Expansion of Ultra-Processed Food Litigation into Two New Jurisdictions

Food manufacturers continue to face expanding litigation alleging injuries arising from the consumption of ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”). Following earlier actions, including Martinez in Pennsylvania and People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Company, in San Francisco Superior Court, plaintiffs have now initiated parallel federal actions in Louisiana and Florida. These newer filings reflect an apparent effort to refine pleading strategies and broaden UPF litigation across jurisdictions.

The Next Phase of UPF Litigation: Coordinated Federal Filings Emerge

Two recently filed lawsuits, Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz Company, et al. in the Eastern District of Louisiana and Muthusami v. Kraft Heinz Company, et al. in the Middle District of Florida, assert nearly identical theories of liability against major food and beverage manufacturers arising from the alleged health effects of UPFs.

In both actions, the plaintiffs allege that defendants designed, manufactured, and marketed UPF products that are unsafe, addictive, and harmful to consumers’ health. The complaints contend that defendants were aware of alleged health risks associated with these products yet continued to market them aggressively, particularly to children, using strategies designed to promote habitual and long-term consumption.
Each plaintiff alleges childhood consumption of UPFs and claims to have developed type 2 diabetes, among other injuries, while still a minor. The Louisiana plaintiff alleges diagnoses at age fourteen of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes. Similarly, the Florida plaintiff alleges that she was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age sixteen after years of ingesting UPFs. Both plaintiffs identify brand-specific packaged snack foods and beverages such as crackers, cookies, snack bars, ready-to-eat cereals, and sugar-sweetened drinks as contributing to the alleged conditions.

Both lawsuits also reflect an evolution in pleading strategy following earlier developments in UPF litigation. Rather than relying solely on broad categorical allegations regarding UPFs, the plaintiffs identify specific branded products they allegedly consumed and also describe frequency and duration of consumption. This product and brand-specific approach appears designed to address prior dismissal arguments by strengthening causation allegations and tying claimed injuries to particular defendants and products.

Broadening the Battlefield

Both complaints frame allegations against the defendants as willful and reckless conduct directed not solely at the plaintiff, but at consumers and the public at large, with a particular emphasis on children. The complaint characterizes defendants’ conduct as deliberate, profit-driven, and undertaken with conscious disregard for consumer safety, rather than as isolated failures or inadvertent omissions. This framing is intended to support a claim for punitive damages on the theory that such relief is necessary to punish and deter similar conduct.

Looking ahead, plaintiffs are increasingly attempting to link UPF consumption to a broad variety of chronic diseases, suggesting that the current wave of cases may represent only the beginning of a wider litigation trend. Emerging allegations rely on epidemiological literature to assert associations with additional conditions, including breast and colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and neurocognitive or mental health disorders. By expanding the range of potential injuries, plaintiffs’ counsel appear poised to test new causation theories and pursue claims across a broader spectrum of diet-related health outcomes. Whether such claims can withstand rigorous scientific and legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but the trajectory indicates an effort to significantly widen the scope of UPF-related litigation.

Given the evolving nature of UPF litigation, manufacturers may wish to monitor these developments and consider whether existing compliance, marketing, and document-retention practices are aligned with current regulatory guidance and industry standards. Companies should also be prepared to respond to allegations that rely on generalized epidemiological data by identifying appropriate scientific and regulatory experts who can address issues of product-specific exposure, causation, and risk assessment. As these cases progress, early awareness and coordination with counsel may assist manufacturers in evaluating potential defenses and responding to similar claims as these lawsuits are filed in additional jurisdictions.

The Road Ahead

Although UPF litigation remains in its early stages, these Louisiana and Florida actions demonstrate that the litigation continues to expand geographically and strategically. Plaintiffs’ counsel are refining their pleadings by targeting specific products, emphasizing childhood exposure, and focusing on fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes. With this coordinated approach in mind, additional UPF lawsuits in other jurisdictions are imminent. Food manufacturers should expect continued litigation and prepare defense strategies addressing both product-specific allegations and challenges to causation.

Further Information:
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.

Alaina K. Jraige is an Associate in the Chicago office of Foley Mansfield. She defends manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in product liability, toxic tort, and complex civil litigation matters throughout Illinois. She can be reached at ajraige@foleymansfield.com.