In December 2024, a groundbreaking lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia seeking to hold major food corporations accountable for the health consequences of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). The plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, alleges that his consumption of these foods, intentionally formulated and marketed to be addictive, led to his development of type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by the age of 16. This case, spearheaded by the law firm Morgan & Morgan, closely mirrors the landmark tobacco litigation of the 1990s, aiming to apply similar legal strategies to the food industry. A product liability lawyer will be crucial in establishing that these corporations knowingly marketed harmful products to consumers.
The tobacco litigation of the 1990s was a pivotal moment in public health law. Plaintiff attorneys, in collaboration with state governments, secured settlements totaling approximately $250 billion from tobacco companies. These lawsuits demonstrated that corporations could be held liable for deceptive practices and public health harm, leading to significant regulatory changes.
Inspired by this success, similar legal approaches have been employed against other industries, such as opioid manufacturers, resulting in major settlements over deceptive marketing and failure to disclose addiction risks. The current lawsuit seeks to establish that the same deceptive tactics were used by food corporations to promote UPFs despite known health risks. A defective product lawyer can argue that these food companies failed to ensure the safety of their products, making them liable under strict liability laws.
The lawsuit targets major food corporations, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé, Post Holdings, Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars, and Conagra. The plaintiff’s legal team may be relying on several legal theories, including:
Negligence: The complaint asserts that these companies breached their duty of care by producing and aggressively marketing foods they knew or should have known were harmful to consumers’ health. A product liability lawyer will emphasize the failure of these corporations to ensure consumer safety.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The lawsuit alleges that the companies intentionally misled consumers about the risks associated with UPFs, employing deceptive advertising tactics and withholding critical health information.
Civil Conspiracy: The complaint argues that these corporations collaborated to formulate and market addictive UPFs, drawing a direct connection to strategies used by Big Tobacco.
Strict Liability: The plaintiff contends that UPFs are inherently dangerous products, warranting liability regardless of negligence or intent. A defective product lawyer can argue that these food products were unreasonably dangerous and defective, similar to defective pharmaceuticals or unsafe consumer goods.
Public Nuisance: The lawsuit suggests that the defendants’ conduct has significantly contributed to the obesity and metabolic disease epidemic, harming public health at large.
A significant element of the complaint is its detailed historical analysis of how tobacco companies in the 1980s acquired major food brands and allegedly applied their expertise in creating addictive products to the food industry. Philip Morris, for instance, acquired General Foods and Kraft, while R.J. Reynolds purchased Nabisco. The lawsuit argues that these conglomerates used their understanding of addiction—originally developed to enhance cigarette sales—to engineer hyper-palatable, highly addictive food products that dominate the modern diet.
Internal corporate documents referenced in the complaint reveal that Big Tobacco’s research on brain chemistry, sensory perception, and addiction mechanisms was shared with their food subsidiaries. Scientists who studied nicotine addiction at Philip Morris were directly consulted in the formulation of UPFs to maximize consumer dependence. The lawsuit highlights how these companies used MRI scans and neurological studies to optimize UPF formulations in ways that closely parallel cigarette engineering.
While ambitious, the lawsuit may face several legal and practical challenges:
Causation: Establishing a direct causal link between UPF consumption and the plaintiff’s health conditions is complex. Unlike tobacco, where the connection to specific diseases is well-documented, diet-related illnesses involve multiple contributing factors.
Personal Responsibility: The defense is likely to argue that consumers make individual dietary choices and that nutritional information is readily available, shifting blame away from corporate conduct.
Regulatory Compliance: The defendants may contend that their products meet all existing food safety regulations, framing any public health concerns as an issue for lawmakers rather than the courts.
If this lawsuit gains traction, it could set a precedent for similar legal action against other industries that knowingly produce harmful products or manipulate consumer behavior. Possible future targets include:
Social Media & Technology: Lawsuits against platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok over addictive algorithms and their impact on mental health are already emerging.
Alcohol & Cannabis: Legal action could focus on deceptive marketing, addiction risks, and targeting of vulnerable populations.
Gaming & Gambling: Lawsuits may arise over predatory microtransactions, loot boxes, and gambling mechanics designed to exploit consumer addiction.
Pharmaceutical Companies: Beyond opioids, companies could face litigation over misleading claims about medications’ long-term effects, including psychiatric drugs and hormone therapies.
Beauty & Skincare: Companies marketing “natural” or “safe” products while including harmful chemicals could be sued for false advertising and product liability.
Artificial Intelligence & Data Privacy: AI-driven platforms that exploit user data or create addictive digital environments may be next in line for legal action.
As a personal injury lawyer, I see this lawsuit as a bold and innovative attempt to address a major public health crisis. The extensive documentation of corporate misconduct and the clear parallels to tobacco litigation make for a compelling case. However, its success will hinge on the ability to present undeniable scientific evidence linking specific UPFs to adverse health outcomes and proving that companies engaged in deliberate deception.
While personal responsibility is an important consideration, it does not absolve corporations from accountability if they knowingly manipulated consumers through deceptive marketing and the engineering of addictive products. A product liability lawyer can argue that these companies failed in their duty to provide safe products, just as manufacturers of dangerous pharmaceuticals have been held accountable in past lawsuits. If this lawsuit prevails, it could reshape the food industry, prompting greater transparency and healthier product formulations.
In conclusion, this litigation represents a significant step in holding food corporations accountable for their role in diet-related diseases. Should it succeed, it could open the door for broader scrutiny of industries that profit from consumer dependency, shaping the future of corporate responsibility and consumer protection.
