Emerging Litigation Over Ultra-Processed Foods: Strategic Considerations for Food and Beverage Companies

Manufacturers and distributors of convenience and snack foods may not want to wait until a lawsuit is filed to start building litigation defense strategies against the wave of litigation targeting the accessibility and crave-ability of their products, which the lawsuits label as "ultra-processed." These complaints typically have been filed as proposed class actions that vaguely compare the "cleanliness" of a "real" food with an allegedly inferior '"synthetic" or "highly processed" food.

The Ultra-Processed Playbook

It will come as no surprise that these lawsuits include analogies to historic "bad actors." For example, one suit invoked Upton Sinclair's chronicle, The Jungle, to compare the unsanitary conditions of Chicago's meat-packing industry around the turn of the twentieth century to present-day manufacturing processes.^[1] The complaints emphasize how the "chemical preservatives" used to "disguise unsanitary practices" and to conceal "inferior quality" at that time were so dangerous to human health that Congress passed the precursor to the FDCA to require disclosure of "deleterious additives." Similarly, the complaints imply that the modern products at issue contain "deleterious additives" that are not properly disclosed on their packaging and labeling. This reptilian technique suggests that a jury should complete the analogy and issue a verdict that protects the public from unknowingly ingesting these processed ingredients. Another proposed class action analogizes the alleged sharp practices of "big tobacco" to those of "ultra-processed food" manufacturers.

Where Courts Stand

The lawsuits filed to date have mainly focused on false advertising, misbranding, and deceptive marketing claims and less on personal injury. A noted exception, however, has been a product liability action in federal court in Pennsylvania against a number of food companies.^[2] The plaintiff claimed that "ultra-processed foods" are "addictive" and are causally linked to various negative health outcomes, possibly due to additives or to some element of the refining process. The court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety earlier this week, emphasizing the absence of a causal connection between the hundreds of foods identified and the plaintiff's alleged injuries. The court acknowledged "the troubling science" behind so-called ultra-processed foods but faulted the complaint for painting the entire industry as culpable rather than tying any specific product to the plaintiff's claims.

The Litigation Horizon

Despite setbacks, plaintiff firms appear to be undeterred. Several pending cases have attracted media coverage, and well-known firms have begun advertising for plaintiffs who have developed conditions like type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease after consuming certain food products.

This surge persists despite the fact that "ultra-processed foods" is a term without definition. In July 2025, FDA and USDA jointly issued a Request for Information to help develop a consistent definition acknowledging that no uniform standard currently exists and that the term's use has varied widely over time.

What Companies Should Do Now

Given the litigation momentum and media spotlight on "ultra-processed foods," businesses should consider:

• Evaluating risk by reviewing marketing claims, labeling practices, and product formulation
• Developing defense strategies early, including expert-driven narratives to counter "addictiveness" theories plaintiffs are advancing
• Monitoring regulatory developments, such as FDA and USDA rulemaking toward a definition that could shape litigation trends

Venable will continue to monitor this rapidly evolving space and provide updates. For more information on "ultra-processed foods" or related litigation, contact one of the authors or members of our Class Action Defense or Product Liability teams.