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
No settlements
Track litigations for free. Save this matter, capture notes, and monitor live signals.
Case overview
A federal judge permanently dismissed the first ultra-processed food (UPF) personal injury lawsuit on June 30, 2026, finding plaintiff Bryce Martinez failed to plead specific causation under Rule 8 against 11 major manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, and Nestlé. Despite the dismissal in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00043 (E.D. Pa.), Morgan & Morgan and co-counsel have filed more than 10 similar consumer suits nationwide and plan to seek MDL consolidation later this year. San Francisco's City Attorney separately filed a public nuisance action in December 2025, which was remanded to state court in April 2026 after Judge Jon S. Tigar found it advanced distinct state interests.
Causation Theory
Plaintiffs allege UPFs are engineered to be hyperpalatable and addictive through industrial formulations containing emulsifiers, guar gum, and other ingredients not found in home kitchens, citing Gearhardt et al.'s 2026 Milbank Quarterly study tracing tobacco industry tactics into food manufacturing. Observational studies referenced in complaints include Monteiro et al.'s 2025 Lancet series and Williams et al.'s 2025 NCHS data showing U.S. youth ages 1-18 derive 61.9% of calories from UPFs. The scientific literature links high UPF consumption to type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers, though plaintiffs acknowledge limited randomized controlled trials and FDA has not established a regulatory definition of UPFs.
Litigation status
No MDL established. The bellwether personal injury case Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was permanently dismissed July 1, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez, who denied leave to amend and rejected alternative liability and market-share liability theories. Coordinated omnibus motion practice is pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co. (M.D. Fla.). San Francisco's public-nuisance action People v. Kraft Heinz Co. was remanded to state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and remains active in San Francisco Superior Court.
State Court Activity
People v. Kraft Heinz Co. active in San Francisco Superior Court (remanded April 23, 2026); California AB 1264 (enacted Oct. 8, 2025) provides first statutory definition of 'ultra-processed foods of concern' and bans certain UPFs from school meals beginning 2028
Geographic exposure
UPF accounts for 57% of total daily calories consumed by American adults per 2017 data cited in BMJ 2025 umbrella review; 58% in U.S. per BMJ data — highest among high-income countries. Morgan & Morgan and co-counsel aim to consolidate cases into MDL later 2026; no MDL established as of August 2026. Over 10 consumer lawsuits filed since January 2026.
AB 1264 enacted October 8, 2025, establishing first U.S. legal definition of 'ultra-processed foods of concern' and banning certain UPFs from school meals. People v. Kraft Heinz Co., filed December 2, 2025 by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu in San Francisco Superior Court, removed to N.D. Cal. January 2026, remanded April 23, 2026 by Judge Jon Tigar. Creates regulatory framework for state enforcement and private litigation under California consumer protection statutes; 2-4 year SOL depending on cause of action.
Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 25-377, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164054 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025) — first UPF personal injury case dismissed by Judge Mia R. Perez for failure to allege specific causation and product identification. Plaintiff Bryce Martinez, Philadelphia teenager, alleged type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease from 179 products. 2-year SOL; discovery rule recognized for latent diseases. Morgan & Morgan planning appeal.
Shastin Jenkins filed federal complaint January 2026 in E.D. La. against Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, and Nestlé alleging UPF caused type 2 diabetes. Copycat complaint mirroring amended Martinez pleading standards.
4-year SOL from injury under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a); discovery rule applies for latent diseases. Longest SOL among major filing states. No MDL established; cases proceeding individually.
Copycat complaints filed early 2026 by Martinez plaintiff firms. No MDL established; parallel state and federal filings anticipated.
Copycat complaints filed early 2026. No MDL established.
BMC Public Health umbrella review (January 2026) identifies concentrated UPF exposure in 'out-of-home sector' with fast-food outlet food predominantly UPF-classified. Populations dependent on UPF for affordability, practicality, safety and availability face elevated exposure. Emergency-dependent populations show concentrated reliance due to shelf-life and minimal preparation requirements.
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
Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 19-year-old plaintiff alleging UPF addiction design caused type 2 diabetes and NAFLD; removed to federal court January 22, 2025.
Federal Agencies Issue UPF Definition RFI
FDA, HHS, and USDA jointly publish Request for Information seeking public input on uniform definition of ultra-processed foods; comment period closes October 2025.
Judge Perez Dismisses Martinez for Causation Failure
Judge Mia Roberts Perez grants motion to dismiss in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), finding complaint 'woefully deficient' on specific causation and product identification; dismissal without prejudice.
California Enacts First UPF Statutory Definition
California Governor signs AB 1264 creating first U.S. statutory definition of 'ultra-processed foods of concern' and banning specified UPFs from school meals beginning 2028.
San Francisco Files Public Nuisance UPF Suit
City Attorney David Chiu files People v. Kraft Heinz Co. in San Francisco Superior Court against 11 manufacturers alleging deceptive marketing and public nuisance; removed to N.D. Cal. January 2026.
Copycat Suits Filed Nationwide
Plaintiffs' firms file 10+ additional personal injury complaints in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, New York, and Wisconsin replicating Martinez theories with enhanced product-specific allegations.
N.D. Cal. Remands San Francisco Case
Judge Jon Tigar grants City's motion to remand in People v. Kraft Heinz Co., returning public nuisance action to San Francisco Superior Court; case management conference set July 1, 2026.
Judge Perez Denies Martinez Amendment, Closes Case
Judge Mia Roberts Perez denies motion to amend in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), ruling amended complaint still fails specific causation; rejects alternative liability and market-share theories; case terminated.
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 60 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
No MDL established. The bellwether personal injury case Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was permanently dismissed July 1, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez, who denied leave to amend and rejected alternative liability and market-share liability theories. Coordinated omnibus motion practice is pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co. (M.D. Fla.). San Francisco's public-nuisance action People v. Kraft Heinz Co. was remanded to state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and remains active in San Francisco Superior Court.
Key developments
Trajectory
Press coverage is active for UPF Litigation. Court-side confirmation through individual cases filed in federal district courts and state courts; no MDL currently established is the next escalation check.
Editorial intelligence
Editorial coverage should stay tied to source-backed developments and avoid placeholder status copy for UPF Litigation.
Generated Aug 12, 2026, 3:00 AM UTC
60 events detected
Google News (35)
Why are ultra-processed food firms panicking and suing? Because they know time is running out | Felicity Lawrence - The Guardian
A legal turning point in the fight against ultra-processed foods? - Counterview
Ultra-Processed Food Manufacturers Face New Litigation Challenges in California and Beyond - The National Law Review
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 -
Big Food vs. The People - Lighthouse Reports
After Major Setback, Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Face Uncertain Path - Law.com
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
Fed. Judge Tosses Revised Suit Linking Ultra-Processed Foods to Diabetes, Liver Disease - Law.com
Health risks and misleading marketing of ultra‑processed foods - MSN
Supreme Court Decides EPA Regulations Preempt State Laws on Pesticide Health Warnings - Food Safety Magazine
Over 200,000 junk food ads aired monthly: Health expert seeks legal ban - Counterview
The Ultra-Processed Foods Debate Remains Far from Settled - Prepared Foods
U.S. health agencies join fight against ‘ultraprocessed foods’—whatever they are - Science | AAAS
Big Tobacco Engineered Ultra-Processed Food, Creating Harmful And Addictive Products - Health Policy Watch
What to know about new ‘non-UPF’ certification labels - EWG
Brazil Drafts WHO Proposal to Ban Sale of Ultra-Processed Food to Children - Green Queen Media
Column | Why ‘non-ultra-processed’ food labels won’t make Americans eat better - The Washington Post
Your Workforce Is Either an Asset or a Liability. Training Decides Which. - Food Industry Executive
Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo and other food giants hit with $1B ultraprocessed food lawsuit - MSN
Food truck permits, liability insurance may be required by county - The Baker County Press
The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society • Gidley MJ • PMID 42576191 • Journal Article.
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics • Hodge A • PMID 42575428 • Journal Article.
The American journal of medicine • Hennekens CH • PMID 42567433 • Journal Article.
Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment • Doğan ZE • PMID 42554711 • Journal Article.
Nutrition journal • Larsson C • PMID 42552530 • Journal Article.
No recent court filing signals. Monitoring is active — this section updates automatically.
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
46Score
Fresh items are present but not yet surging
Monitoring
Live
monitoring
Last: Aug 12, 2026, 3:00 AM UTC
Next: —
Source Monitoring
PACER
PACER
Google News
PubMed
Event feed
60
events detected
AI Brief
Ultra-Processed Food remains emerging with 60 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
No MDL established. The bellwether personal injury case Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa.), was permanently dismissed July 1, 2026, by Judge Mia Roberts Perez, who denied leave to amend and rejected alternative liability and market-share liability theories. Coordinated omnibus motion practice is pending in Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Co. (S.D. Miss.) and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Co. (M.D. Fla.). San Francisco's public-nuisance action People v. Kraft Heinz Co. was remanded to state court April 23, 2026, by Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) and remains active in San Francisco Superior Court.
Key developments
The Guardian news on Aug 7: Why are ultra-processed food firms panicking and suing? Because they know time is running out | Felicity Lawrence - The Guardian. ‖ PubMed research on Aug 11: Digesta dynamics, nutrition messaging and (ultra)processed food..
Generated Aug 12, 2026, 3:00 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 3196 centralization motion concerning consumer-protection actions alleging lettuce, leafy greens, and other vegetable products were contaminated in connection with a Cyclosporiasis outbreak.