A Texas judge has cleared the way for Kenvue Inc. (KVUE.N) to pay a $398 million shareholder dividend this month, marking a significant procedural victory for the U.S. consumer health company in a contentious legal dispute over the safety of Tylenol use during pregnancy.

The ruling comes as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate in 2026, has sued the Summit, New Jersey-based Kenvue, alleging that the company concealed potential autism and other risks to children when pregnant women take Tylenol.

Legal Challenge and Dividend Dispute

Paxton’s lawsuit, filed on October 28, sought to block Kenvue from paying the November 26 dividend, arguing that the funds should be preserved for potential litigation claims. The lawsuit also requested a court order preventing Kenvue from marketing Tylenol as safe for pregnant women.

However, Judge LeAnn Rafferty of Panola County, Texas, ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction over the dividend payment. In a brief one-page order, Rafferty also declined to temporarily restrict Kenvue’s marketing practices, reflecting the court’s reluctance to intervene in the internal business decisions of a multinational corporation.

Background on Tylenol Safety Claims

The lawsuit references claims that Tylenol use during pregnancy may be linked to autism in children, a position widely disputed by medical experts and scientific societies. In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised doctors to notify patients of emerging research suggesting a potential link, though Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson maintain that Tylenol is safe for pregnant women.

This legal action follows high-profile promotion of the same claims by former President Donald Trump and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who reiterated the unproven connection between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism.

Kenvue and Dividend Execution

Kenvue’s legal counsel, Kim Bueno, emphasized that the company’s New Jersey incorporation and Delaware registration mean Texas courts lack jurisdiction over dividend payments. Bueno confirmed that Kenvue intends to move forward with the dividend as part of normal business operations.

The planned dividend comes shortly after Kenvue’s announcement of a $40 billion acquisition by Kimberly-Clark, which would expand the personal care giant into high-margin categories including Tylenol, Band-Aid, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Listerine, and Neutrogena. Concerns over Tylenol’s safety have been a point of scrutiny for the merger, though Kenvue maintains the drug’s safety profile is well-established.

Public Health and Regulatory Oversight

While Texas argues that temporary limits on marketing are justified to protect public health, Kenvue and medical experts counter that regulatory agencies such as the FDA are better suited to evaluate scientific claims. The dispute highlights the intersection of corporate governance, consumer safety, and regulatory authority in high-profile pharmaceutical cases.

Conclusion

With the court ruling in favor of Kenvue’s dividend payment, the company can proceed with its $398 million distribution to shareholders, while legal and public debates over Tylenol’s safety during pregnancy continue. The case remains part of a broader political and scientific discourse on drug safety, corporate responsibility, and state-level legal intervention in multinational corporations.