There are currently thousands of lawsuits being litigated in the US against physicians, nurses, hospitals, and industry related to 2 recent court rulings that formula causes necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. These are symptomatic of a much larger issue that involves courts conflating association with causation, other examples of which are lawsuits relating to claims that agents such as talc cause certain cancers and acetaminophen taken during pregnancy causes autism in offspring. The legal process also places enormous value on the views of individuals, although medicine has long eschewed this in favor of systematic reviews of peer-reviewed evidence and statistical analyses that incorporate formal measures of probability. A current cause c茅l猫bre is the growing tide of criticism against legal acceptance of 鈥渆xpert鈥� opinion, and flawed interpretation of data, that was instrumental in the conviction of a neonatal nurse, Lucy Letby, for the murder of 7 infants.1 Targets for litigation are easy to find as associations abound. NEC litigation has been encouraged through advertising by solicitors to distraught parents, persuading them that a specific action, the feeding of formula, was the cause of their infant鈥檚 intestinal problems. Medicine and the law preside over life-changing decisions: surely an understanding of scientific method for determining causality, and ethical standards of behavior, should be an essential requirement for both?