San Francisco has filed a civil lawsuit against several of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, alleging that their manufacture and marketing of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has contributed to a public-health crisis. The complaint, made by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, targets 10 major food producers, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Mars, Conagra Brands, Post, and Kellanova/WK Kellogg, among others.
The lawsuit accuses the companies of engineering and aggressively marketing ultra-processed foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat while being low in nutritional value. According to the city, these products are designed to be hyper-palatable and habit-forming, with marketing practices that disproportionately reach children and lower-income communities. The filing compares some of the industry’s historical tactics to those once used by the tobacco sector to build lifelong consumers.
San Francisco alleges that widespread consumption of UPFs has significantly contributed to rising rates of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions, driving long-term costs for the city’s healthcare and social services systems. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief to curb alleged deceptive practices, and abatement measures intended to reduce public harm. Claims are brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public-nuisance statutes.
If the case proceeds, it could represent a pivotal escalation in how municipalities attempt to hold food manufacturers accountable for population-level health outcomes. Legal experts note that even if the case ultimately faces constitutional or regulatory hurdles, it may open the door for similar actions by other cities or states and further accelerate scrutiny of product formulation, marketing practices, and health claims.
For food and beverage manufacturers, the implications extend well beyond the defendants named in the suit. Portfolio risk assessments, especially for products directed at children or positioned as convenience indulgences, may become a more urgent priority. Marketing practices are also likely to face heightened review as regulators and elected officials focus on how and to whom products are promoted. At the same time, the case could accelerate existing trends toward reformulation, added transparency, and simplified ingredient statements as companies seek to mitigate regulatory and reputational risk.
For processors, ingredient suppliers, and equipment providers across the food manufacturing ecosystem, the lawsuit underscores a broader shift in the operating environment. Product design, nutritional positioning, and marketing compliance are becoming core business risks rather than downstream concerns. Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, industry stakeholders should expect intensified pressure around how foods are formulated, labeled, and promoted in the years ahead.
