Ultra-processed food litigation is emerging as a significant legal issue as ultra-processed foods (UPFs) continue to dominate the American diet, comprising 50–60% of daily calories for many consumers. Defined by the NOVA food classification system as industrially formulated products made from extracted substances, additives, and minimal whole foods – such as sodas, packaged snacks, reconstituted meats, and flavored yogurts – UPFs are engineered for hyper-palatability, shelf stability, and overconsumption.
A robust body of evidence links higher UPF intake to serious chronic conditions. Because these harms develop over years or decades – often beginning in childhood – UPF claims fit the classic long-tail liability profile, potentially implicating commercial general liability (CGL) policies issued decades ago.
In December 2024, Bryce Martinez, a Pennsylvania teenager diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, filed the first major personal-injury suit (Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., et al.) in Philadelphia against 11 manufacturers. The 147-page complaint alleged the companies deliberately engineered addictive UPFs, targeted children with deceptive marketing, and failed to warn of health risks, drawing explicit parallels to Big Tobacco. A federal judge dismissed the case in full on August 25, 2025, citing the plaintiff’s failure to plead specific products consumed and a direct causal link between particular products and his injuries. The court was “deeply concerned” about UPF practices. To be sure, the door is open for refined complaints.
The litigation landscape shifted dramatically on December 2, 2025, when the State of California filed the first government-led UPF action (People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc., et al.) in San Francisco Superior Court. Naming the same core manufacturers as in Martinez, the complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and creation of a public nuisance through addictive, harmful products that impose massive public-health costs. It seeks restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief to change marketing and formulations.
Plaintiffs deploy negligence, strict liability, failure-to-warn, design-defect, and consumer-protection theories. Government suits emphasize public-cost recovery, sidestepping some individual-causation hurdles that can sink private claims. Defendants counter that UPFs lack a uniform scientific definition, that personal responsibility intervenes, and that claims fail for lack of specificity.
For corporate policyholders who process, sell, or are otherwise tied to UPFs, the stakes are rising. All potentially impacted corporate policyholders should consider engaging coverage counsel now to assist with gathering all legacy occurrence-based CGL policies that might provide defense and/or indemnity for UPF-related claims. Otherwise, policyholders could be left scrambling to find insurance and coverage counsel when a claim arises.
Battles over coverage for UPF claims will mirror prior long-tail risks: whether UPF claims trigger multiple policy years, how defense and indemnity should be allocated (pro rata v. all sums) if multiple policy years are triggered, the number of occurrences implicated by multiple claims, whether chronic disease qualifies as covered “bodily injury,” and lost policy issues.
UPF litigation remains in its infancy but follows the tobacco and opioid playbook: initial dismissals, refined complaints, government intervention, and pressure for industry reform. Corporate policyholders should consider being proactive: engage coverage counsel, inventory legacy policies, be prepared to provide prompt notice of any potential claims, and have a strategy to maximize insurance coverage before any claims are filed.
