Texas Attorney General Sues Tylenol Makers Over Autism Claims

Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, has initiated legal action against the manufacturers of Tylenol, alleging that they concealed risks associated with the drug’s impact on children’s brain development. This lawsuit, filed on March 5, 2024, marks a significant development following recent statements by former President Donald Trump suggesting a link between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism, a claim that remains unverified by scientific research.

The lawsuit targets Johnson & Johnson, the long-time producer of Tylenol, and its spinoff company, Kenvue, which has marketed the drug since its establishment in 2023. According to the complaint, both companies are accused of knowingly withholding critical information from consumers regarding Tylenol’s potential associations with autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that Kenvue was strategically formed to protect Johnson & Johnson from potential liabilities related to Tylenol.

Legal Context and Previous Claims

This lawsuit stands out as the first filed by a state that embraces the allegations made by Trump regarding the use of acetaminophen products, such as Tylenol, during pregnancy and their possible connection to neurodevelopmental disorders. The topic has been a point of contention, notably among supporters of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been a vocal critic of vaccine safety and pharmaceuticals, but Trump’s recent comments have amplified these concerns.

In response to the allegations, Kenvue has consistently defended the safety of Tylenol, categorically rejecting claims that its use during pregnancy could lead to autism. The company maintains that it provides adequate warnings regarding the drug’s well-documented risk of liver damage when consumed excessively.

The legal proceedings have reignited debates surrounding the safety of commonly used medications during pregnancy and the responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies in communicating potential risks to consumers. As this case unfolds, it may set a precedent for how similar claims are handled in the future, particularly in light of the growing public scrutiny over pharmaceutical safety.

The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond Texas, as it could influence legal landscapes in other states and contribute to a broader dialogue about drug safety, consumer awareness, and the responsibilities of manufacturers.