MAM USA Corporation (MAM Baby), a well-known maker of pacifiers, bottles, and other baby and toddler products, faced a proposed class action over how certain “Covered Products” were marketed and sold between March 17, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2024. The case centered on consumer allegations that the products did not conform to promises made to buyers, raising claims typically seen in consumer goods disputes: breach of express warranty (when a company’s specific product assurances are alleged to be untrue), violations of state consumer-protection statutes, and unjust enrichment (benefiting financially from allegedly misleading sales). Although some summaries mention a larger figure, the settlement fund itself was capped at $2.75 million, with claims available for modest cash payments or vouchers—generally higher amounts when proof of purchase was provided and lower amounts without documentation. The lawsuit was filed to obtain refunds or credits for consumers and to hold a major baby-products brand accountable for how product guarantees and marketing claims were presented, an issue that matters in categories where buyers prioritize safety, quality, and durability. Class actions like this often resolve without an admission of wrongdoing but still create a mechanism for widespread, low-dollar consumer recovery that would be impractical to pursue individually. More broadly, the case fits a common pattern in retail and consumer-products litigation where warranty language, packaging statements, and advertising are scrutinized under state “UDAP” laws (unfair or deceptive acts and practices) and express-warranty rules under the Uniform Commercial Code, alongside Federal Trade Commission standards that prohibit deceptive advertising and require that objective product claims be substantiated.