A wave of ultra-processed food lawsuits is working through state and federal courts, led by a December 2025 case from the San Francisco City Attorney against ten major manufacturers and followed by individual suits from young plaintiffs diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. The claims share a common theory: that companies engineered products to be addictive and marketed them deceptively, especially to children, and that the resulting health costs should be paid by the industry rather than the public.
The San Francisco Case
City Attorney David Chiu filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court on December 2, 2025, on behalf of the State of California against Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Kellogg, Mars, and ConAgra Brands.1Cheese Reporter. San Francisco Sues 10 Food Companies Over Ultra-Processed Foods It is the first lawsuit by a U.S. government entity targeting ultra-processed foods as a category.
The complaint alleges two violations of California law: unfair competition through deceptive and fraudulent business practices, and public nuisance.2New York Times. San Francisco Ultraprocessed Food Lawsuit It accuses the companies of borrowing from the tobacco industry’s playbook, engineering chemicals to make products “highly addictive” and then using cartoon mascots, toy-company partnerships, and child-focused media to hook young consumers. According to the complaint, Black and Latino children were targeted with 70% more ultra-processed food ads than their white peers.3Health Policy Watch. US City Sues Ultra-Processed Food Companies Seeking Restitution for Health Costs
San Francisco is asking for restitution and civil penalties to offset public health costs it attributes to ultra-processed food consumption. The complaint cites diabetes hospitalizations alone costing more than $85 million in San Francisco in 2016 and notes that national health expenditures grew from 5% of GDP in 1960 to nearly 20% today.4CBS News. San Francisco Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit Health Impacts The city also wants a court order halting current marketing practices and requiring corrective advertising.5National Association of Manufacturers. San Francisco Sues Food and Beverage Manufacturers, NAM Responds
Early in the case, a PepsiCo attorney succeeded in moving the matter from federal court back to state court, which means any damages recovered would go to San Francisco rather than the state.6Food Dive. Ultraprocessed Food Consumer Lawsuit: Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo
Why the Public Nuisance Theory Matters
The San Francisco complaint deliberately sidesteps the hardest question in food litigation: proving that a particular person’s illness was caused by a particular product. By framing ultra-processed food as a public nuisance under California Civil Code sections 3479–3480, the city argues that the whole community has been harmed and asks the court to order abatement, which could mean funding consumer education, restricting marketing to children, or paying into public health funds.7Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. The Food Wars and the Courts Part II
The strategy mirrors the shift that broke the tobacco cases open in the 1990s. Individual smokers rarely won against cigarette makers; state attorneys general reframed the problem as a public health harm and prevailed. Harvard Law professor Emily Broad Leib has suggested that if the San Francisco case reaches discovery and produces internal company documents, it could prompt similar state-level actions.8Harvard Law School. The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food Chiu’s office has pointed to its share of the 1998 tobacco settlement, which recovered $539 million, and a $21 million lead paint verdict, as evidence it can run this kind of case.9Good Morning America. San Francisco Files Landmark Lawsuit Comparing Ultra-Processed Foods to Tobacco
The tobacco comparison has a corporate backstory. R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris acquired Nabisco, Kraft, and General Foods in the 1980s and 1990s, and internal documents cited in later litigation suggest the companies shared taste and reward research across the two industries. Researchers have argued that ultra-processed foods can raise dopamine in the brain’s reward center by 150% to 200%, comparable to nicotine.10STAT News. MAHA Movement Using Anti-Tobacco Playbook Against Big Food
Individual Plaintiff Suits
Martinez v. Mondelez
Bryce Martinez sued many of the same companies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 2024, alleging the products were designed to be addictive and that the manufacturers were negligent, breached safety warranties, and fraudulently concealed defects.11Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. The Food Wars and the Courts A federal judge dismissed the case in the summer of 2025, finding that Martinez had not identified which specific products he consumed or how often.12Daily Business Review. Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Hit a Snag: Martinez Ruling Sets New Test for Mass Tort Litigators He petitioned to amend.8Harvard Law School. The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food
Ford v. Kraft Heinz
A successor case was filed in federal court in March 2026 on behalf of a 14-year-old with Type 2 diabetes. The complaint runs 321 pages and more than 1,700 paragraphs, built to answer the Martinez ruling by detailing exactly which products the plaintiff consumed and how often. It names essentially the same defendants, minus Kellanova, which Mars acquired in December 2025.7Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. The Food Wars and the Courts Part II The case is pending and expected to face motions to dismiss.
Kreie v. Kraft Heinz
On April 27, 2026, Olivia Kreie, a young woman from Wisconsin born in 2006, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against 12 food manufacturers, alleging that consuming ultra-processed foods caused her Type 2 diabetes diagnosis at age 10.13AboutLawsuits.com. Lawsuit Over Ultra-Processed Foods and Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis at 10 Years Old The defendants include Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé, Kellanova, WK Kellogg, Mars, and Conagra, plus Unilever United States, which was not named in the San Francisco complaint.14PACER Monitor. Kreie v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al The case is assigned to Judge Byron B. Conway and is in its early stages.
Castro v. Abbott Laboratories
A separate but related suit targets the marketing of toddler milks rather than ultra-processed food broadly. Filed in January 2025, Castro v. Abbott Laboratories alleges that label claims like “Immune Support” are false and mislead parents into buying nutritionally inferior products. On January 23, 2026, a court denied most of Abbott’s motions to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed.7Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. The Food Wars and the Courts Part II Legal analysts have called the ruling a more promising template than injury-based suits, because it rests on provably false advertising rather than on linking a product to a disease.
How the Companies Are Responding
Most of the named manufacturers have let industry trade groups handle public comment. Mondelez and Conagra declined to comment to reporters, and Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé, Kellanova, Kellogg, Post, and Mars did not provide statements.15Food Navigator. Kraft Heinz, Mondelez Targeted by Anti-UPF Lawsuit
Sarah Gallo, Senior Vice President of Product Policy at the Consumer Brands Association, said companies follow “rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA” and that the absence of any agreed scientific definition of “ultra-processed foods” makes the classification meaningless.9Good Morning America. San Francisco Files Landmark Lawsuit Comparing Ultra-Processed Foods to Tobacco The International Food and Beverage Alliance called the tobacco comparison “inaccurate” and an “oversimplification,” noting that food, unlike cigarettes, is essential to life.10STAT News. MAHA Movement Using Anti-Tobacco Playbook Against Big Food
Legal observers expect three principal defenses: that the companies comply with existing FDA regulations, that genetics, stress, sleep, and exercise are the real drivers of diet-related disease, and that food safety belongs to the FDA rather than the courts.8Harvard Law School. The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food
The Definition Problem
The industry’s strongest argument is that “ultra-processed food” has no established legal definition. The NOVA classification, developed at the University of São Paulo in 2010, groups foods into four categories by extent of industrial processing, but it is a research framework, not a legal standard.16National Agricultural Law Center. MAHA Movement: Defining Ultra-Processed Foods
California took the first statutory step. Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264 on October 8, 2025, making California the first state to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches.17Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor Newsom Signs First-in-the-Nation Law to Ban Ultra-Processed Foods From School Lunches The law, sponsored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, defines a food as ultra-processed if it contains a substance from the FDA’s “Substances Added to Food” database with a recognized technical effect and also exceeds specific thresholds for saturated fat, sodium, added sugar, or non-nutritive sweeteners. The California Department of Public Health has until June 1, 2028, to further identify which products qualify as “UPFs of concern.”16National Agricultural Law Center. MAHA Movement: Defining Ultra-Processed Foods
At the federal level, the FDA and USDA jointly issued a Request for Information in July 2025 seeking input on a “federally recognized uniform definition for ultra-processed foods.”18U.S. Food and Drug Administration. HHS, FDA, and USDA Extend Comment Period for Data and Information on Ultra-Processed Foods The comment period, extended to October 23, 2025, drew more than 5,100 submissions.19Federal Register. Ultra-Processed Foods: Request for Information No proposed definition or timeline has been announced.
Label and Ingredient Class Actions
A parallel wave of narrower class actions targets specific products for allegedly misleading labels. These suits are generally easier to litigate because they turn on provably false claims rather than on causation.
- Handsome v. Continental Mills (New York, 2025) alleges that a quick bread mix labeled “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, Preservatives” was misleading because it contained silicon dioxide, which the plaintiff characterized as an artificial preservative.20O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Ultra-Processed Foods Face Rising Scrutiny
- Tucker v. Continental Mills (Central District of California, 2025) makes a similar claim about Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Crumb Cake and Muffin Mix.21Top Class Actions. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Krusteaz Muffin Mix Packaging Is Too Sweet to Be True
- Tran v. Daesang Holdings California (Central District of California, 2025) alleges that kimchi marketed as “naturally fermented” was misleading because it contained sorbitol, a processed additive.20O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Ultra-Processed Foods Face Rising Scrutiny
Rulings have gone both ways. Some judges have dismissed cases where a label was “literally true” or where the back-of-package ingredient list corrected any misleading impression from the front. Others have allowed suits where the front label made a specific health claim the ingredients contradicted.
State Laws Shaping the Litigation Environment
Several states have enacted or proposed laws that affect what manufacturers can put on shelves and labels:
- Texas SB 25 requires prominent front-of-pack warning labels for products containing any of 44 specified additives, with compliance by January 1, 2027.20O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Ultra-Processed Foods Face Rising Scrutiny
- Louisiana SB 14 requires QR code–linked ingredient disclosures for 44 “harmful ingredients” and menu warnings about seed oil use.
- Arizona HB 2164 prohibits the sale of ultra-processed foods, defined by a list of 11 ingredients, in public schools.
- Wisconsin AB 550 and SB 560 are proposed bills targeting ingredients banned in other countries and requiring labeling for lab-grown meat.
Food companies have won temporary blocks on ingredient-related laws in Texas and West Virginia.6Food Dive. Ultraprocessed Food Consumer Lawsuit: Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo
Where Things Stand
No multidistrict litigation has formed around ultra-processed food claims, and no state attorney general beyond San Francisco’s city attorney has filed a comparable suit, though state investigations into food and beverage companies are underway on artificial colors, heavy metals, and environmental marketing claims.22Alston & Bird LLP. State AGs, MAHA, and Consumer Packaged Goods The San Francisco case is active in state court. The Ford and Kreie suits are pending in federal court. The federal government has not proposed an official definition of ultra-processed food, leaving litigants and regulators to work with a patchwork of state standards and scientific classifications that the industry maintains are too vague to enforce.