The legal battle against ultra-processed foods (UPFs) may be poised to become the next major chapter in mass tort litigation. As a common part of modern diets for Americans, the consumption of UPF has led to a massive rise in claims linking them to serious health issues. 

In this blog, we share everything attorneys need to know about why ultra-processed foods are facing increasing legal scrutiny and the rise of mass tort cases against manufacturers. 

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

Ultra-processed foods are foods made of industrially produced ingredients. They often include artificial additives such as flavors, colors, sweeteners, and gelling agents. Common examples include soft drinks, packaged cookies, frozen meals, and flavored yogurts.

What Is the Legal Basis Behind the Claims?

There are several legal theories behind the claims against ultra-processed food manufacturers:

• Failure to warn: Alleging that manufacturers failed to disclose known health risks of consuming UPFs.
• Negligence in formulation & marketing: Asserting that manufacturers formulated and marketed UPFs in ways that make them addictive.
• Deceptive marketing: Alleging that companies misled the public to promote UPFs as healthy.

Who are the Defendants?

Litigation is focusing on some of the largest food and beverage companies that manufacture ultra-processed foods. Defendants include:

• Kraft Heinz
• Mondelez International
• Coca-Cola
• PepsiCo
• Nestlé
• Kellogg’s
• General Mills
• ConAgra
• Post Holdings

Which Health Conditions Have Been Linked to UPFs?

The medical evidence linking ultra-processed foods to diseases is central to the lawsuits. Current research focuses on the following:

• Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): A liver problem that affects people who drink little to no alcohol, but causes the liver to swell due to fat deposits. This may lead to serious liver scarring, called cirrhosis, and even liver cancer.
• Type 2 diabetes: A chronic disease that occurs when the body cannot process insulin correctly, allowing sugar to build up in the blood. 
• Obesity and related comorbidities: Obesity is a disease characterized by excessive body fat. Its comorbidities, or other diseases that are present, include cardiovascular disease, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), osteoarthritis (OA), prediabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and more.

The plaintiffs are often children and teenagers diagnosed with these diseases at unusually young ages. Their cases highlight how the manufacturers’ marketing strategies may have targeted youth. 

Why Are Ultra-Processed Foods Considered the Next “Big Tobacco?”

The landmark litigation against Big Tobacco set a precedent for large-scale consumer protection cases, showing that even the biggest industries can be challenged in court and held accountable for harmful products. Now, many legal experts believe ultra-processed foods (UPFs) could be the “next tobacco” in mass tort litigation. We dive into this more in the next section.

Case Spotlight: Bryce Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc. et al.

A pivotal UPFs case to watch is Bryce Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company et al. This suit was originally filed in December 2024 and is currently pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

The plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease at just 16 years old, conditions the suit notes were historically prevalent in older alcoholic adults. The complaint names eleven major food conglomerates, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Kellogg, as defendants.

There are two important arguments to this case:

1. Intentional Design and Marketing: The suit alleges these companies deliberately engineered their ultra-processed foods to be “hyper-palatable” and addictive, drawing a direct parallel to tobacco industry tactics. This comparison is underscored by a historical link: the complaint details how tobacco giants like RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris acquired major food brands in the late 20th century, subsequently applying their expertise in addiction and marketing to the food industry.
2. Foreknowledge of Harm: Perhaps most compelling, the complaint cites internal industry documents. It references a presentation made to food CEOs just months after the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which explicitly warned that the industry’s role in the childhood obesity epidemic through “the ubiquity of inexpensive, good-tasting, super-sized, energy-dense foods” could trigger a wave of litigation mirroring that which brought Big Tobacco to justice.

The suit contends that despite this clear warning, defendants intensified marketing campaigns that targeted vulnerable demographics. Martinez himself is described as a testament to this strategy, having regularly consumed over 100 different UPF products from the defendants, leading to his severe and premature diagnoses. This case is being closely watched, as its rulings on motions to dismiss and evidentiary standards could provide the foundational precedent for thousands of future claims.

Explore Mass Tort Co-Counsel Opportunities

By working with Broughton Partners, your firm gains direct access to qualified retainers, without the administrative burden. Our team runs targeted campaigns across TV, radio, social media, and digital platforms. Every claimant is screened through a 24/7 in-house call center using law firm-approved eligibility criteria, and only pre-qualified retainers are delivered to your team.

Let us help you grow your caseload ethically and efficiently while protecting your license and reputation every step of the way. Contact us today to get started.