Ultra-processed food companies are facing a new and potentially important category of litigation in the United States. Consumers and government authorities have accused major food and beverage manufacturers of designing highly processed products that encourage overconsumption while failing to adequately disclose alleged health risks.
Companies including Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé, Mondelez, Mars, Conagra and other major manufacturers have been named in litigation. Plaintiffs have attempted to connect long-term consumption of ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, with conditions such as Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The companies dispute these claims, and the litigation remains at an early stage.
What Are Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits?
Ultra-processed food lawsuits generally allege that manufacturers created foods using industrial formulations and processing techniques that made the products highly appealing or allegedly addictive, while marketing many of them heavily to children.
The lawsuits are notable because some plaintiffs are attempting to use legal theories previously seen in tobacco, pharmaceutical and other product-liability litigation. Claims can include negligence, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, unfair trade practices and, in some cases, conspiracy allegations.
However, there is an important difference between scientific research linking dietary patterns with disease and the legal requirement to prove that a particular defendant’s product caused a particular person’s injury. That causation problem has already become one of the largest obstacles for UPF plaintiffs.
Bryce Martinez Filed a Landmark Ultra-Processed Food Case
One of the cases that helped launch the current litigation was brought by Pennsylvania resident Bryce Martinez.
Martinez alleged that years of consuming ultra-processed products manufactured by 11 major food companies contributed to his diagnosis with Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease when he was 16. Defendants included Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Kellanova, WK Kellogg, Mars and Conagra Brands.
The original complaint accused manufacturers of developing allegedly addictive foods and aggressively marketing those products to children. Martinez sought to hold the companies responsible under several product-liability and consumer-protection theories.
The case attracted attention because it attempted to challenge a broad section of the American packaged-food industry rather than a single defective food product.
Why the Martinez Lawsuit Was Dismissed
The Martinez case also demonstrated how difficult these lawsuits may be to prove.
In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez found serious problems with the original complaint. Among other issues, Martinez had identified more than 100 brands without sufficiently specifying which individual products he had consumed and how particular products caused his illnesses.
Martinez subsequently sought permission to pursue an amended complaint containing more detailed allegations.
On June 30, 2026, the court concluded that the proposed amended complaint still did not adequately establish “but-for” causation linking each defendant or individual product to Martinez’s injuries. The court rejected attempts to hold the industry collectively responsible when the products contained different ingredients and were produced in different ways.
The district-court setback was significant, but it did not end UPF litigation nationwide. Attorneys representing Martinez said they planned to appeal while continuing to pursue similar cases. By July 2026, more than 10 other consumer lawsuits making related allegations had been filed.
San Francisco Sues Major Food Manufacturers
Individual consumers are not the only plaintiffs challenging the industry.
On December 2, 2025, the People of the State of California, acting through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, filed a major lawsuit accusing leading manufacturers of contributing to a public-health crisis involving ultra-processed foods.
The complaint alleges that manufacturers designed UPFs to encourage consumption and marketed them aggressively to children and vulnerable communities despite alleged knowledge of health risks.
Unlike the Martinez case, San Francisco does not rely primarily on proving that one particular food caused one person’s disease. The government action alleges broader harm to the public and increased health-care costs.
The lawsuit brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public-nuisance law. It seeks injunctive relief, corrective measures, public-nuisance abatement and civil penalties.
San Francisco Case Returns to California State Court
Food manufacturers removed the San Francisco case to federal court in January 2026.
San Francisco sought to have the lawsuit returned to state court, arguing that California was the real party in interest because the litigation concerned statewide consumer protection and public-health interests.
On April 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar agreed and ordered the action remanded. The federal court emphasized that the lawsuit sought broad relief connected with alleged statewide harms rather than compensation for one particular consumer.
The ruling did not determine whether the manufacturers actually caused the alleged public-health harm. It primarily determined where the lawsuit should proceed.
The San Francisco case could be particularly important because a government public-nuisance action may face different causation issues from individual personal-injury lawsuits.
The Food Industry Challenges the Claims
Food manufacturers and industry organizations have strongly disputed the legal theories behind UPF litigation.
One major issue is the definition of “ultra-processed food.” Unlike established categories such as prescription drugs or tobacco products, there has historically been no single federal legal definition covering every food that plaintiffs may describe as ultra-processed. Researchers and regulators also continue to debate how processing level should be separated from a product’s overall nutritional content.
Manufacturers can also argue that chronic diseases such as diabetes may have numerous contributing factors, making it difficult for a plaintiff to prove that one company’s cereal, soda, snack or other product was a legal cause of an individual’s illness.
The Martinez ruling illustrates this problem. The court found that evidence of a correlation between increasing UPF consumption and disease rates was not enough by itself to establish legal causation against individual manufacturers. The Consumer Brands Association has also argued that manufacturers comply with FDA food-safety standards and that foods should not automatically be considered unhealthy simply because they undergo processing.
Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuit Settlements and 2026 Outlook
As of August 2026, there is no nationwide ultra-processed food settlement program or established UPF mass-tort payout schedule.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s August 3, 2026 list of active MDLs does not show an established ultra-processed food MDL. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have nevertheless discussed seeking multidistrict consolidation as additional cases are filed.
That distinction is important. Online references to an “ultra-processed food mass tort” should not be interpreted as evidence that courts have already created a nationwide MDL or approved compensation for consumers.
The litigation is instead at a formative stage. The Martinez dismissal shows that individual plaintiffs may face a difficult task proving product-specific causation. The San Francisco lawsuit, on the other hand, tests a different approach based on public nuisance, consumer protection and broader population-level harm.
The next major developments will likely involve appeals, rulings in other individual cases and the progress of California’s government enforcement action. If plaintiffs are able to overcome early causation and pleading challenges, the number of lawsuits could continue to expand. If courts consistently follow the reasoning used in Martinez, however, traditional personal-injury claims against the UPF industry may face significant legal obstacles.
For now, the ultra-processed food litigation should be considered an emerging area of U.S. product-liability and consumer-protection law, rather than an established mass tort with guaranteed settlements or standardized compensation.
