State Court Activity
San Francisco public-nuisance/UCL case remanded to California state court, No. CGC-25-631189 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Louisiana individual suit Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz voluntarily dismissed without prejudice March 30, 2026
Pharmaceutical · claims that ultra-processed food manufacturers caused addiction, metabolic disease, and other harms through deceptive marketing and formulation of highly processed products
Defendant
Kraft Heinz Company, Inc.
MDL / Track
See litigation status
Judge
Various
Plaintiffs
EMERGING
Bellwether / Trial
No verdicts yet
Settlement Status
Track litigations for free. Save this matter, capture notes, and monitor live signals.
Case overview
Judge Mia Roberts Perez permanently dismissed the lead personal-injury test case Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al. on June 30, 2026, denying leave to amend and holding that 179-product, 11-defendant allegations failed but-for causation. The ruling leaves government-enforcement theories untouched: San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu's December 2025 public-nuisance and UCL action against nine manufacturers was remanded to California state court on April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar, who found the State of California the real party in interest. Morgan & Morgan and co-counsel intend to appeal Martinez and seek MDL consolidation later this year, while additional individual cases proceed in Mississippi (Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co., S.D. Miss.) and Florida (Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co., M.D. Fla.).
Causation Theory
Plaintiffs allege that ultra-processed foods are engineered to be "hyperpalatable" through precise calibration of sugar, salt, fat, and additives such as emulsifiers and guar gum, driving compulsive overconsumption and metabolic harm. The scientific literature cited includes the 2025 Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health (Monteiro et al.) and a 2025 American Journal of Preventive Medicine study linking UPF consumption to premature mortality across eight countries. Epidemiological data show UPFs constitute over 60% of caloric intake for U.S. children ages 1–18. Defendants counter that plaintiffs rely on population-level association studies incapable of establishing product-specific causation, and that no randomized controlled trials isolate individual UPF ingredients as direct causes of type 2 diabetes or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in specific consumers.
Litigation status
No MDL has been formed. The lead personal-injury test case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was dismissed with prejudice June 30, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez for failure to plead product-specific but-for causation across 179 products from 11 manufacturers; plaintiff filed notice of appeal. Omnibus motions to dismiss remain pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 6:26-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla.), with the latter plaintiff narrowing to roughly 80 products and a single disease after Martinez II. San Francisco's public-nuisance/UCL suit, People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz et al., No. CGC-25-631189, was remanded to California state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and proceeds on a government-enforcement theory distinct from individual causation.
State Court Activity
San Francisco public-nuisance/UCL case remanded to California state court, No. CGC-25-631189 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Louisiana individual suit Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz voluntarily dismissed without prejudice March 30, 2026
Geographic exposure
UPF accounts for approximately 57-58% of total daily calories consumed by American adults per 2017 data cited in BMJ 2025 umbrella review and U.S.-specific metrics. Morgan & Morgan aims to consolidate cases into MDL later in 2026; no MDL established as of July 2026. BMC Public Health umbrella review (January 2026) identifies UPF dominance in out-of-home sector with most fast-food classified as UPF.
Statewide government enforcement action People v. Kraft Heinz Co. remanded to San Francisco Superior Court April 23, 2026 (Judge Jon S. Tigar, N.D. Cal.). Seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties under UCL and public nuisance statutes. AB 1264 enacted October 8, 2025 creates first U.S. statutory definition of 'ultra-processed foods of concern,' bans certain UPFs from school meals effective 2028.
Active personal injury testing ground: Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Company, et al., S.D. Miss., omnibus motion to dismiss due May 1, 2026; plaintiff response due June 2, 2026; reply due June 23, 2026. Coordinated briefing with Florida action to establish pleading standards for UPF causation theories.
Longest SOL window among major filing states (4 years, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a)). Muthusami v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., M.D. Fla., consolidated omnibus motion to dismiss permitted by June 17, 2026; plaintiff response due August 17, 2026. Discovery rule applies for latent diseases.
First-filed personal injury case Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 25-377 (E.D. Pa.), dismissed with prejudice August 25, 2025 by Judge Mia R. Perez for failure to plead specific causation. Morgan & Morgan filed motion for leave to amend September 22, 2025; appeal planned. 2-year SOL; discovery rule recognized for latent diseases.
Jenkins v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., E.D. La., voluntarily dismissed without prejudice March 30, 2026. Open SOL window for refiling. Plaintiff Shastin Jenkins had alleged UPF-caused type 2 diabetes.
Key defendants
Kraft Heinz Company, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Lead defendant in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 25-377 (E.D. Pa.). Secured dismissal on causation and shotgun pleading grounds Aug. 2025. Plaintiff seeking leave to amend with product-specific allegations. Watch for amended complaint strategy.
The Coca-Cola Company
Role: Manufacturer
Named in Martinez and parallel UPF complaints. Part of omnibus dismissal in E.D. Pa. No separate defense posture reported; likely coordinating with co-defendants on causation challenges.
General Mills, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Named in Martinez and Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, No. 1:26-cv-00046 (E.D. La. Jan. 16, 2026). Facing Big Tobacco playbook allegations. No dispositive motion filed in Louisiana action as of filing date.
Mondelez International, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Named in Jenkins and Morgan & Morgan complaints. No reported motion practice. Exposure tied to snack portfolio engineering allegations.
PepsiCo, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Named in Jenkins and parallel complaints. No individual case management reported. Standard manufacturer defense posture expected.
Nestlé USA, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Named in multiple UPF complaints including Martinez. No separate litigation track identified; likely aligned with Kraft Heinz defense strategy on causation and definitional challenges.
| Defendant | Role | Intelligence Note |
|---|---|---|
| Kraft Heinz Company, Inc. | Manufacturer | Lead defendant in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 25-377 (E.D. Pa.). Secured dismissal on causation and shotgun pleading grounds Aug. 2025. Plaintiff seeking leave to amend with product-specific allegations. Watch for amended complaint strategy. |
| The Coca-Cola Company | Manufacturer | Named in Martinez and parallel UPF complaints. Part of omnibus dismissal in E.D. Pa. No separate defense posture reported; likely coordinating with co-defendants on causation challenges. |
| General Mills, Inc. | Manufacturer | Named in Martinez and Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, No. 1:26-cv-00046 (E.D. La. Jan. 16, 2026). Facing Big Tobacco playbook allegations. No dispositive motion filed in Louisiana action as of filing date. |
| Mondelez International, Inc. | Manufacturer | Named in Jenkins and Morgan & Morgan complaints. No reported motion practice. Exposure tied to snack portfolio engineering allegations. |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | Manufacturer | Named in Jenkins and parallel complaints. No individual case management reported. Standard manufacturer defense posture expected. |
| Nestlé USA, Inc. | Manufacturer | Named in multiple UPF complaints including Martinez. No separate litigation track identified; likely aligned with Kraft Heinz defense strategy on causation and definitional challenges. |
Timeline
First UPF Personal Injury Suit Filed
Bryce Martinez files Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against 11 major food manufacturers alleging UPF consumption caused type 2 diabetes and NAFLD at age 16. Removed to E.D. Pa. as No. 2:25-cv-00377.
Martinez Dismissed Without Prejudice
Judge Mia R. Perez grants omnibus motion to dismiss Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), finding complaint failed to identify specific products consumed or plead specific causation. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend.
California Enacts First UPF Definition Law
California enacts AB 1264 providing first statutory definition of 'ultra-processed food of concern' in U.S., banning certain UPFs from school meals beginning 2028.
San Francisco Files Government UPF Suit
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu files People v. Kraft Heinz Co. in San Francisco Superior Court against 10 major food companies alleging deceptive marketing and public nuisance under California Unfair Competition Law, seeking statewide injunctive relief and civil penalties.
Jenkins Voluntarily Dismissed
Jenkins v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., pending in Louisiana state court, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed notice of voluntary dismissal; court entered order same day dismissing all claims with each party bearing its own costs.
San Francisco Remanded to State Court
Judge Jon S. Tigar grants motion to remand San Francisco's UPF suit to California state court, holding the State is real party in interest and not a citizen for diversity purposes. Case seeks statewide injunctive relief and civil penalties under California law.
Martinez Dismissed With Prejudice
Judge Mia Roberts Perez denies leave to amend and dismisses Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), with prejudice. Court rules amended complaint still fails to tie particular products from particular manufacturers to plaintiff's specific injuries. Morgan & Morgan announces appeal plans.
UPF Litigation Expands Post-Martinez
More than 10 consumer lawsuits filed since January 2026 accuse nearly a dozen major UPF producers of failure to warn. New complaints emphasize specific products and documented consumption. Omnibus motions to dismiss pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 6:26-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla.). No MDL established.
Statute of limitations
No MDL established as of March 2026. Cases proceeding in state and federal courts individually. FDA/USDA RFI closed Sept. 23, 2025; formal UPF definition pending. Federal preemption risk exists if FDA finalizes labeling standards. Tolling for minors varies by state; screen for infancy tolling provisions. No identified tolling agreements or class action settlements.
California
2 years from injury
Rule: Products liability claims governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; discovery rule applies for latent injuries per Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal. 1988)
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when plaintiff knows or should know injury and its cause
San Francisco City Attorney filed public nuisance/addiction lawsuit Dec. 5, 2025 against Mondelez, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellogg, Mars, Conagra. State AG may expand consumer protection theories. No revival statute active.
Pennsylvania
2 years from injury
Rule: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; discovery rule recognized for latent diseases
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury is or should be discovered
First individual UPF lawsuit filed E.D. Pa. (Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., et al.) with Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed March 31, 2025. No MDL yet. Intake should prioritize minors with T2D/NAFLD diagnoses before age 18.
Texas
2 years from injury
Rule: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003; discovery rule applies for inherently undiscoverable injuries
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when objective symptoms manifest or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence
HB 3691 (2025) would mandate UPF warning labels if enacted—potential for failure-to-warn claims to strengthen. No revival window. Courts require substantial proof of causation per intake guidance.
New York
3 years from injury
Rule: N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214; discovery rule applies for toxic exposure
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury and its cause are discovered or should have been discovered
Failure-to-warn recognized as viable theory. Longer SOL favors intake of adult claimants with delayed diagnoses. No pending revival legislation identified.
Florida
4 years from injury
Rule: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a); discovery rule applies for latent diseases
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury is discovered or should have been discovered
Longest SOL among major filing states. No MDL transfer yet; cases proceeding individually. Intake should document childhood consumption patterns and medical timeline carefully.
| State | SOL | Rule | Discovery Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 2 years from injury | Products liability claims governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; discovery rule applies for latent injuries per Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal. 1988) | Discovery rule applies; accrual when plaintiff knows or should know injury and its cause | San Francisco City Attorney filed public nuisance/addiction lawsuit Dec. 5, 2025 against Mondelez, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellogg, Mars, Conagra. State AG may expand consumer protection theories. No revival statute active. |
| Pennsylvania | 2 years from injury | 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; discovery rule recognized for latent diseases | Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury is or should be discovered | First individual UPF lawsuit filed E.D. Pa. (Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., et al.) with Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed March 31, 2025. No MDL yet. Intake should prioritize minors with T2D/NAFLD diagnoses before age 18. |
| Texas | 2 years from injury | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003; discovery rule applies for inherently undiscoverable injuries | Discovery rule applies; accrual when objective symptoms manifest or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence | HB 3691 (2025) would mandate UPF warning labels if enacted—potential for failure-to-warn claims to strengthen. No revival window. Courts require substantial proof of causation per intake guidance. |
| New York | 3 years from injury | N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214; discovery rule applies for toxic exposure | Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury and its cause are discovered or should have been discovered | Failure-to-warn recognized as viable theory. Longer SOL favors intake of adult claimants with delayed diagnoses. No pending revival legislation identified. |
| Florida | 4 years from injury | Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a); discovery rule applies for latent diseases | Discovery rule applies; accrual when injury is discovered or should have been discovered | Longest SOL among major filing states. No MDL transfer yet; cases proceeding individually. Intake should document childhood consumption patterns and medical timeline carefully. |
Live intelligence
AI litigation brief
Ultra-Processed Food remains emerging with 68 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
No MDL has been formed. The lead personal-injury test case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was dismissed with prejudice June 30, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez for failure to plead product-specific but-for causation across 179 products from 11 manufacturers; plaintiff filed notice of appeal. Omnibus motions to dismiss remain pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 6:26-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla.), with the latter plaintiff narrowing to roughly 80 products and a single disease after Martinez II. San Francisco's public-nuisance/UCL suit, People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz et al., No. CGC-25-631189, was remanded to California state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and proceeds on a government-enforcement theory distinct from individual causation.
Key developments
Trajectory
Court filings and press coverage are both active, pointing to sustained litigation pressure rather than a one-off headline cycle. 4 live sources are contributing current context.
Editorial intelligence
Editorial coverage should stay tied to source-backed developments and avoid placeholder status copy for UPF Litigation.
Generated Sep 30, 2026, 10:00 AM UTC
68 events detected
Google News (41)
Defense and Proactive Strategies Regarding Ultra-processed Foods Lawsuits - Packaging World
Kraft Heinz sues Chubb, Liberty Mutual over UPF insurance coverage - Beinsure
Food giant takes Chubb and Liberty Mutual to court over UPF coverage denial - Insurance Business
Judge dismisses lawsuit against ultra-processed food companies - Audacy
Video San Francisco files landmark lawsuit against companies over ultra processed foods - ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
UPF Litigation Update: Plaintiffs’ Causation Challenge Comes into Sharper Focus - Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI)
Leading Indian doctors urge government to ban junk food advertising, add warning labels - The New Indian Express
Ultra-Processed Food Firms Resort to Lawsuits as Regulatory Window Narrows - Earnings Quality Analysis - Vinanet
Why are ultra-processed food firms panicking and suing? Because they know time is running out | Felicity Lawrence - The Guardian
Lawsuit against food companies over UPFs dismissed - Baking Business
Ultra-Processed Food Manufacturers Resort to Denial and Lawsuits as Health Evidence Hardens - Earnings Growth Analysis - Vinanet
FDA’s UPF definition may lack legal force, but not policy impact - FoodNavigator.com
A legal turning point in the fight against ultra-processed foods? - Counterview
How big food sues governments to keep unhealthy products on shelves - Daily Maverick
Ultra-processed food companies hindering health drives by suing countries, says WHO - The Guardian
The World Health Organization (WHO) strongly criticized global ultra-processed food (UPF) companies - mk.co.kr
Ultra-Processed Food Manufacturers Face New Litigation Challenges in California and Beyond - The National Law Review
Senators introduce legislation to promote transparent food labels - Center for Science in the Public Interest
Big Food headed the way of Big Tobacco as lawsuits against public health policies increase - AgFunderNews
Opinion | This Teen Took on a $10 Trillion Industry. We Might All Be Healthier Because of Him. - The New York Times
Big Food vs. The People: lawsuits against public health measures - Food Politics by Marion Nestle -
Briefs: FDA on GRAS. Hemp Rallies Support. UPF Suit Tossed. EPR on Trial, and More - Beverage-Digest
Big Food vs. The People - Lighthouse Reports
After Major Setback, Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Face Uncertain Path - Law.com
How ultra-processed food firms hoodwink us into thinking their UPFs are 'healthier' than others - Scimex
Study links lower UPF intake to better cardiovascular health - Nutrition Insight
Study links lower UPF intake to improved cardiovascular health, experts caution findings - Nutrition Insight
Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Multiply Despite Early Setbacks - Bloomberg Law News
Consumers file a flurry of lawsuits against makers of ultra-processed foods - ABA Journal
Ultra-processed foods leave behind metabolic “signature” in blood, study finds - Nutrition Insight
Food Exec Brief: General Mills Posts a Loss, UPF Lawsuits Lose, and McCormick Pockets $28M - Food Industry Executive
How Cos. Can Prep For Ultra-Processed Food Legal Risks - Law360
What’s next after the first major UPF lawsuit was tossed - The Black Chronicle
Federal Court Dismisses UPF Lawsuit for Second Time - The Daily Intake
Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Novel Suit Over Ultra-Processed Foods Falls Flat, Judge Suggests Videotaping Testimony of Social Media Execs - Law.com
Court tosses UPF lawsuit against food companies - Food Business News
The coming UPF regulation revolution - BakeryAndSnacks.com
Food giants defeat lawsuit calling ultraprocessed products addictive - Food Dive
Weil Secures Dismissal in Landmark Ultra-Processed Foods Litigation for PepsiCo - Weil
Ultra-Processed Food Companies Again Defeat Addictiveness Suit - Bloomberg Law News
Judge Tosses Suit Against Coca-Cola, Others Over Ultra-Processed Foods - Law.com
BMC medicine • Monteiro CA • PMID 42806345 • Letter.
American journal of preventive medicine • Yu Louie JC • PMID 42805427 • Journal Article.
Clinical nutrition ESPEN • Fouad Y • PMID 42805488 • Letter.
Obesity surgery • Besler HT • PMID 42803906 • Journal Article.
BMC medicine • Tennant PWG • PMID 42802224 • Journal Article.
KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
W.D. Pa.
This is an insurance coverage dispute where Kraft Heinz (a primary MDL defendant) is the plaintiff suing its insurer ACE American Insurance Company for coverage related to underlying claims, directly involving an MDL defendant in litigation connected to the ultra-processed food MDL.
General Mills, Inc.
N.D. Ill.
General Mills is a major ultra-processed food manufacturer facing similar product liability claims as the MDL defendants (Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Nestlé) regarding addictive formulation and deceptive marketing of processed foods, making it a related defendant in this emerging MDL.
No recent legislative signals. Monitoring is active — this section updates automatically.
Workbench
Sign in to save litigations, capture notes, and monitor live signals. Sign in for unlimited.
LexGenius Ranking
50Score
Activity volume is building across tracked sources
Monitoring
Live
monitoring
Last: Sep 30, 2026, 10:00 AM UTC
Next: —
Source Monitoring
PACER
PACER
Google News
PubMed
Event feed
68
events detected
AI Brief
Ultra-Processed Food remains emerging with 68 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
No MDL has been formed. The lead personal-injury test case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was dismissed with prejudice June 30, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez for failure to plead product-specific but-for causation across 179 products from 11 manufacturers; plaintiff filed notice of appeal. Omnibus motions to dismiss remain pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 6:26-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla.), with the latter plaintiff narrowing to roughly 80 products and a single disease after Martinez II. San Francisco's public-nuisance/UCL suit, People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz et al., No. CGC-25-631189, was remanded to California state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and proceeds on a government-enforcement theory distinct from individual causation.
Key developments
PACER court filing on Sep 21: KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY. ‖ Packaging World news on Sep 29: Defense and Proactive Strategies Regarding Ultra-processed Foods Lawsuits - Packaging World. ‖ PubMed research on Sep 29: Response to: Debate in relation to "Ultra‑processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence"..
Generated Sep 30, 2026, 10:00 AM UTC
← Previous
Social Media Sextortion
Monitors platform-design liability and negligence litigation tied to social media-facilitated sextortion, grooming, and sexual abuse of minors.
Next →
2026 Cyclosporiasis Outbreak
Tracks the pending MDL 3203 centralization motion concerning consumer-protection actions alleging lettuce, leafy greens, and other vegetable products were contaminated in connection with a Cyclosporiasis outbreak.