The Kraft Mac and Cheese lawsuit was a proposed nationwide class action filed in December 2023 that accused Kraft Heinz of falsely marketing its Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” when, the plaintiffs said, it actually contained synthetic citric acid and sodium phosphates functioning as preservatives. A federal judge in Chicago let the case move forward in November 2024, but the plaintiffs and Kraft Heinz filed a stipulation of dismissal in April 2025, ending the case before class certification or trial.1CourtListener. Hayes v. The Kraft Heinz Company
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Consumers from Illinois, California, and New York filed the case, captioned Hayes v. The Kraft Heinz Company (Case No. 1:23-cv-16596), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.2USA Today. Kraft Heinz Lawsuit Mac and Cheese Court Judge Ruling It challenged the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” claim on the front of the Blue Box and zeroed in on two ingredients: citric acid and sodium phosphates.
According to the complaint, the citric acid in Kraft Mac & Cheese is not the kind found in fruit. More than 90% of food-grade citric acid is produced industrially by fermenting corn syrup with Aspergillus niger, a black mold.3Thompson Coburn. Preservative Problems: Judge Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Mac Cheese Consumers The plaintiffs also alleged that sodium phosphates do not exist in pure natural form and are made through chemical reactions between phosphoric acid and sodium carbonate.4NBC Chicago. Kraft Heinz to Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Mac Cheese Labeling, Chicago Judge Rules
Being synthetic was only half the argument. The plaintiffs also said both ingredients function as preservatives in the product, pointing to FDA guidance classifying citric acid as a preservative and to FDA warning letters sent to other companies for labeling products “natural” when they used citric acid for preservation.3Thompson Coburn. Preservative Problems: Judge Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Mac Cheese Consumers They brought claims for false advertising, breach of express warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of Illinois, California, and New York consumer protection laws.2USA Today. Kraft Heinz Lawsuit Mac and Cheese Court Judge Ruling
The November 2024 Ruling
Kraft Heinz moved to dismiss in March 2024. The company argued the plaintiffs had not plausibly shown the ingredients were artificial, and that even if they were, the plaintiffs had not shown they acted as preservatives in mac and cheese specifically.3Thompson Coburn. Preservative Problems: Judge Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Mac Cheese Consumers
U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland denied the motion on November 13, 2024. She found the plaintiffs had “adequately alleged the Ingredients are artificial,” crediting their references to scientific studies, industrial production processes, and FDA guidance.5Fox 10 Phoenix. Kraft Heinz Must Face Lawsuit Over Mac Cheese Labels, Judge Rules She distinguished earlier, dismissed cases where plaintiffs had offered only conclusory assertions with no scientific or regulatory support.3Thompson Coburn. Preservative Problems: Judge Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Mac Cheese Consumers
Judge Rowland did give Kraft one win. She ruled the plaintiffs could not demand a label change, reasoning that because they now knew about the allegedly deceptive practice, they were “no longer at risk of future harm.”5Fox 10 Phoenix. Kraft Heinz Must Face Lawsuit Over Mac Cheese Labels, Judge Rules
How the Case Ended
Kraft Heinz filed its answer to the amended complaint on January 21, 2025, and the court set a schedule pointing toward a class certification motion in July 2025. The case never got there. On April 4, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, and the court terminated the case on April 7, 2025.1CourtListener. Hayes v. The Kraft Heinz Company
The named plaintiffs’ individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning those three consumers cannot refile them. Claims on behalf of the broader putative class were dismissed without prejudice, so other consumers remain free to bring similar cases.1CourtListener. Hayes v. The Kraft Heinz Company No settlement fund, refund program, or coupon offer was announced. The public record does not disclose the terms of the stipulation or whether the individual plaintiffs received any payment. If you bought Kraft Mac & Cheese, there is no consumer claim process to file.
Why Citric Acid Keeps Ending Up in Court
The dispute at the heart of the case turns on a regulatory gray area. FDA guidance lists citric acid as a preservative, and federal regulations define a “chemical preservative” as any chemical that, when added to food, “prevents or retards deterioration.”6FDA. Types of Food Ingredients The FDA also classifies citric acid as a pH control agent, recognizing that the same ingredient can do more than one job.
Manufacturers often say they add citric acid for tartness or pH adjustment rather than preservation, and argue it should not be labeled a preservative when that is not its purpose in their recipe. Plaintiffs argue the ingredient preserves food regardless of the reason it is included. The FDA has not drawn a bright line, which is why courts have generally treated the question as too fact-specific to resolve on a motion to dismiss.
Similar Cases Against Other Brands
The Kraft case is part of a broader wave of class actions attacking “no preservatives” and “all natural” labels on products containing industrially produced citric acid. Recent examples include:
- Delvalle v. Coca-Cola (S.D.N.Y.), targeting the “No Preservatives Added” claim on Minute Maid Fruit Punch. The court denied Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss in May 2025.7ClassAction.org. Delvalle et al v. The Coca-Cola Company
- Palmer v. Coca-Cola (C.D. Cal.), challenging “100% Natural Flavors” labeling on Sprite and Fanta. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss in July 2025.8Law360. Palmer v. The Coca-Cola Company
- Deforest v. Target (C.D. Cal.), over synthetic citric acid in Good & Gather pasta sauces labeled with no artificial preservatives.
- Flexer v. Kraft Heinz (E.D.N.Y.), a separate January 2025 case targeting Kraft Heinz juice beverage pouches on the same citric acid theory.9Perkins Coie. 2025 Food and CPG Year in Review
Additional 2025 suits named ALDI, J.M. Smucker, PepsiCo, and Dole.9Perkins Coie. 2025 Food and CPG Year in Review The complaints often use near-identical language and are concentrated in New York and California courts.
Other Kraft Mac and Cheese Cases People Confuse With This One
Two other Kraft mac and cheese suits sometimes come up in searches but are separate matters. In Stuve v. The Kraft Heinz Co. (N.D. Ill.), consumers alleged the Blue Box packaging failed to disclose the presence of phthalates found in cheese-powder packets. Claims for material omissions and unjust enrichment survived a motion to dismiss in 2022, and the parties filed a voluntary stipulation of dismissal in March 2024.10Bloomberg Law. Kraft Mac Cheese Consumers End Suit Over Alleged Phthalates
Separately, a Florida consumer sued Kraft Heinz in 2022 claiming Velveeta microwavable cups were not actually ready in 3.5 minutes as advertised. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the case in July 2023, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because she kept buying the product after learning the prep time was longer than claimed.11Top Class Actions. Velveeta Class Action Claims Microwavable Mac and Cheese Not Ready in 3.5 Min as Advertised Neither case produced a consumer payout.