UPPER MARLBORO, MD – Prince George’s County Public Schools, one of the 20 largest school districts in the country, today filed a lawsuit against social media companies Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap Inc. alleging that their addictive products are exacerbating the youth mental health crisis for its student body. Rising social media use has caused an alarming increase in student mental health challenges and placed a significant burden on the school system to provide adequate and essential mental health resources for its more than 131,000 students.

Prince George’s County joins school districts nationwide in alleging that defendants’ social media products are intentionally designed to target and addict children. The algorithms driving these platforms are designed to manipulate users, especially young people, into falling down “rabbit holes” so that they stay on the apps for as long as possible. The dangerous design of these products is a substantial factor in the increase in disordered eating, depression, and suicidal ideations among teens.

The school district alleges these companies prioritize profit over the safety and well-being of children through their advertising-based business models, despite being aware of the detrimental effects. The defendants promote their platforms – Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok – to children and make huge profits from doing so, leaving schools and parents to deal with the fallout.

Due to the ongoing addiction crisis, the Prince George’s County school system is confronted with the task of providing adequate mental health resources to its students. As a result, funds that should be directed towards vital educational resources have been redirected to combat the harmful effects of social media. Through this lawsuit, the Board aims to bring about much-needed change in how these platforms exploit children and seeks financial support to address this crisis rather than having to use taxpayer funds.

“Our primary goal is to ensure the safety and well-being of our children, allowing them to learn and receive the highest quality education possible,” said Judy Mickens-Murray, the school board Chair. “Unfortunately, students in our district and throughout the nation are confronting unparalleled mental health and learning challenges caused by their addiction to social media, intensified by detrimental algorithms and features. It is imperative that these companies take responsibility for their role in this crisis affecting our youth.”

The Prince George’s County Public Schools are represented in the lawsuit by Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Federico & Cardea of Baltimore and Delaware, Shadoan, Michael & Wells of Prince George’s County and Montgomery County, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Co-Lead Counsel in the nationwide Multi-District Litigation against these companies. The firms work on a contingency basis, meaning there will be no cost to taxpayers.

“School systems nationwide, including Prince George’s County, face the challenge of meeting student needs while delivering exceptional education and fostering a positive learning atmosphere,” said Dennis Whitley, III, an attorney representing the school board. “Through this lawsuit, it is our hope to hold social media companies responsible for their role in the youth mental health crisis and to compensate Prince George’s County School District for the financial burden they have faced because of these defendants’ exploitative platforms.”

For more information, please contact Erica DeStefano at erica (at) rebuttalpr.com.

Foreward (from the study presentation):

“As societies, we are failing to protect our children from the marketing of products that undermine their health and development. One of the most egregious examples of this is the aggressive promotion of commercial milk formula for babies and young children.

“As detailed in this report, formula milk marketing – powered by enormous budgets and the deliberate misuse of science – is driving over-consumption of formula milk and discouraging breastfeeding. It is also undermining women’s confidence and cynically exploiting parents’ instinct to do the best for their children.

“The consequences for children and families are significant. Consumption of milk formula can adversely affect children’s health, growth and development. It also incurs significant costs for families who can ill afford it.

“Let us be clear: breastfeeding is the best possible source of nutrition for babies. Decades of research continue to reveal its incredible properties for growth, preventing infections, bonding, and brain development. Breastfeeding also supports the health of mothers.

“Formula milk has its place for women and parents who are not able or do not want to breastfeed, often the result of other factors – such as employment – that are not supportive of breastfeeding.

“The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is a landmark public health agreement passed by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Yet exploitative marketing practices continue in defiance of the Code. Digital media have been used to further amplify the reach and impact of marketing of formula milk. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, companies continue to prey on parents’ fears to increase sales of milk formula.

“This report clearly lays out the issues at stake and points to the actions needed to protect children and families, from robust domestic legislation, to responding to digital marketing practices, to highlighting the need for broader investments in breastfeeding.

“We owe it to our children to ensure that women and families are protected from unethical marketing practices and are equipped with accurate information and support.”

Read the full report here.

Abbott Laboratories has expanded its nationwide emergency recall of three infant powdered milk products after a second infant has died after using the formula. Originally recalled on February 18, 2022, the formula variations were all produced at Abbott’s manufacturing facility in Sturgis, Michigan, where at least one form of lethal bacteria has been found. The Cronobacter sakazakii is known to cause severe blood infections as well as meningitis.

It was previously reported that plant inspectors had uncovered potential manufacturing problems as well as past records showing the destruction of produced formula due to bacterial contamination. Lieff Cabraser is actively investigating these and other reports of infant injuries and deaths allegedly related to contaminated Similac and other Abbott Labs infant formulas. Learn more on our formal Similac Alimentum, EleCare recall and serious infant injury investigation page.

Since September 16, 2021, reports indicate four infants in Minnesota, Ohio and Texas contracted a Cronobacter infection after consuming baby formula including Similac Sensitive, Similac Pro-total Comfort, Similac Advance and Similac PM 60/40.  One Salmonella Newport infection has also been reported in connection with the outbreak. All five children were hospitalized as a result, and the two infants in Ohio have died.

Read the full news report online on the Daily Mail website.

On February 18, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an urgent recall and warning relating to Abbott Nutrition Sturgis infant formula products Similac, Alimentum, and Elecare. The alarm arose in the wake of reports of multiple infant injuries and at least one death understood to be related to the use of Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare. The recall relates to batches of Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare with expiration dates of April 1, 2022 or later.

All three formulas are Abbott Nutrition Sturgis products made in a single factory in Michigan, but the product was distributed throughout the U.S. and overseas.

Parents can identify the recalled products by examining the number on the bottom of each container; the affected formulas have a number starting with 22 through 37, contain K8, SH or Z2, and have the aforementioned expiration dates of April 1, 2022 or later. Parents can type in the code on the bottom of the package at similacrecall.com or call 800 986-8540.

Plant inspectors uncovered potential manufacturing problems as well as past records showing the destruction of produced formula due to bacterial contamination.

If your infant has shown any signs of sickness or injury that you believe may be related to the Similac, Alimentum, or EleCare forumlas, you are welcome to use the form on this page to contact an infant injury lawyer at Lieff Cabraser for a full explanation of your rights and recovery options. You can also visit Lieff Cabraser’s Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare recall information page for further details and additional information about the infant formula dangers, risks, and options available to parents for further action.

About Our Infant and Child Injury Recoveries for Parents

Lieff Cabraser has been a leader in injury litigation, including significant work seeking to ensure the safety of infant and child nutrition and care products, for 50 years. We are among the largest firms in the United States that represent only plaintiffs. In addition to our injury lawyers, we employ multiple registered nurses, legal assistants, investigators, and litigation support specialists. Considerable personnel resources, along with our ability to advance litigation costs in our clients’ cases, enable Lieff Cabraser to litigate against the largest and most powerful corporations in the world.

Relationships With Our Clients Are Paramount

Our successful litigation of child injury cases begins with establishing a close, personal relationship with each family we represent. We work closely with our client families throughout the litigation process to maximize and expedite their recoveries. Each family is assigned an attorney who is responsible for prosecuting the case and regularly communicating with the family. At the same time, our attorneys work as an unparalleled team, drawing upon their combined knowledge, training, and skills to provide families with decades of litigation expertise and the most heartfelt and committed legal care possible.

February 15, 2022, San Francisco—(BUSINESSWIRE)—Lieff Cabraser and the Legal Offices of James J. Lee announce the filing of a federal injury lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories on behalf of Darius Medley and ChaKoya Robinson, the parents of minor son KM, who has spent the majority of his almost four years of life fighting Necrotizing Enterocolitis (“NEC”), a horrific disease allegedly caused by Abbott Laboratories’ cow-based infant formula and/or fortifier Similac Neosure. NEC is a potentially fatal disease that largely affects low birth weight babies who are fed cow-based formula or products. KM, a premature-born, low birth weight baby, was fed Similac Neosure and developed NEC shortly thereafter.

“The tragedy of a human life being permanently disrupted here is palpable and devastating,” stated Lieff Cabraser partner Wendy R. Fleishman, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “That any child should suffer lifelong injuries as a result of aggressive marketing of a dangerous product premature infants should never have been given in the first place is heartbreaking.”

Plaintiffs Darius Medley and ChaKoya Robinson bring the civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Defendant Abbott Laboratories, Inc. for claims arising from what the Complaint alleges was Abbott’s negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promotion, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the product known as Similac Neosure, conduct which led to life-threatening ongoing injuries suffered by Plaintiffs’ son KM.

Baby KM was born prematurely at 23 weeks and 5 days on July 6, 2018, at Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. He weighed 1 pound, 1 ounce and was therefore by definition a low birth weight infant. Baby KM developed NEC within days of being fed Abbott Laboratories’ Similac Neosure while he was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Sunrise Hospital. As noted in the Complaint, science and research have confirmed strong links between cow-based infant formula like Neosure and NEC in premature infants.

The Complaint notes that, notwithstanding strong medical evidence establishing the serious danger that cow-based formula poses for premature infants, Abbott marketed its cow-based products as an equally safe alternative to breast milk, and indeed, has promoted its products as necessary for additional nutrition and growth. Abbott has specifically marketed its formula and fortifier as necessary to the growth and development of premature infants, when in fact its products pose a known and substantial risk to these babies.

In addition, the Complaint reveals that Abbott has attempted to “hook” moms on formula by offering free formula and other free items in baskets given to mothers in hospital and medical clinics with a goal of fomenting brand loyalty, and with creating the appearance of “medical blessing” so that parents continue to use Neosure formula to feed their babies after they leave the NICU, at great expense to the parents and substantial profit to Abbott. One study estimated that formula manufacturers spent $4.48 billion on marketing and promotion in 2014 alone. Another study noted that exposure to infant feeding information through media advertising has a negative effect on breastfeeding initiation, and that exposure to infant feeding information from the media during pregnancy is associated with feeding decisions postpartum. The Complaint notes that upon information and belief, Abbott specifically targets parents of premature infants via its marketing.

“Abbott’s conduct here is nothing short of reprehensible,” notes Lieff Cabraser partner Fabrice Vincent, who also represents the plaintiffs in the action. “In addition to securing justice for Baby KM, Abbott Laboratories must get a strong and unmistakable message that its conduct in the aggressive and inappropriate marketing of Neosure to premature infants must stop.”

The Complaint details that Abbott’s practice of trying to get parents to choose formula over breast milk goes back decades, during which time the company has promoted its formula as healthier, necessary for adequate nutrition, and the choice for the modern, sophisticated mother. Their advertising has even at times attempted to portray breastfeeding as an inferior and less sophisticated choice, against substantial medical evidence.

Following his birth, Baby KM was fed Similar Neosure. As a result, the complaint alleges that Baby KM suffered life-threatening NEC that required surgeries. The NEC has caused him to suffer failure to thrive, severe and ongoing developmental delays, difficult bowel movements, constipation and significant suffering to this day. Baby KM’s parents had no knowledge that Similac Neosure would increase the risk of their baby developing NEC; indeed, Abbott promotes Similac Neosure on its website and other mediums as a safe product, and one specifically needed by premature babies for adequate growth. As the Complaint observes, although Abbott engages in an aggressive marketing campaign designed to make parents believe that Neosure is safe and necessary for growth of a premature infant, the product is in fact highly dangerous to premature infants, and that Neosure substantially increases the chances of a premature infant both developing NEC and of dying.

The Complaint states claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence product liability, strict liability-products liability, as well as violations of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and seeks monetary and punitive damages.

Source/Contact

Fabrice N. Vincent
fvincent@lchb.com

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

According to multiple reports, Graco has known–since at least 2002–that its TurboBooster and Affix booster seats are not suitable for children under forty pounds and four years of age, nor do they appreciably reduce the risk of serious injury or death from side-impacts or collisions. Nevertheless, as alleged in the original complaint, Graco aggressively markets its Affix and TurboBooster seats as “safe,” claiming they provide extra protection to children because they are “Graco ProtectPlus Engineered to help protect your children in frontal, side, rear & rollover crashes.” The complaint further alleges that Graco knew, even while it was making representations to consumers about the professed safety of its booster seats, that the seats were not safe, should not be used by children under forty pounds, and provided little to no side-impact protection.

Learn more about the Graco Child Car Seat Fraudulent Marketing & Injuries Litigation.

According to multiple reports, Evenflo has known since at least 2012 that its Big Kid Booster Seat is not suitable for children under forty pounds and four years of age, nor does the booster seat appreciably reduce the risk of serious injury or death from side-impacts or collisions. Nevertheless, Evenflo aggressively markets the Big Kid Booster as “the best way to minimize injuries to your child” and claims that it will “greatly reduce the risk of serious injury to your child in a crash.” As alleged in the complaint, Evenflo knew, even while it was making representations to consumers about the professed safety of its Big Kid Booster, that the seats were not safe, should not be used by children under forty pounds, and provided little to no side-impact protection.

“I am honored to be chosen to co-lead this important litigation,” noted Chalos. “Keeping children safe should be a top priority of any corporation in America, especially those corporations designing and marketing children’s booster seats.”

Learn more about the Evenflo child car seat fraudulent marketing litigation.

Earlier this year, Lieff Cabraser filed a lawsuit on behalf of parents who purchased Evenflo’s Big Kid Booster car seats alleging the company knew the seats were unsafe for smaller children yet aggressively marketed them across multiple child ages and sizes regardless. The complaint reports that Evenflo has known since 2012 or earlier that its Big Kid Booster Seat is not safe for children weighing less than forty pounds, and does not appreciably reduce the risk of serious injury or death from side-impacts or collisions. NBC-TV Nashville featured a report on the new lawsuit, including an interview with Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P. Chalos, lead attorney on the case.

The class action accuses Evenflo of aggressive and improper marketing of these unsafe booster seats, including allegations that Evenflo knew, even while it was making representations to consumers about the professed safety of its Big Kid Booster, that the seats were not safe, should not be used by children under forty pounds, and provided little to no side-impact protection.

A similarly disturbing fact pattern is emerging relating to Graco TurboBooster and Affix child booster seats. Parents who purchased these booster seats for their under-40-pound children claim Graco perpetrated a potentially lethal fraud in concealing information that the seats in question are unsafe for smaller kids.

Contact a Consumer Fraud & Injury Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you are a parent of small children using a Graco TurboBooster or Affix booster seat, contact a fraud and injury lawyer at  Lieff Cabraser today for detailed information on the allegations, your rights as a consumer/parent, and potential recovery via a class action lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit accuses Evenflo of aggressive and improper marketing of these unsafe booster seats, including allegations that Evenflo knew, even while it was making representations to consumers about the professed safety of its Big Kid Booster, that the seats were not safe, should not be used by children under forty pounds, and provided little to no side-impact protection.

Watch the video report below.

Contact an Evenflo Big Kid Booster Fraud Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you purchased an Evenflo Big Kid Booster car seat at any time, we urge you to contact us today using the form on this page for a free, no-obligation consultation about your experience and potential claims.