In a historic legal offensive, the City of San Francisco has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against 11 of the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers. The civil complaint, filed in the San Francisco Superior Court on December 2, 2025, and gaining significant momentum in January 2026, accuses the industry of knowingly engineering “addictive” ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that have fueled a global public health crisis.
City Attorney David Chiu alleges that companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Kraft Heinz have utilized the “Big Tobacco playbook” to design products that stimulate the brain’s pleasure centers while causing chronic illnesses, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and colorectal cancer.
The Core Allegations: Deception and Addiction
The 78-page lawsuit moves beyond simple nutritional criticism, targeting the industrial methods used to reassemble food into what Chiu calls “formulations of chemically manipulated ingredients.”
- Engineering Addiction: The city claims manufacturers use food scientists to calibrate “bliss points”—precise ratios of salt, sugar, and fat—to bypass the body’s natural satiety signals and encourage compulsive overconsumption.
- Public Nuisance & Deceptive Marketing: Filed under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the suit argues that companies market products as “trusted household brands” while concealing their link to chronic disease.
- Tobacco Industry Parallels: The complaint highlights the historical transfer of marketing talent and “addiction technology” from tobacco giants (who previously owned many of these food brands) to the modern UPF industry.
The Economic and Social Toll
San Francisco is seeking unspecified damages and civil penalties to offset the “astronomical” costs borne by the public healthcare system.
| Health Impact | Local Data / National Context |
| Leading Causes of Death | Heart disease and diabetes are the top killers in San Francisco. |
| Racial Disparities | Black residents in SF face diabetes hospitalization rates 3–6 times higher than other groups. |
| Youth Vulnerability | Over 67% of calories consumed by U.S. children now come from UPFs. |
| National Cost | Public health advocates estimate UPF-related illnesses cost the U.S. over $100 billion annually. |
Industry Pushback: A Battle Over Definitions
The Consumer Brands Association (CBA) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have criticized the lawsuit as an “abuse of the legal system.”
- Regulatory Compliance: Trade groups argue that their members fully comply with FDA safety and nutrition standards.
- The “Scientific Definition” Debate: Industry spokespeople point out that there is no globally agreed-upon scientific definition for “ultra-processed,” and that demonizing processing methods ignores the nutrient content (like protein and fiber) found in many packaged foods.
- Consumer Choice: Critics of the suit argue it shifts responsibility from individual consumer choice to manufacturers who provide “affordable and accessible” food for families.
A Tipping Point for 2026
The legal action coincides with a broader national shift in food policy. In October 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law to phase out certain UPFs from school lunches, and newly appointed health officials at the federal level have signaled a desire to ban UPFs from supplemental nutrition programs.
While the case may take years to resolve, analysts suggest it could force “Junk Food Revenue” disclosures and lead to major reformulations across the industry. As David Chiu stated during the filing: “These companies engineered a public health crisis… and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”
San Francisco County Superior Courthouse of California Picture by Cocoablini
