Last week, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed what he calls a “first of its kind” lawsuit against 10 of the biggest food companies in America, accusing them of producing tasty foods that have supposedly harmed “public health.”

The city claims that these food producers purposely design their food “to be cheap, colorful, flavorful, and addictive.” Along with Chiu, several large plaintiffs’ tort law firms have joined the case, People v. Kraft Heinz Company, giving this litigation a strong performative feel.

The plaintiffs claim that companies violated California’s Unfair Competition law (UCL) and public nuisance statute by marketing and selling foods using allegedly unfair and deceptive acts.  By breaking down whole foods, processing them, and reassembling them with various additives, the plaintiffs argue that consumers are now overwhelmed “ many options for UPFs.

Chiu and his litigation allies allege that foods, such as Eggos, Lean Cuisine, Nature’s Bakery, and various breakfast cereals are engineered “to stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption.” They further argue that these foods “disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color,” claiming that these groups cannot avoid them—leading  to  higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

The suit asks the court to “correct or lessen the effects of their behavior, install “civil penalties and restitution to help local governments offset astronomical health care costs associated with ultra-processed food consumption.”

“Unlike some narrow consumer statutes, the UCL casts a wide net. It is not limited to false advertising or fraudulent sales; rather, it is structured to capture almost any unfair or misleading conduct in the marketplace,” notes a legal analysis from The Lyon Firm.

 Even back in 2016, Bay Area courts were handling class action lawsuits about “healthy sounding” food labels that were misleading. The law doesn’t even require that the defendant intend to mislead, only that it is likely to deceive customers. In August of 2025, a federal court in Philadelphia dismissed a very similar case for lack of specific allegations regarding the people claimed to have been harmed.

It has been obvious for centuries that companies in a market system succeed only by offering products that consumers want.  Consumers have agency: they choose food based on taste, appearance (e.g., appealing texture and color), and price.  Except for taste, those requirements to complete a sale exist for virtually every product on the market.

Yet Chiu’s complaint unscientifically likens everyday foods to tobacco and illegal drugs. If “addictive” means people enjoy something and sometimes overuse it, then televisions, smartphones, and countless other foods would qualify.

California uses a standard for expert testimony called the Kelly-Frye test, which requires that expert witnesses use generally accepted scientific methods in reaching their conclusions.  Of course, the food companies will have expert witnesses who may testify about  alternative causes for the claimed injuries (Code 801.1), and who are held to the same standard of proof, “a reasonable medical probability” that is “more likely than not.”

The problem with the nutritional science behind UPFs is that the category of foods is far too broad and poorly defined.  As the National Academy of Medicine points out, “it is not accurate—or helpful—to categorize all UPFs as unhealthful. While some may be unhealthful, there are also nutritious options that are defined as UPFs, including whole-grain breads and fruit yogurts” and that, “[t]he fact that a product is a UPF should not dictate whether it is viewed as a healthy option.”

Meanwhile, obesity’s rise, from 15% of Americans in 1980, to more than 40% today—tracks closely with the uptick in overall caloric intake (up about 25% during the same time period).  People are eating more calorie-dense foods relative to less dense foods, i.e., those that have fewer calories per gram.  We have also seen portion sizes increase, particularly in restaurants. Addressing overconsumption of calorie-dense foods is an easier and more evidence-based approach than trying to indict foods that make up on average 70% of our national diet.

Of course, if this wild lawsuit somehow succeeded, the financial windfall might help San Francisco chip away at its $37 billion debt. But the costs wouldn’t fall solely on corporations; they would ultimately hit shareholders, employees, and consumers.

This is not science-based litigation. It is a politically attractive attempt to extract money from large companies that can be easily cast as villains. And even if successful, is not likely to make Americans any healthier.