Overview
Litigation over ultra-processed foods has begun to appear in courts, with claims that these products contribute to serious health conditions. The cases filed so far have taken different legal approaches: individual product liability claims and a municipal public nuisance action. The record shows one case that has been dismissed twice and another that remains pending. No court has yet ruled on the merits of claims that ultra-processed foods cause disease.
The Martinez Case: Individual Lawsuit Dismissed
In August 2025, a federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 11 food companies. The case alleged that ultra-processed foods caused a teenager to develop type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease. The judge dismissed the complaint because it did not name specific products as the cause of the injuries.[1]
A dismissal at this stage means the complaint did not meet the legal requirements to proceed. When a court dismisses a case for failing to identify specific products, it is typically giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint with more detail.
The plaintiff in Martinez did file an amended complaint. On June 30, 2026, Judge Mia Roberts Perez dismissed that amended complaint as well. This time, the judge refused to allow the plaintiff to amend again, which ended the case.[4]
When a court dismisses a case with no leave to amend, it means the judge has determined that the plaintiff cannot fix the problems with the legal claims. The Martinez case is now over in federal court in Philadelphia.
San Francisco Files Public Nuisance Suit
On December 2, 2025, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against major food manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo. The suit concerns ultra-processed foods and was the first such case brought by a city.[2]
The San Francisco case takes a different legal approach than Martinez. It seeks abatement of a public nuisance, which is a legal remedy asking the court to stop or reduce harm to the community. Specifically, the suit asks for consumer education on ultra-processed food risks. The complaint also alleges unfair competition, a claim under California business law.[3]
A public nuisance case brought by a city does not seek damages for an individual person's injuries. Instead, it asks the court to address what the city characterizes as a widespread community harm. Abatement can include changes to business practices, public warnings, or other measures designed to reduce the alleged nuisance.
The San Francisco case was still pending as of the most recent information in the record.[3]
Where Things Stand Now
The record we track shows two ultra-processed food cases. The Martinez case in federal court in Pennsylvania has been dismissed and is no longer active.[4] The San Francisco case filed by the city remains pending in California state court.[3]
No court has yet issued a ruling on the merits of whether ultra-processed foods cause disease or whether food manufacturers are liable for health conditions allegedly linked to these products. The Martinez dismissals were procedural, based on the failure to identify specific products, not decisions about whether the underlying claims were true or false.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show a trial date in the San Francisco case. It does not show any settlement in either case. It does not show any coordinated or consolidated proceeding bringing multiple ultra-processed food cases together, though only two cases appear in the record so far.
The record does not show what specific products are at issue in the San Francisco suit, what evidence the city has presented, or whether the defendants have filed any motions to dismiss. It does not show whether other cities or individuals have filed similar cases.
No court has made findings about what health effects ultra-processed foods may cause, what companies knew about risks, or whether any marketing or labeling was misleading. These are allegations in complaints, not established facts.
Sources
- Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. (E.D. Pa.) (2025-08-01). Secondary report: yahoo.com
- People v. Kraft Heinz et al. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco) (2025-12-02). Secondary report: wfae.org
- People v. Kraft Heinz et al. (2026-03-20). Secondary report: petrieflom.law.harvard.edu
- Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. (E.D. Pa.) (2026-06-30). Secondary report: dairyprocessing.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-10-24. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.