Lawsuit Alleges Ultra-Processed Food Manufacturers Fueled Chronic Diseases

City of San Francisco is now pursuing damages from manufacturers of ultra-processed foods, arguing that they knew their products trigger compulsive, addictive cravings.

A newly filed lawsuit alleges that big tobacco companies brought the same addiction focused research they once used to intensify cigarette dependence into the ultra-processed foods market decades ago.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by San Francisco City Attorney, David Chiu, on behalf of the people of the state of California, in California Superior Court on December 2. It names a number of major food manufacturers as defendants, including The Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International Inc., Post Holdings Inc., and at least eight other companies.

Ultra-processed foods include a broad range of snacks, drinks and ready made meals that rely on added sugars, fats, salt and other additives to boost flavor, extend shelf life or alter texture, yet provide little nutritional value. 

As consumption has surged in recent decades, studies have increasingly linked routine intake to long term health problems such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes, with researchers warning that children may face the highest risks.

Critics contend that food companies have long known about the addictive and potentially harmful qualities of these products, yet continue to market them heavily to teens and young adults to build lifelong brand loyalty.

Amid these concerns, attorneys nationwide are reviewing potential ultra-processed foods lawsuits on behalf of people who began eating these products at a young age and were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

According to the new lawsuit, San Francisco officials claim the defendants engineered ultra-processed foods to trigger compulsive consumption, using industrial ingredients and additives designed to override the body’s natural signals of satiety.

In a press release issued with the complaint, Chiu compares these tactics to the strategies once used to increase dependence by tobacco companies, which got involved in manufacturing UPFs during the prior century. He alleges that many of the same research tools and behavioral insights were repurposed to make modern packaged foods more addictive.

City officials also accuse the companies of concealing the health risks linked to ultra-processed foods, while aggressively marketing them to children. The complaint cites examples of cartoon characters, movie tie-ins, online games and social media campaigns that promoted snacks and drinks directly to young audiences, often without clear disclosures about their nutritional limitations.

The filing further alleges that Black and Latino communities were disproportionately targeted with advertising, contributing to higher rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases in lower-income neighborhoods. San Francisco public health data cited in the lawsuit shows significant racial and economic disparities in diet-related illnesses, which city officials argue were worsened by decades of targeted marketing.

“Defendants hide the truth about UPF through blatantly false and misleading marketing, not only failing to warn consumers about the health risks of UPF consumption, but also claiming, among other things, UPF products are ‘healthy’ when they are anything but.”

— The People of the State of California v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al

Chiu raises allegations of violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance against the defendants. He is seeking statewide injunctive relief, civil penalties and funding to help abate what he describes as a public health crisis driven in part by ultra-processed foods, arguing that the companies’ conduct has imposed substantial medical and social costs on San Francisco residents.

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuits Update December 2025

San Francisco’s lawsuit echoes claims raised last year by Bryce Martinez, who was among the first plaintiffs to try to hold major food makers accountable for allegedly marketing UPF products to children while hiding the long-term dangers. Martinez filed suit in December 2024, arguing that misleading promotions and a lack of warnings prompted him to rely heavily on ultra-processed foods throughout his childhood, resulting in chronic health problems that continue today.

U.S. District Judge Mia R. Perez in Pennsylvania dismissed his complaint in August, ruling that the allegations were too broad and failed to link any specific product, brand or ingredient to the injuries he described. The lack of particularity, she wrote, left the case without a viable legal basis.

Martinez has since asked for permission to amend and refile the lawsuit. He submitted a revised complaint that lists specific products and the amounts he says he consumed, and is urging the court to reconsider its earlier decision. However, food companies have opposed Martinez’s motion, arguing that the new filing still leaves major gaps about what Martinez ate and when, and includes claims tied to products that fall outside the statute of limitations.

Judge Perez’s upcoming ruling on whether to revive the suit is expected to influence how similar processed food lawsuits are framed and litigated going forward.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.