Table of contents
- Latest Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuit Updates
- August 10, 2026: HHS and USDA Send Federal UPF Definition for Review
- June 30, 2026: Court Denies Leave to Amend in Martinez Case
- April 27, 2026: Wisconsin Consumer Sues 12 Food Companies
- April 23, 2026: Judge Sends San Francisco Suit Back to State Court
- December 2, 2025: San Francisco Sues Food Makers
- January 22, 2025: Martinez Case Moves to Federal Court
- What Is Ultra-Processed Food?
- Who May Be Affected?
- Reported Injuries or Damages
- Recall and Regulatory Background
- Evidence to Preserve
- Filing Deadlines
- Frequently Asked Questions
- How Many Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Have Been Filed?
- Did California Ban Ultra-Processed Foods?
- What Does the Research Say About Ultra-Processed Foods and Disease?
- Why Did the Martinez Court Reject the Amended Complaint?
Lawsuits say ultra-processed foods from big food companies cause type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease. Plaintiffs say the foods were built to be addictive and sold in a deceptive way. Defendants include Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.
The first individual injury case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz, was dismissed. The judge denied leave to amend on June 30, 2026, because causation was not pleaded.
San Francisco and a Wisconsin consumer have filed separate suits. No MDL has been formed, and no settlement or verdict exists.
Latest Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuit Updates
August 10, 2026: HHS and USDA Send Federal UPF Definition for Review
HHS and USDA submitted the federal government’s first proposed definition of ultra-processed foods for final review. HHS says the definition draws on feedback from thousands of stakeholders [1].
HHS also proposed a new rule. It would require manufacturers to notify the FDA when they conclude that a food substance is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
June 30, 2026: Court Denies Leave to Amend in Martinez Case
Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the E.D. Pennsylvania denied Bryce Martinez’s motion to amend his complaint. The case is against Kraft Heinz and ten other food makers.
According to the FDLI analysis, the judge held that the new complaint did not plead but-for causation. His first complaint was dismissed in August 2025 [2].
April 27, 2026: Wisconsin Consumer Sues 12 Food Companies
Olivia Kreie sued 12 food companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. She seeks $1 billion in damages from the companies named in the complaint.
She says the products were made to be addictive and aimed at children. Food Dive reported the filing on April 30, 2026. These claims are allegations, not court findings [3].
April 23, 2026: Judge Sends San Francisco Suit Back to State Court
U.S. Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California sent San Francisco’s lawsuit back to San Francisco Superior Court. The food makers had removed the case to federal court in January.
Tigar found the statewide injunction was the primary relief sought. He said the available relief slightly favored treating the state as the real party in interest. The remand report quotes the ruling [4].
December 2, 2025: San Francisco Sues Food Makers
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sued food makers, including Kraft Heinz and Mondelez. He filed for the City and County of San Francisco in San Francisco Superior Court.
The city sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute. It alleges the foods were designed to be cheap, colorful, flavorful and addictive, according to Courthouse News [5].
January 22, 2025: Martinez Case Moves to Federal Court
Kraft Heinz removed Martinez v. Kraft Heinz from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the E.D. Pennsylvania. The federal case is No. 2:25-cv-00377.
Bryce Martinez had filed the case in December 2024, and the next month it moved to federal court. Eleven food companies were named as defendants, according to Food Business News [6].
What Is Ultra-Processed Food?
According to the Diabetes Care study by Chen and colleagues, the NOVA food classification system defines ultra-processed foods (UPFs) [7]. It calls them “industrial formulations made mostly or entirely with substances extracted from foods.”
The system adds that they have additives and “little, if any, whole foods added.” No standardized federal definition exists yet.
Who May Be Affected?
The cases so far involve people with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease who had eaten many packaged products for years.
Bryce Martinez was diagnosed with both conditions at age 16. He alleged he regularly ate 179 products between 2009 and 2021, according to Food Business News. Olivia Kreie, the Wisconsin plaintiff, was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2016.
San Francisco’s suit is a government action, and the Wisconsin suit is a consumer suit. Whether you qualify depends on an individual legal review.
Reported Injuries or Damages
The Martinez plaintiff alleges type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. San Francisco alleges risks such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer, plus public health care costs.
These are complaint allegations, not findings. The Martinez court found correlation, not causation, in the plaintiff’s individual circumstances, according to the Food Dive dismissal report [8]. The studies below report associations only.
The Diabetes Care study covered 415,554 participants. Each 10% rise in total UPF intake was associated with a 12% higher risk of type 2 diabetes (95% CI 10%-13%).
Henney and colleagues studied fatty liver disease in Nutrients on May 10, 2023. In 9 studies of 60,961 people, high versus low UPF intake had a pooled relative risk of 1.42 [9].
Vitale and colleagues reviewed 25 reports in Advances in Nutrition. They found a positive association between high UPF intake and diabetes (37%), hypertension (32%) and obesity (32%) [10].
Recall and Regulatory Background
No FDA recall names ultra-processed foods as a product category. No legal deadline has been established for the proposed federal definition, according to Food Engineering [11].
Evidence to Preserve
Keep these records, which can show a diagnosis and what was eaten over the years:
- Medical records showing the diagnosis and the date it was made
- A record of the packaged foods and drinks eaten, with brands, how often and over what years
- Receipts, loyalty-card history and product photos or packaging
- Prescriptions and lab results
- Any communications with the companies
Write down the brands you ate, how often you ate them and over which years while your memory is fresh.
Filing Deadlines
Filing deadlines come from state law. They vary with where you live and when the illness and the diagnosis happened. Some states start the clock at diagnosis.
Even a strong food diary and medical history cannot save a claim filed too late. Talk to a lawyer promptly about the deadlines that apply to you.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Many Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Have Been Filed?
Ultra-processed food lawsuits have been filed in a flurry, with all but one filed since January 2026, Bloomberg Law reported on July 15, 2026. They accuse nearly a dozen major producers of failing to warn consumers [12].
Did California Ban Ultra-Processed Foods?
California has not banned ultra-processed foods in general. AB 1264, chaptered October 8, 2025, is a school-food law. It requires rules for “ultraprocessed foods of concern” by June 1, 2028. Schools must start phasing them out by July 1, 2029 [13].
What Does the Research Say About Ultra-Processed Foods and Disease?
Research on ultra-processed foods and disease is summarized by HHS. It says research has linked high consumption of UPFs to preventable chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The studies show associations. They do not prove cause in any one person.
Why Did the Martinez Court Reject the Amended Complaint?
The Martinez court rejected the amended complaint because it did not establish causation. The complaint ran 437 pages. The judge wrote that it raises serious concerns about the UPF industry, but the law does not allow Martinez to hold an entire industry liable.