A federal appeals court on July 13 revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Tylenol maker Kenvue over the painkiller’s alleged link to autism.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a district court judge improperly excluded testimony from expert witnesses offered by parents and guardians who tied Tylenol use during pregnancy to autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children.
There is no firm scientific evidence of such a link. The issue drew greater attention after President Donald Trump and top U.S. health officials in September suggested a link to autism.
Kenvue did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Its shares traded down 10 cents at $19.38 in morning trading.
Monday’s decision followed Kenvue’s agreement last November to be acquired by Kleenex tissue maker Kimberly-Clark for more than $40 billion.
Doctors and medical societies consider acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, the preferred means to treat pain and fever during pregnancy, and Kenvue has long maintained that Tylenol is safe.
Kenvue, based in Summit, New Jersey, was spun off in 2023 by Johnson & Johnson, which made Tylenol for more than 60 years and also defended its safety.
The private lawsuits were dismissed in December 2024 by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, who criticized the methodology of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, who included Harvard School of Public Health Dean Andrea Baccarelli.
Experts often play a key role in product liability lawsuits such as the Tylenol cases.
Topics Lawsuits
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Facts Only
* A federal appeals court on July 13 revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Tylenol maker Kenvue.
* The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that a district court judge improperly excluded testimony from expert witnesses offered by parents and guardians linking Tylenol use during pregnancy to autism and ADHD in children.
* There is no firm scientific evidence supporting the link between Tylenol and autism.
* President Donald Trump and top U.S. health officials suggested a link to autism in September.
* Doctors and medical societies consider acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, safe for pain and fever during pregnancy.
* Kenvue was spun off from Johnson & Johnson in 2023.
* The private lawsuits were dismissed in December 2024 by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who criticized the methodology of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including Andrea Baccarelli.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The situation reveals a tension between evolving public concern, legal process, and established institutional safety assurances regarding widely used pharmaceuticals. The core pattern involves private litigation challenging established safety narratives through the use of expert testimony, especially when public discourse introduces new, unproven correlations. The fact that an appeals court revisited the exclusion of expert testimony suggests that the procedural handling of scientific evidence in product liability cases is a critical battleground. The lack of firm scientific evidence regarding the autism link contrasts sharply with the high-stakes litigation and political commentary surrounding it, highlighting a gap between public perception/political suggestion and established medical consensus. Furthermore, Kenvue's history, including long-standing defense from J&J and physician support for acetaminophen safety, establishes an institutional position that is being challenged by external legal action. This process invites scrutiny into how expert testimony is weighted in claims lacking definitive scientific proof, forcing an examination of where the burden of scientific evidence resides when connecting long-term product use to complex health outcomes.
Bridge Questions: If expert testimony is crucial in these cases, what specific standards should courts employ to evaluate correlational data against established medical consensus? How does the legal system balance private claims based on anecdotal experience against broad public health understandings regarding pharmaceutical safety? What are the implications for regulating scientific communication when public figures introduce unverified correlations into high-stakes litigation?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a factual summary of a legal development involving a major corporation, characterized by reporting verifiable details rather than speculative argument.