Food Lawsuit Q3: PFAS, Ultra-Processed Claims, and Settlements

Food class action lawsuits in 2025 came in three big waves: labeling cases over protein content and “natural” claims, contaminant cases involving PFAS and heavy metals, and a new kind of government lawsuit accusing major manufacturers of marketing ultra-processed foods the way tobacco companies once marketed cigarettes. The third quarter alone produced 55 new food and beverage class actions, following 52 in Q1 and 81 in Q2.¹ Several high-profile cases settled, including Poppi soda for $8.9 million and a long-running pork antitrust case that added nearly $100 million in new settlements during the year.

Protein Labeling Cases

A cluster of suits filed in 2025 accused plant-based protein makers of overstating how much protein their products actually deliver. The theory: FDA rules require that when a product makes a protein claim, its nutrition panel reflect the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), which measures how much protein the body can absorb. Plant proteins generally score lower than animal proteins, so a gram-count on the front of the box can overstate what you get.²

Q3 brought cases against Taylor Farms over salad kits, Mush Foods over overnight oats, Olympian Labs and EHPLabs over protein powders, and Go Macro over bars marketed as “high protein.”¹ Earlier filings targeted Huel and OWYN on the same theory.²

The theory doesn’t always survive. A federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed PDCAAS-based claims against KIND bars with prejudice, holding that manufacturers can state protein grams using the nitrogen method and that state law demanding more is preempted.³ Plaintiff attorneys have kept filing anyway, often using California’s consumer protection statutes to run cases where federal enforcement has been sparse.²

“Natural” and “No Artificial” Claims

One ingredient sits at the center of most of these cases: citric acid. It occurs naturally in citrus, but the citric acid used in processed foods is almost always made through industrial fermentation using Aspergillus niger. Plaintiffs argue that production method makes it synthetic, so “all natural” and “no artificial” labels are deceptive. The FDA hasn’t formally classified fermented citric acid as synthetic, which leaves the question open to the courts.⁴

Q3 2025 brought new suits against Oakberry Acai, Aldi, Drink LMNT, and Flowers Bakeries, each challenging products that contained citric acid, ascorbic acid, or maltodextrin while carrying “natural” or “no artificial” labels.¹ In Palmer v. The Coca-Cola Co., plaintiffs alleged Sprite and Fanta products labeled “100% Natural Flavors” were mislabeled because they contained citric acid, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium.⁵

Courts have split. In Vineyard v. La Terra Fina USA, LLC, a federal court in Illinois dismissed citric acid claims about a bagel dip as “purely speculative,” noting the plaintiff never showed the specific citric acid was synthetic.⁶ In Delvalle v. Coca-Cola Co., involving Minute Maid Fruit Punch marketed as “No Preservatives Added,” a federal judge in the Southern District of New York denied Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss, holding that whether the citric acid actually functioned as a preservative was a factual question for discovery.⁵ That case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in September 2025, which usually signals a private resolution.⁷

Contaminants: PFAS, Heavy Metals, and Purity

Contaminant cases typically pair a chemical-content allegation with a false-marketing claim: the product contained something undisclosed, and the “natural” or “pure” label was therefore misleading.

On PFAS, Elizabeth Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC drew the most attention. The suit, originally filed in August 2023, alleged Prime sports drinks contained unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often called forever chemicals. A federal court in the Northern District of California allowed consumer deception claims to go forward.¹ The case was terminated in January 2026 after a settlement.⁸

Heavy-metal cases in baby food had a tougher year. In March 2025, a federal court in New York dismissed In re Beech-Nut Nutrition Company Baby Food Litigation, ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing and had not plausibly alleged economic injury from the presence of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.⁹ A court in the Southern District of California granted summary judgment to Trader Joe’s in dark chocolate litigation, finding the presence of heavy metals in chocolate is “reasonably knowable” to consumers.¹⁰ Some claims against Hain Celestial baby food did survive, with a court letting allegations about products exceeding recognized safe arsenic levels move into discovery.

A newer front opened in tequila. Haschemie v. Cinco Spirits Group, LLC, filed in August 2025 in the Southern District of Florida, alleged that a premium tequila labeled “100% Blue Weber agave” wasn’t genuinely pure, backing the claim with independent nuclear magnetic resonance carbon isotope testing.⁶ Independent lab testing attached at the pleading stage is becoming a common tactic to get past motions to dismiss.

Slack Fill and Deceptive Packaging

Slack fill suits argue that opaque packaging is deceptively oversized relative to the product inside. They kept coming in Q3 2025, with growing representation of beauty and personal care brands alongside the usual food targets.

One of the more visible defeats for plaintiffs came in Nathan Vidal v. The Hershey Company in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff said Reese’s Halloween packaging was misleading because the candies inside lacked the jack-o’-lantern carvings shown on the wrapper. The court called the complaint “buyer’s remorse” rather than economic injury and dismissed it. Other Q3 cases targeted Target brand freeze-dried fruit, later voluntarily dismissed, and beauty products from Zuru LLC and Vogue International.¹

Major Settlements

Several significant resolutions landed in 2025.

Poppi soda settled for $8.9 million. VNGR Beverage LLC, Poppi’s former owner, agreed to resolve a class action alleging the prebiotic soda’s “gut healthy” marketing wasn’t supported by evidence, with plaintiffs arguing that 2 grams of inulin per can was too little to deliver meaningful benefits. The settlement received preliminary approval in May 2025 and required Poppi to clarify future advertising.¹¹¹²

The long-running In re Pork Antitrust Litigation in Minnesota federal court, which accuses major pork producers of colluding to inflate prices, added $98.5 million in 2025 settlements. Tyson Foods agreed to $85 million (preliminary approval in November 2025) and Clemens Food Group to $13.5 million (preliminary approval in June 2025). Total settlements in the case had reached roughly $208 million by mid-2026.¹³

Mid America Pet Food agreed to a $5.5 million settlement over claims its products were contaminated with salmonella and falsely marketed as safe, following reports of illness and death in dogs and salmonella infections in children.¹⁴

San Francisco’s Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuit

The biggest structural development in food litigation last year wasn’t a class action at all. On December 2, 2025, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against ten food corporations: Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars, and ConAgra Brands.¹⁵¹⁶

The complaint alleged the companies engaged in “unfair and deceptive acts,” engineered foods to be addictive, and disproportionately targeted Black and Latino children with their marketing. It brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and the state’s public nuisance statute, seeking restitution and civil penalties to offset public health costs.¹⁵

It was the first case of its kind brought by a government. Emily Broad Leib, a Harvard Law School professor who directs the Food Law and Policy Clinic, said the public nuisance approach was modeled directly on tactics used by state attorneys general against tobacco companies.¹⁷ A February 2026 paper in The Milbank Quarterly, written by researchers at the University of Michigan, Harvard, and Duke, argued that anti-tobacco strategies offer a “roadmap” for public health litigation against food manufacturers.¹⁸

An earlier individual case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al., had targeted the same group of companies, filed by a private plaintiff in Philadelphia. It was terminated in December 2025.¹⁹ Experts have acknowledged the hurdles: there is no scientific consensus on a legal definition of “ultra-processed,” and people need to eat, which complicates the tobacco analogy.¹⁸ No settlements have been reached in any ultra-processed food case as of early 2026.¹⁷

Regulatory Moves Behind the Litigation

Three regulatory actions in 2025 either shaped existing cases or set up new ones.

Food Dye Phase-Out

On January 15, 2025, the FDA announced it was revoking authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs, acting under the Delaney Clause in response to a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Manufacturers have until January 2027 to reformulate food and January 2028 for drugs.²⁰²¹²²

Updated “Healthy” Definition

The FDA finalized an updated definition for the “healthy” nutrient content claim in December 2024, replacing criteria that had been in place since 1994. Products must now contain meaningful amounts of recommended food groups (fruit, vegetables, whole grains) and meet limits for added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. Avocados, nuts, and salmon now qualify; many sweetened cereals and yogurts no longer do.²³ The rule’s effective date shifted from February to April 28, 2025, after a presidential regulatory freeze order, with manufacturers given three years to comply.²⁴

California’s Ultra-Processed Food School Law

On October 8, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, making California the first state to put a legal definition of ultra-processed foods on the books and mandate their removal from school meals.²⁵ A food qualifies under the law if it contains certain functional additives (emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, nonnutritive sweeteners) and either exceeds thresholds for saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains sweeteners such as sucralose or erythritol. Schools must begin phasing out restricted products by July 2029, with full implementation by July 2035.²⁶ No legal challenges to the law had been reported as of mid-2026.

1
Perkins Coie. Q3 Food and CPG Legal Trends
2
NutraIngredients USA. Three Recently Filed Lawsuits Highlight Legal Risk in Protein Labeling Compliance
3
FDA Compliance Expert. District Court Rejects Claims That Food Products Labeling of Protein Content Was Misleading
4
Food Navigator USA. Clean Label Claims in the Crosshairs
5
Baker Donelson. How Food and Beverage Manufacturers Can Minimize Their Exposure to the Wave of Citric Acid Based Lawsuits
6
McGuire Woods. Reducing Litigation Risk Around Food and Beverage Purity Claims
7
PACER Monitor. Delvalle et al v The Coca-Cola Company
8
The Recorder. Prime Hydration Reaches Settlement in Forever Chemicals Suit
9
FDLI. In Re Beech-Nut Nutrition Company Baby Food Litigation
10
Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie Food and CPG Year in Review
11
ABC News. Poppi Class Action Settlement
12
Spectrum Local News. Austin-Based Poppi Settles Gut Health Lawsuit
13
Hagens Berman. In Re Pork Antitrust Litigation
14
Retail Consumer Products Law. Recall Class Action Wave
15
Health Policy Watch. US City Sues Ultra-Processed Food Companies Seeking Restitution for Health Costs
16
The New York Times. San Francisco Ultraprocessed Food Lawsuit
17
Harvard Law School. The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food
18
STAT News. MAHA Movement Using Anti-Tobacco Playbook Against Big Food
19
CourtListener. Martinez v Kraft Heinz Company Inc
20
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Revoke Authorization Use Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs
21
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS FDA Food Dyes
22
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Tracking Food Industry Pledges to Remove Petroleum-Based Food Dyes
23
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Use of Healthy Claim Food Labeling
24
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Finalizes Updated Healthy Nutrient Content Claim
25
Office of the Governor of California. Governor Newsom Signs First in the Nation Law to Ban Ultra-Processed Foods From School Lunches
26
Foster Garvey. California Adopts First Definition of Ultra-Processed Foods and Sets Phase-Out for School Products