Published
June 6, 2025
Updated
July 29, 2026
This settlement resolves claims that Gerber marketed its Good Start Gentle infant formula as able to reduce a baby's risk of developing allergies, a representation plaintiffs alleged was misleading and unsupported. It covered people who bought the formula in Florida or New York between October 2011 and April 2016, and the claim window closed in August 2025.
Current Status
Claims are closed. The deadline to submit a claim form was August 25, 2025, and new claims are no longer accepted. The court held the final approval hearing on September 9, 2025, and the docket in Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co. shows a memorandum and order entered on September 29, 2025 taking up final approval of the settlement together with class counsel's fee and expense request. As of July 29, 2026, OCA could not independently confirm the terms of that order, and no payment date had been located in public sources — a hearing being held is not itself an approval order. Anyone who filed a claim should rely on the official settlement website and on any notice tied to their own claim.StatusClaims Closed — Final Approval Not ConfirmedHearing held September 9, 2025; the terms of the September 29, 2025 order were not confirmed as of July 29, 2026.
Claim DeadlineAugust 25, 2025New claims are not accepted.
PaymentUp to $60 (FL) · $80 (NY)$3 per unit in Florida and $4 per unit in New York — 5 units without proof, up to 20 units with proof.
Proof RequiredYesA Notice ID and Confirmation Code were needed to file online; receipts applied only to the enhanced tier.
What Was the Case About?
Plaintiffs alleged that Gerber Products Company marketed, advertised and labeled Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula in a way that told parents the product could reduce an infant's risk of developing allergies, including atopic dermatitis, and that the packaging suggested a federal endorsement of that claim. The complaints alleged those representations were misleading and were not supported by the scientific evidence Gerber relied on.Gerber denies all of the allegations and claims asserted against it, denies that it made any misleading statements, and did not admit liability, fault or any violation of law in agreeing to the settlement. The court did not decide the merits in favor of either side; the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial.
The advertising at issue also drew federal attention years earlier. The Federal Trade Commission brought its own case against Gerber over the allergy-reduction claims, and in July 2019 the agency approved a stipulated order resolving those charges. That FTC matter is separate from this class action and did not itself pay class members.
Who Was Covered?
The settlement classes covered people who purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula in Florida or in New York during the class period of October 10, 2011 through April 23, 2016. Purchases had to be for personal or household use rather than for resale.Formula obtained through the WIC program or through Food Stamps was excluded, as were purchases made for resale. The Florida and New York classes were treated separately, and the per-unit payment rate differed between them.
How Much Could Claimants Get?
Payments were calculated per unit of formula purchased rather than as a share of a single common fund. Class members who claimed without documentary proof of purchase could receive $3.00 per unit for purchases in Florida and $4.00 per unit for purchases in New York, for up to five units.Class members who could supply documentary proof could instead claim an enhanced payment at the same per-unit rates for up to 20 units, which put the maximum at $60.00 for the Florida class and $80.00 for the New York class.
Reporting on the settlement agreement also describes aggregate limits on the number of units eligible for reimbursement — 5,610,628 units for the Florida class and 663,586 units for the New York class — so per-claimant amounts could be affected if approved claims exceeded those totals. Separately, Gerber agreed to pay up to $11,250,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and up to $750,000 in claims administration costs, subject to court approval, and the class representatives requested service awards of $10,000 each.
What Proof Was Required?
Filing online required a Notice ID and a Confirmation Code printed in the personalized notice that reached class members by mail or email. A class member who never received a notice could register on the settlement website to obtain those credentials before filing. Because an administrator-issued identifier gated the claim form, this page is marked Proof Required: Yes even though the base payment needed no receipts.Claimants filing without documentary proof of purchase had to supply the infant's name and birthdate, their relationship to the infant, and the state in which the formula was purchased, attesting to the information under penalty of perjury.
Claimants seeking the enhanced payment had to upload receipts, invoices, payment card records or other documentation showing the qualifying purchases in Florida or New York during the class period. A claimant whose current address was outside Florida and New York also had to show that they lived in one of those states during the class period.
Key Dates
• Class period: October 10, 2011 – April 23, 2016• Preliminary approval: May 2, 2025
• Exclusion and objection deadline: August 1, 2025
• Claim deadline: August 25, 2025
• Final approval hearing: September 9, 2025
• Memorandum and order taking up final approval and fees: September 29, 2025
What Happens Next?
The remaining steps in a case at this stage are the entry and finality of the approval ruling, resolution of any appeal, and distribution to approved claimants. No announced payment date had been located as of July 29, 2026, and OCA is not able to confirm whether distribution has begun. Class members who filed should watch the official settlement website, which is where the administrator posts status updates, and should use the contact form on that site rather than any third party if they need to reach the administrator about their own claim.Official information is available at GSGSettlement.com.
A Related Case Still Open
Labeling cases like this one keep arriving, and some are still accepting claims. The Nutricost magnesium glycinate settlement makes a similar argument about a supplement label and remains open to claims, which makes it a useful comparison for anyone who missed the Gerber window.Sources
• Official settlement website: GSGSettlement.com• Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (long-form notice)
• Memorandum and order, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:15-cv-02995, filed September 29, 2025 — govinfo
• Settlement administrator's proposed-settlement announcement — PR Newswire
• FTC Approves Stipulated Order Settling Charges against Gerber Products Company (July 2019)
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Case
Hasemann, et al. v. Gerber Products Co., No. 1:15-cv-02995 (E.D.N.Y.)
Related Case
Manemeit v. Gerber Products Co., No. 2:17-cv-00093 (E.D.N.Y.)
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Defendant
Gerber Products Company
Claims
False advertising and consumer protection claims over allergy-reduction marketing of Good Start Gentle infant formula
Class Period
October 10, 2011 – April 23, 2016
Purchases in Florida or New York for personal use.
Claim Deadline
August 25, 2025
Final Approval Hearing
September 9, 2025
Memorandum and order entered September 29, 2025; its terms were not confirmed as of July 29, 2026.
Settlement Administrator
Angeion Group
Status
Claims Closed — Final Approval Not Confirmed
Official Website
GSG Settlement.com
