BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 437 hits. Analysis detected 1,597 faulty-reasoning hits from 874 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.3% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,369 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.70% of the article peer group.

Justice Department leaders’ shutdown of a long-running criminal case against Abbott Laboratories over contaminated baby formula has fueled a broader pullback on corporate prosecutions protecting consumer health, said people familiar with the situation. 
DOJ Criminal Division head Tysen Duva and his top aides have directed prosecutors to close other food and drug industry probes after the deputy attorney general’s office, then led by Todd Blanche , overruled Duva’s effort to charge the company and its executives, ending the criminal investigation earlier this year, several individuals said. 
Division supervisors also imposed a heightened evidentiary standard for other corporate investigations brought by an office with a history of targeting big pharmaceutical companies, they said, speaking anonymously about internal deliberations. 
A senior DOJ official, in a statement, said the Criminal Division “remains fully committed to aggressive enforcement of federal health and safety laws” and will keep bringing charges when warranted. 
The criminal fraud section’s health and safety unit, which pursued the Abbott case, has other investigations open, but they’re stalling under the higher evidence threshold, as leaders seek to avoid a repeat of the DAG office’s prior rejection, the people familiar said. 
The retreat followed Duva’s unsuccessful push of a felony theory alleging Abbott executives conspired to defraud the US, along with a separate Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act charge against the company, multiple people said. 
The case stemmed from a 2022 bacteria outbreak at the pharmaceutical company’s Michigan powder formula plant that’s been accused of contributing to infant deaths and illnesses. 
The DAG’s office ordered the criminal probe closed, determining a civil deal under the False Claims Act, which allows for treble damages, was a more appropriate resolution, the people said. 
Kirkland & Ellis partner Mark Filip, a former federal judge and George W. 
Bush administration deputy attorney general, had urged DOJ officials not to prosecute Abbott, cautioning, among other factors, that a criminal indictment may force the multinational to cancel plans of building a roughly $1 billion plant in Ohio estimated to create hundreds of jobs, they added. 
“The Department did not give any weight” to Abbott’s potential Ohio facility when deciding to close the criminal case, a senior DOJ official said. 
“The Department and Abbott have reached an agreement in principle that includes a significant monetary payment. 
Once finalized, this resolution will send an unmistakable message: companies that violate consumer health and safety standards—particularly standards designed to protect babies—will face serious consequences.” 
Senior DOJ officials’ decision to decline prosecuting Abbott was first reported by the Wall Street Journal . 
In a statement to Bloomberg Law, Abbott maintained its products are safe and cited a previous defense against allegations the company faced. 
Rigid control from DOJ’s second-in-command over litigating divisions has also thwarted or delayed white collar cases in prior administrations, including under Biden-era No. 
2 Lisa Monaco, said former officials. 
But the Trump administration’s cost-cutting reorganization of DOJ in 2025 helped enable what individuals described as a wider scale-back in consumer health enforcement. 
The realignment included dissolving the Civil Division’s consumer-focused office that launched the Abbott probe and merging its criminal prosecutors into the Criminal Division fraud section’s newly formed health and safety unit late last year. 
The move restricted those prosecutors from their previous latitude to pursue both civil remedies and criminal indictments, and required them to report to Criminal Division managers who’d previously expressed skepticism about their work  viewing the consumer team’s prosecutions as overly aggressive or based on looser pre-charging standards, DOJ veterans said. 
But Duva, a veteran line prosecutor from Florida, reported back favorably on the Abbott case when he was briefed on it while awaiting Senate confirmation as criminal leader, the individuals said. 
As the consumer unit lawyers transitioned into the Criminal Division in November, supervisors reviewing their cases prioritized Abbott as ripe to advance and were particularly keen on the investigation’s ability to hold individuals accountable, the people said. 
They directed the lawyers to draft a prosecution memo over Thanksgiving weekend laying out their evidence, they said. 
But what was then seen as a promising sign that the team’s traditional casework on healthcare misbranding and unsanitary food production would align with a new office structure has since soured. 
The unit’s series of other corporate cases against well known brands remain underway, including targeting companies and individuals for mislabeling alkyl nitrates  or “poppers”  by fraudulently selling them as cleaning products. 
But by shutting down the Abbott investigation and other health and safety probes, DOJ officials have revived worries among former federal consumer-protection attorneys about the office’s future and the administration’s commitment to its work. 
The health and safety unit’s chief, Kate Payerle, recently signaled to corporate defense lawyers that their clients should expect her team to remain active. 
Speaking on a conference panel June 28, Payerle said her unit would target cases such as food plant disease outbreaks, according to law firm Arnold & Porter’s recap of the event. 
Hours after her remarks, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the Abbott baby formula probe was terminated. 
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading: 
See Breaking News in Context 
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Ben Penn: 3.6%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.6%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Ben Penn: 0.7%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.7%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 3.5%Ben Penn: 0.9%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 3.5%Ben Penn: 1.8%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.8%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Ben Penn: 2.9%news.bloomberglaw.com: 2.9%Framing Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 1.3%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.8%Ben Penn: 1.5%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.5%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Ben Penn: 0.7%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.7%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 12.5%Ben Penn: 3.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.1%Pessimism Bias12.5%This article: 17.0%Ben Penn: 8.8%news.bloomberglaw.com: 8.8%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 2.5%Ben Penn: 1.3%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias2.5%This article: 4.2%Ben Penn: 1.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Ben Penn: 2.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 2.1%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Ben Penn: 3.9%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.9%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Ben Penn: 3.8%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.8%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Ben Penn: 4.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.3%Ben Penn: 3.5%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.0%Ben Penn: 2.5%news.bloomberglaw.com: 2.5%Burden of Proof10.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Ben Penn: 1.6%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.6%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Ben Penn: 2.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 50.0%Ben Penn: 15.2%news.bloomberglaw.com: 15.2%Unattributed Quote50.0%This article: 6.2%Ben Penn: 2.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 3.5%Ben Penn: 1.2%news.bloomberglaw.com: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Penn: 0.0%news.bloomberglaw.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Ben Penn: 3.1%news.bloomberglaw.com: 3.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

874 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers12%attributed speech769writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAbbott • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageKate Payerle • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg Law • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageBloomberg Law • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Abbott

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words21% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote-56.8 ptsWriter: 56.8%Abbott: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Abbott: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Abbott: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%Abbott: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.