AUSTIN, Texas—Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s aggressive push against the makers of Tylenol suffered a significant setback this week, as a federal judge rejected his request for an immediate injunction to halt the drug’s advertising claims regarding safety for pregnant women. The ruling underscores the challenges in litigating unproven scientific claims in consumer protection lawsuits, particularly when intertwined with politically charged health narratives.

The lawsuit, filed in late October, accuses Johnson & Johnson and its spinoff Kenvue Inc. of deceptively marketing acetaminophen—the active ingredient in Tylenol—as safe for expectant mothers, despite alleged links to autism and ADHD in children. Paxton’s office claims the companies concealed risks, drawing on studies suggesting prenatal exposure increases neurodevelopmental disorder risks. This action aligns with broader scrutiny under the Trump administration, including statements from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discouraging acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

The Lawsuit’s Origins

Paxton’s complaint, lodged in Travis County District Court, seeks civil penalties and demands warning labels on Tylenol products. It cites research, including a 2021 consensus statement in Nature Reviews Endocrinology, warning of potential fetal development risks from acetaminophen. However, scientific consensus remains divided, with organizations like the FDA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists maintaining that moderate use is generally safe.

The suit gained momentum after Kennedy’s guidance update, which Paxton referenced as evidence of known dangers. “By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again,” Paxton stated in a post on X, as reported by various outlets including his official account.

Judicial Pushback Emerges

On November 15, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman denied Paxton’s motion for a temporary restraining order, refusing to block Kenvue from advertising Tylenol as safe for pregnant women or from issuing a $398 million dividend to shareholders. According to court filings covered by Reuters, Pitman deferred on the dividend issue but outright rejected the advertising ban, citing insufficient evidence of immediate harm.

Ars Technica reported in its article “Judge smacks down Texas AG’s request to immediately block Tylenol ads” that the decision highlighted the lawsuit’s reliance on “unproven claims” linking Tylenol to autism. The publication noted Pitman’s skepticism, quoting legal experts who argue such injunctions require clear evidence of irreparable injury.

Corporate Defense Strategies

Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson have vigorously defended their marketing, asserting that decades of research support acetaminophen’s safety profile when used as directed. In a statement to The New York Times, a Kenvue spokesperson said, “We stand by the safety and efficacy of our products, and this lawsuit is without merit.”

The companies attempted to shift the case to federal court, but a judge remanded it back to Texas state court on November 8, as announced by Paxton on X and covered by the Texas Attorney General’s office. This procedural win for Paxton was short-lived amid the injunction denial.

Political and Scientific Context

The case echoes unsubstantiated claims amplified by President Trump, who has linked prenatal acetaminophen to autism—a connection dismissed by major health bodies. The Guardian reported that the lawsuit follows Trump’s “baseless claims,” noting the lack of definitive causation in studies.

On X, sentiments vary: supporters like Laura Loomer praised Paxton’s motion for a restraining order, while critics highlighted the ruling as a “smack down,” as seen in posts from users sharing Ars Technica’s coverage. Recent web searches confirm no further rulings as of November 18, 2025, per Dallas News.

Implications for Big Pharma

Industry insiders view this as a test case for state-level consumer protection laws challenging pharmaceutical marketing. Paxton’s suit invokes Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, potentially setting precedents for similar actions nationwide. Legal analysts in ABC News suggest that without stronger epidemiological evidence, such claims may falter.

Kenvue’s stock dipped slightly post-ruling, but analysts from Yahoo Finance note the dividend proceeding could stabilize investor confidence. The company faces multidistrict litigation over similar autism claims, consolidated in New York federal court.

Broader Health Policy Ramifications

Kennedy’s involvement adds a layer of federal intrigue, with his department’s advisory citing studies like one in JAMA Pediatrics linking acetaminophen to higher autism risks. However, critics in BBC News label it “unproven,” emphasizing correlation over causation.

Paxton’s office remains undeterred, vowing to pursue the case vigorously. As posted on X by his account, “Justice is coming for Big Pharma,” signaling potential appeals or intensified discovery phases ahead.

Stakeholder Reactions and Future Outlook

Medical professionals express concern over public confusion. The American Academy of Pediatrics, as referenced in multiple reports, advises against abandoning acetaminophen without alternatives, given its role in managing pregnancy-related pain.

With the case back in state court, experts anticipate protracted litigation. The Texas Tribune notes this could influence upcoming state regulations on over-the-counter drugs, especially amid national debates on vaccine and pharmaceutical accountability.