San Francisco’s legal showdown with ‘Big Food’ began on December 2, 2025, when City Attorney David Chiu unveiled a landmark lawsuit against ten of the world’s largest packaged food manufacturers. The complaint, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, accuses the companies of deliberately formulating ultra-processed products to maximize consumption while concealing serious health risks. While the filing seeks unspecified damages, it targets a financial burden that city audits estimated at $748 million annually back in 2013. With over a decade of rising obesity rates and healthcare inflation since then, city officials and legal experts estimate the cumulative financial impact now well exceeds the $1 billion threshold implied by the headline—setting the stage for a historic liability battle.
Origins of a Public Health Battle
The lawsuit draws a direct line from a closed-door meeting of food executives in Minneapolis in April 1999 to today’s supermarket shelves. At that meeting, internal presentations warned that product formulations had “gone too far” in driving people to overconsume, contributing to more than $100 billion a year in healthcare costs nationwide. Despite that acknowledgement, San Francisco argues, the companies continued to manufacture and heavily promote these products, echoing tactics long associated with the tobacco industry: internal recognition of harm combined with an external strategy focused on profit and market growth.
The complaint names Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, General Mills, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Kellanov, WK Kellogg, Mars, and ConAgra. Together, they produce many of the most familiar packaged foods in the United States. City officials frame the case as an effort to hold an entire sector accountable for an epidemic of diet-related disease that they say was both foreseeable and preventable.
Inside the Ultra-Processed Food Economy
The products at the center of the case are everyday items in American homes and school lunchboxes: Oreo cookies, Doritos, Cheetos, Lunchables, Hot Pockets, Kit Kat bars, Sour Patch Kids, Cheerios, and many others. According to the complaint, these foods are examples of ultra-processed products—industrial formulations made largely from refined ingredients, oils, sugar, and additives, with little or no whole food content.
Relying on the NOVA classification system, the city argues that ultra-processed foods now make up about 70 percent of the U.S. food supply and more than half of all calories consumed. A large review published in the British Medical Journal, encompassing nearly 10 million participants, is cited for identifying 32 separate adverse health associations tied to high consumption of such foods. San Francisco contends that the defendants did not simply sell these products, but systematically optimized flavors, textures, and ingredient combinations to promote habitual, high-volume intake, all while downplaying or ignoring emerging scientific evidence of harm.
Mounting Health and Economic Costs
The public health burden described in the lawsuit is sweeping. Research cited by the city links high exposure to ultra-processed foods with a roughly 50 percent increase in cardiovascular mortality, along with elevated risks of Type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, fatty liver disease, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. Dr. Kim Newell-Green, an associate clinical professor at UC San Francisco, is quoted in the filing as saying that a growing body of research connects these products to serious illnesses, including diabetes, heart disease, colorectal cancer, and depression, appearing at younger ages than in previous generations.
The financial toll is central to the lawsuit’s valuation. A 2013 analysis by the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office placed local obesity- and diabetes-related costs at $748 million, with tens of millions linked specifically to sugar-sweetened beverages. Since that report, national diabetes treatment costs have climbed to $412.9 billion (2022), suggesting the local burden has likely grown proportionally. City attorneys cite these figures as evidence that taxpayers and families, rather than manufacturers, are bearing the consequences.
Civil Rights Dimensions and Industry Pushback
San Francisco’s filing emphasizes that the harms are not evenly distributed. It alleges that Black and Latino residents and low-income communities are disproportionately affected because they are more likely to live in neighborhoods where fresh, minimally processed foods are scarce and where advertising for packaged products is pervasive. The complaint describes targeted marketing strategies, such as tailored advertising campaigns, sponsorship of community events, and price promotions that make ultra-processed items cheaper and more accessible than healthier options.
Industry groups strongly dispute the city’s claims. The Consumer Brands Association maintains that there is no universally accepted scientific definition of “ultra-processed” food and warns that categorizing products as harmful based solely on processing method, rather than nutrient profile, could mislead shoppers. Association executive Sarah Gallo argues that processing alone is an unreliable measure of nutritional value and says member companies comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations while continually reformulating products to add protein and fiber and lower sodium.
Legal Hurdles, Political Tailwinds, and What Comes Next
The city’s demands focus less on banning products and more on changing how they are marketed and disclosed. San Francisco is seeking injunctive relief to curb what it calls deceptive promotion, particularly campaigns aimed at children and vulnerable communities. The lawsuit calls for corrective advertising that would inform consumers about documented health risks, tighter limits on marketing to minors, and financial restitution and civil penalties to help offset public healthcare costs.
The case lands amid a broader national shift in nutrition policy. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative has highlighted research suggesting that nearly 70 percent of children’s calories now come from ultra-processed foods. Six states have received federal waivers allowing them to restrict the use of SNAP benefits for certain junk foods. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed the first law in the country to phase out ultra-processed items from school meals over the next decade and has approved a ban on several artificial food dyes in schools, effective in 2027.
Legal scholars say San Francisco’s case could set a powerful precedent. Some view it as a potential parallel to the landmark 1998 tobacco settlement, which led to $246 billion in payments. If San Francisco prevails, the precedent could trigger a wave of similar suits from cities and states nationwide, potentially resulting in liability payments that dwarf the initial estimates.
Sources:
San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, December 2025 ultra-processed foods lawsuit announcement and complaint filing
Reuters legal coverage of San Francisco’s lawsuit against major food manufacturers over ultra-processed foods
The New York Times national reporting on San Francisco’s ultra-processed foods lawsuit and industry response
BBC News international coverage of San Francisco’s lawsuit against large food companies
British Medical Journal umbrella review on ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes