Baby Food Lawsuit Ruling Ends Autism and ADHD Claims in MDL 3101

Quick Facts

• Case: In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3101
• Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
• Judge: U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
• Ruling: October 14, 2026 - partial summary judgment for the baby food makers on autism and ADHD claims
• What survives: Claims over other alleged harms, such as IQ loss and learning disabilities, for now
• Not covered: Claims involving infant formula
• Pending cases: 497 (JPML report, October 1, 2026)
• Settlement: None - no claim form

A federal judge has ended the autism and ADHD claims at the center of the baby food heavy metals litigation. On October 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted partial summary judgment to the baby food makers in MDL No. 3101, finding that the parents suing them had no admissible evidence that the products can cause either condition. "Plaintiffs have presented no admissible evidence supporting the general causation element of their claims," Corley wrote. "That is the end of it."

The ruling doesn't end the litigation entirely. Claims over other alleged harms, such as IQ loss and learning disabilities, continue for now, and the ruling doesn't apply to claims involving infant formula.

What the Lawsuits Allege

The cases are consolidated as In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation before Judge Corley in the Northern District of California. As of October 1, 2026, 497 cases were pending in the MDL, according to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Parents allege that the companies "knowingly sold baby food products contaminated with lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum," and that eating those products contributed to their children's autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They cite a 2021 congressional report that said "commercial baby foods are tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals." Defendants include Gerber, Nestle, Beech-Nut, Walmart and Whole Foods, along with other companies.

The companies say their products are safe, that heavy metals occur naturally in soil and water, and that there's no evidence linking such low levels of metals to autism or ADHD.

Why the Judge Ruled for the Companies

The October ruling turned on general causation - whether the products can cause autism or ADHD at all. To get past summary judgment, plaintiffs needed admissible evidence on that question. Corley found they didn't have it after general discovery.

That gap traces back to an earlier ruling. On February 27, 2026, Corley excluded the plaintiffs' exposure and causation experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding they hadn't offered admissible opinions linking baby food to ASD or ADHD. "There are no studies considering whether consumption of baby food is associated with ASD or ADHD," she wrote at the time, according to defense firm King & Spalding, which represents Beech-Nut and Walmart.

What Claims Are Still Alive

Because general discovery focused on autism and ADHD, claims over other alleged injuries, such as IQ loss and learning disabilities, survive for now. The summary judgment ruling also doesn't apply to claims involving infant formula consumption.

Those remaining claims haven't been decided on the merits, and no further court dates were reported alongside the ruling.

Is There a Settlement?

No. There's no settlement in MDL 3101 and no claim form. Cases in the MDL are brought by individual families through their attorneys, not through a claims process.

Families whose children have other alleged injuries, or who have questions about how this ruling affects a pending case, may want to speak with an attorney about their options. Deadlines to bring claims vary by state.

Key Dates

• February 27, 2026: Judge Corley excludes plaintiffs' exposure and causation experts
• October 1, 2026: 497 cases pending in MDL 3101
• October 14, 2026: Partial summary judgment for defendants on autism and ADHD claims