Food manufacturers should be paying close attention. People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al., a first-of-its-kind lawsuit brought by the San Francisco City Attorney against several major food companies, reflects growing pressure on how foods are formulated, marketed, and regulated, particularly products characterized as “ultra-processed.”
While the outcome of the case remains uncertain, the lawsuit underscores broader regulatory and policy trends that are already reshaping the risk landscape for food and consumer products companies.
Overview
San Francisco filed suit against several of the nation’s largest food and beverage manufacturers, alleging that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are deceptively marketed, engineered to encourage overconsumption, and contribute to a public health crisis.
The case aligns with themes Gardner Law has been documenting and that regulators, lawmakers, and public health authorities have increasingly emphasized. These include how ultra-processed foods should be defined, the role of additives and industrial processing, and the long-term health effects associated with chronic consumption.
Importantly for industry, the lawsuit is brought by a government entity rather than private plaintiffs. Legal commentators have noted that this posture may affect how courts evaluate issues such as standing, remedies, and the scope of permissible relief.
What the Lawsuit Signals for Food Companies
The complaint relies on the NOVA classification system to define ultra-processed foods, a framework that has become increasingly influential in policy discussions despite continued debate about its regulatory utility. The City Attorney alleges that manufacturers’ formulation and marketing practices promote overconsumption, particularly among children, while downplaying or obscuring health risks.
Although the lawsuit is not an FDA enforcement action and does not allege that specific products violate FDA safety or labeling requirements, it reflects growing willingness by state and local authorities to test consumer protection and public nuisance theories against widely distributed, FDA-regulated foods.
For food companies, the significance lies less in the specific allegations and more in what the case represents. Marketing practices, ingredient choices, processing methods, and implied messaging are increasingly being evaluated through lenses that extend beyond traditional FDA compliance.
Why This Matters Now
This lawsuit arrives amid heightened scrutiny of the food supply at both the federal and state levels. Policymakers continue to debate reforms to the GRAS framework, increased oversight of additives, and whether certain foods should be restricted in schools and other public programs.
At the same time, industry groups have raised concerns that processing-based definitions and litigation-driven standards could create uncertainty and complicate existing regulatory frameworks due to inconsistent definitions and enforcement. These tensions underscore the unsettled nature of the regulatory environment and the likelihood of continued pressure from multiple directions.
Industry Perspective
“This lawsuit reflects a broader shift in how regulators and plaintiffs are thinking about food products and public health risk,” said David Graham, Senior Counsel at Gardner Law. “Even companies with strong FDA compliance programs should be paying close attention to how marketing practices, product positioning, and state consumer protection laws are evolving.”