City of San Francisco Files Ultra Processed Foods Lawsuit Against Food Manufacturers

The City of San Francisco recently filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against food product manufacturers, for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and Public Nuisance statutes, for injuries to its citizens that the City alleges were caused by ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”). City Attorney David Chiu seeks a statewide injunction that would prohibit food manufacturers from using alleged “false or deceptive” marketing practices and assess penalties under California Business & Professional Code § 17204.

The City of San Francisco Lawsuit

The People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco Attorney David Chiu v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al, is another UPF case in which the City of San Francisco, represented by Morgan & Morgan, alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and several public nuisance violations under California Civil Code §§ 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494. The 64-page Complaint mirrors much of the language from the plaintiff’s complaint in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al., including allegations that food product manufacturers use the “Big Tobacco Playbook” and “deceptive practices” to sell unsafe, addictive food that has created a public health crisis. This is no surprise because Morgan & Morgan was also behind the Martinez lawsuit in Pennsylvania. The San Francisco Complaint also claims that food product manufacturers have been aware of the harmful nature of these products for decades but have continued to market them to children in order to “cultivate lifelong consumers.” The City seeks injunctive relief, preventing the companies from advertising and marketing of UPF foods to children, and requiring them to take actions such as consumer education on the health risks of UPF, or other financial penalties.

An Appetizer for Future Litigation

The lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco represents the first brought by a government entity but reuses many of the allegations from the Martinez case. This includes using the definition of UPF coined by Carlos Augusto Monteiro in the NOVA Classification System.[1] The Complaint cites an additional editorial from Monteiro that seeks to create further connections between UPF and “diet-related chronic illness,” and heavily leans on Monteiro’s interpretation of the science of UPF.[2] The City’s Complaint also contains multiple references to tactics used by the “Big Tobacco Playbook,” and similarly seeks to establish that food manufacturers: failed to act with reasonable care during the manufacturing of UPF; knew their products were unsafe and addictive; put them into the stream of commerce; and negligently advertised these products to children. The City identifies roughly 100 different food products produced by the named food product manufacturers, and alleges rising rates of Type II Diabetes, Non-Fatty Liver Disease, and morbid obesity from 1985 to 2025 among the Black and Latine/x communities in San Francisco. While it remains to be seen whether these allegations rise to the specificity threshold that the Martinez Complaint failed to meet, the City of San Francisco allegations show that plaintiffs’ counsel are adapting their pleading strategy and food product manufacturers must prepare to litigate UPF cases past the pleadings stage.

The City’s Complaint has another major distinction from the Martinez Complaint – a potential legal definition of UPF that has been signed into law. On October 8, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsome signed the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act into law. The Act defines UPFs as “foods that contain additives, such as thickeners, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, or other chemical agents—and also high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, added sugar, or nonnutritive sweeteners.” This allows the City of San Francisco to present a definition that was created by the California State Legislature to include specific categories of products. While the statutory definition is persuasive to a court, food product manufacturers can challenge a statutory definition if a court determines the definition is ambiguous and/or vague. Food product manufacturers should prepare experts who can support challenges to a statutory definition and offer evidence that these definitions are not narrowly-tailored to the harms alleged.

The City’s lawsuit, based on alleged violations of a civil statute as opposed to a personal injury, could have wide-ranging impact due to the involvement of a government entity. The City of San Francisco has sought injunctive relief to limit advertising and marketing of food products throughout the State of California, require food product manufacturers to “educate consumers on the risks of [UPF],” and provide monetary relief to subsidize healthcare costs for affected communities. Should the City succeed, the outcome could have nationwide effects and could require food product manufacturers to include specific warnings regarding the contents of their products. Food product manufacturers should develop marketing, advertising, and branding experts who can testify to the strategies used to bring new foods to market and to promote them to consumers in order to address these types of allegations.

Conclusion

In summary, this Complaint is the latest in litigation against food manufacturers and signals that government bodies are ready and willing to participate. The City of San Francisco hit on many of the same points that the Martinez Complaint used, including significant references to the “Big Tobacco Playbook” and, unlike Martinez, directly identifies specific products allegedly causing harm. If successful, it is likely that both private plaintiffs and government entities will continue to take similar approaches, and food manufacturers should continue to prepare defense strategies to address these common allegations. The number of lawsuits regarding UPF may continue to grow as plaintiffs’ firms expand their messaging to potential plaintiffs. Food manufacturers should be prepared to address allegations directed toward specific products and prepare defense strategies to challenge any future lawsuits raised by government entities. Companies with concerns about future ultra-processed food lawsuits can reach out to a member of Foley Mansfield’s product liability team for assistance.

[1] The Nova Classification System defines UPF as “industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food. They consist of former foods that have been fractioned into substances, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion and pressurization.”

[2] Carlos A. Monteiro et al., Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: The Main Thesis and the Evidence, The Lancet (Nov. 18, 2025).

 

Further Information:

To discuss UPF litigation, please contact a member of Foley Mansfield’s UPF Practice Group.

Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten is a Partner in Foley Mansfield’s Minneapolis office, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, and the chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group. She devotes her practice to defending product manufacturers, suppliers, and installers in high-risk product liability and toxic tort cases. She can be reached at ebrotten@foleymansfield.com.

Shelley K. Napolitano is the Managing Partner of Foley Mansfield’s New Orleans office and Co-Chair of the firm’s national Talc Practice Group. She defends product manufacturers, contractors, and premise owners in multidistrict product liability, toxic tort litigation, and also specializes in management of large-scale fact investigation projects, as well as corporate and expert deposition preparation. She can be reached at snapolitano@foleymansfield.com.

Kyle Heim is an Attorney in the Minneapolis office of Foley Mansfield. He defends product manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in product liability and toxic tort claims in Minnesota and North Dakota. He can be reached at kheim@foleymansfield.com.