Congress targets infant formula deception—but protects families' right to sue
H.R. 9969 — Baby Brent’s Bill · Filed by Chris Pappas (D-NH) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 27, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether manufacturers of preterm infant formula are using unfair or deceptive advertising—specifically, whether they are hiding information about health risks or downplaying the benefits of human milk-based fortifiers compared to bovine (cow's milk) fortifiers. Based on the investigation, the FTC must issue regulations within 18 months prohibiting such deceptive practices. The bill is motivated by concerns about necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious intestinal disease that kills one preterm infant per day, and aims to ensure parents have full information to protect their infants' health and preserve their right to sue if harm occurs.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a consumer-protection investigation and rulemaking by the FTC to prevent deceptive marketing of a medical product for vulnerable infants. It is not a subsidy, carve-out, or immunity grant—it is a regulatory enforcement tool aimed at transparency and accountability.
What the text implies
- The bill's 'Sense of Congress' section (Section 2) explicitly states that 'no manufacturer of preterm infant formula or related products should be permitted to limit, evade, or otherwise diminish the ability of families to pursue legal recourse.' This language may be interpreted as a directive to the FTC to scrutinize or prohibit arbitration clauses, liability waivers, and class-action bans in pro
- The bill requires the FTC to consider 'differences, including with respect to benefits and drawbacks, between consuming human breast milk and human milk-based fortifiers and consuming bovine-based fortifiers.' This directive may obligate manufacturers to affirmatively disclose comparative safety data, shifting the burden of proof and potentially requiring disclosure of unpublished or proprietary r
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
Manufacturers of human milk-based fortifiers; Plaintiffs' personal-injury law firms (expanded litigation opportunity); Hospitals and NICUs (potential liability reduction if safer products are adopted)