damages class covers specific states and territories.

Statute of limitations: 15 U.S.C. § 15b. Federal antitrust claims generally must be filed within four years, and class-action filing can pause the clock for putative class members (American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 1974). The April 2020 start of the class period tracks this four-year lookback from the April 2024 filing.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23(a) and (b) govern certification, 23(c)(2) notice, 23(e) settlement approval (fair, reasonable and adequate, with factors including adequacy of relief and equal treatment of class members), 23(e)(5) objections and 23(h) attorneys’ fees.

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. Requires notice of a proposed class settlement to the U.S. Attorney General and state officials, and generally bars final approval until 90 days after that notice.

Joint liability and settlement credits. In antitrust cases a remaining defendant can face liability for the full damages, generally with a credit for amounts paid by settling defendants. That is why cooperation terms, such as witnesses and data, can matter for the case against Gerber.

Can You Opt Out or Object?

Not yet. Opt-out and objection rights, if the class is certified for settlement, will be explained in the court-approved notice. Do not rely on any deadline from a website that is not tied to a court order. Class members who do nothing may be bound by the settlement and give up the right to sue Perrigo separately over the covered claims.

Are Settlement Payments Taxable?

Reimbursement of overcharges on personal-use purchases is generally not treated as income for most consumers, but tax treatment depends on your facts. Consult a tax professional if you have questions.

Key Dates

Date	Event
April 22, 2024	Consumer suit first filed (E.D. Va.)
June 20, 2024	First amended complaint defines proposed classes
September 2024	Case transferred to E.D.N.Y. (No. 1:24-cv-06784)
February 2025	Interim co-lead counsel appointed
Quarter ended June 27, 2026	Perrigo reports agreement in principle to settle
October 13, 2026	Settlement motion filed in federal court in Brooklyn
October 14, 2026	$10 million settlement reported
To be determined	Preliminary approval ruling, notice, claim deadline and final approval hearing

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I file a claim now? 

No. There is no claim form or settlement website yet. Wait for court-approved notice.

How much is the settlement?

 $10 million, according to the filing as reported, subject to court approval.

Who could be covered?

 Shoppers who bought store-brand infant formula manufactured or sold by Perrigo for personal use starting in April 2020, subject to the final class definition.

Does it cover Similac, Enfamil or Gerber formula? 

No. The case concerns Perrigo store-brand formula. Gerber is a defendant but is not part of this settlement.

Did Perrigo admit wrongdoing?

 No. Perrigo denies wrongdoing.

Will I need receipts?

 Unknown. Keep any receipts or order histories in case proof is required.

Related Coverage on AllAboutLawyer.com

• Firefly L.O.L. Surprise! Fluoride Rinse Lawsuit: What Parents Need to Know About Claims and Eligibility 2026

Sources

1. Law360, “Perrigo To Pay $10M To End Consumer Gerber Antitrust Suit” (October 14, 2026): https://www.law360.com/foodbeverage/articles/2537714
2. Reuters-based report, “Perrigo to pay $10 million to settle US class action over baby formula prices” (October 14, 2026): https://rallies.ai/news/perrigo-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-us-class-action-over-baby-formula-prices-d5fbd0f19210ec50
3. Perrigo Company plc, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2026, “PLD & Conry Litigation”: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1585364/000158536426000145/prgo-20260627.htm
4. U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y., Conry et al. v. Gerber Products Company et al., No. 1:24-cv-06784-NG-AYS, docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/1%3A2024cv06784/521331
5. First Amended Class Action Complaint (filed June 20, 2024): https://pogustgoodhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/store-brand-infant-formula.pdf
6. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 15, 15b, 18, 26; 28 U.S.C. § 1715; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
7. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989); American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974)

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Allegations in the complaint have not been proven, and the settlement terms are subject to court approval.