Texas Sues Tylenol

On 28 October 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, alleging that they engaged in deceptive trade practices by marketing Tylenol (acetaminophen) as safe for pregnant women, while allegedly concealing evidence of links between its use and developmental disorders—specifically autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The complaint claims that the companies knew of research associating prenatal acetaminophen exposure with neurological conditions in children, yet failed to adequately warn consumers or update their labeling accordingly. It further alleges that Johnson & Johnson off-loaded liability by spinning off its over-the-counter consumer-health division into Kenvue in 2023, a transfer the suit argues was structured to evade legal responsibility under Texas fraud laws.

Kenvue responded by asserting that acetaminophen remains “the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their entire pregnancy,” and pledged to “vigorously defend the claims, which lack legal merit and scientific support.” Johnson & Johnson noted that liability for Tylenol now rests entirely with Kenvue, its former consumer-health unit.

The background includes public remarks by former Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raising concerns about Tylenol use in pregnancy and potential autism risk—despite the lack of conclusive causal evidence. Public-health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have described the association between acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders as an “ongoing area of scientific debate.”

This legal action is one of the first major state-level efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies legally accountable for alleged prenatal-exposure harms tied to over-the-counter medications. The suit arrives amid a politically charged environment: Paxton is running in a high-profile Senate primary and has brought other large-scale lawsuits consistent with his office’s longstanding pattern of aggressive consumer-protection and pharmaceutical litigation.

Key Points

• Texas is suing Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue over allegations they concealed risks of Tylenol use during pregnancy and mis-marketed the drug as safe.
• The suit claims that while scientific research suggested possible links between prenatal acetaminophen and autism/ADHD, the companies failed to update warnings or consumer messaging accordingly.
• The transfer of Tylenol liability from Johnson & Johnson to Kenvue in 2023 is described by the state as a fraudulent asset-transfer intended to avoid accountability.
• Kenvue strongly denies the claim, emphasizing both the safety profile of acetaminophen and the lack of definitive proof of causality.
• The case intersects scientific uncertainty (no definitive causal link), regulatory oversight (FDA warning status), and political factors (public commentary by prominent figures).

Projections & What It Means for the Future

Legal precedent and pharmaceutical liability: If Texas succeeds, the judgment could open the door to similar lawsuits in other states involving over-the-counter medicines and alleged prenatal-exposure harms. Pharmaceutical companies may face greater liability risks for products widely marketed to pregnant individuals.

Regulatory and labeling implications: This case may press regulators and manufacturers to revisit labeling standards for prenatal use, especially where observational studies have suggested associations (even if not causation). Increased disclosure may become standard even in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Scientific research spotlight: The lawsuit may spur or accelerate research into prenatal acetaminophen exposure and child-development outcomes. A clearer evidence base may emerge—and both plaintiffs and defendants will rely heavily on evolving science.

Public-health messaging and trust: Pregnant individuals often rely on over-the-counter medications for conditions like fever and pain. Broad public fear or confusion about Tylenol’s safety (if amplified by litigation) could have unintended consequences—such as untreated illness in pregnancy. Healthcare providers will likely issue clearer guidance and systems may need to manage messaging carefully.

Political and commercial ripple-effects: Given the political dimension (Paxton’s campaign, high-profile advocacy), outcomes may feed into public-policy debates around pharmaceutical regulation, consumer protection and state-level litigation strategy. On the commercial side, companies may revise how they communicate risk, liability and user-education in maternal health segments.

In short, while the scientific connection between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism/ADHD remains unsettled, the Texas lawsuit marks a potential inflection‐point in how society, regulators and courts address prenatal-exposure risks, the responsibility of over-the-counter medication makers, and how consumer‐health safety is litigated in the modern era.