Amazon to Face Negligence Claims in Heavy Metals Baby Food Suits

Amazon.com Inc. failed to convince a federal judge to trim negligence claims in consolidated litigation alleging Amazon and Whole Foods sold baby foods with toxic heavy metals.

The consumers plausibly alleged Amazon affirmatively told customers that its product safety team investigates and acts on safety complaints, the US District Court for the Northern District of California said Wednesday.

The suit is part of wide-ranging litigation where consumers have alleged baby food makers and retailers knowingly sold baby food products with levels of heavy metals that can cause developmental disorders in children, like autism spectrum disorder.

Amazon argued the consumers couldn’t allege a negligent undertaking claim because its product safety team doesn’t commit to taking any action in response to customer safety complaints and because it exercised reasonable care by relying on the baby food maker’s safety representations.

A negligent undertaking claim arises when a defendant takes on services that are necessary to protect another person and is responsible for the harm that comes from failing to exercise reasonable care for that undertaking.

The consumers alleged that Amazon tells its customers it not only investigates safety concerns, but also that it monitors products and will add warnings or remove certain products if a concerning situation arises, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said. The consumers also alleged that Amazon contacted a baby food maker after receiving complaints of heavy metals in a product.

Though Amazon argued its representations specify that it “may” take action, the company “ignores other language that is not similarly qualified,” Corley said. The company told customers it “investigates and acts on reported safety complaints,” not that it “may investigate” or “may act,” Corley added.

The consumers’ allegations “permit a plausible inference” that Amazon assumed a responsibility to monitor and investigate the baby food products for potential safety hazards, Corley said.

Corley also rejected Amazon’s argument that the complaint alleged it had the duty to test the baby food products for heavy metals which would violate state law establishing there is no duty to inspect products for defects prior to sale.

Amazon didn’t cite a portion of the complaint that supported that “narrow” reading, Corley said. And here the consumers alleged something different: that Amazon assumed a duty not typically owed by sellers through its product safety team’s actions, she said.

The consumers plausibly alleged a lack of reasonable care by alleging Amazon initiated investigations into Nurture and Hain baby food products based on customer claims about heavy metals, yet permitted the products to stay on the site.

Amazon argued that these allegations still show it relied on manufacturer representations because Nurture made a post about the products’ safety before Amazon’s investigation.

“If Amazon were simply relying on manufacturers’ representations then it would have no need to begin an investigation dated after Nurture’s post on the website,” Corley said.

Corley dismissed claims against Whole Foods because the consumers didn’t allege the grocer received complaints regarding heavy metals in baby food products. She dismissed them without prejudice.

The consumers are represented by Anapol Weiss and Wagstaff Law Firm.

Amazon is represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Whole Foods is represented by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

The case is In re Baby Foods Prods. Liab. Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 3:24-md-03101, 10/1/25.