The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied a plaintiff’s request to amend their complaint in a lawsuit seen as a test case on whether food and beverage companies can be held liable for damages allegedly caused by ultra-processed foods.
The decision in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al. is the latest setback for the plaintiff, who is accusing ultra-processed foods, and the companies that make them, of causing diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver. The plaintiff, a Philadelphia teenager, had cited more than 100 foods as leading to his diagnosis.
That vagueness once again led to the case’s dismissal. The court noted the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint “raises serious concerns about the UPF industry and its effects on children’s health. However, the law does not allow Martinez to hold liable an entire industry for these allegations. The FAC fails to establish but-for causation because it lacks sufficient facts showing each Defendant or product individually caused or contributed to his harm. Removing one Defendant or one product illustrates the deficiencies—the outcome would not change. Alternative liability and market share liability cannot save Martinez’s claims because Defendants’ products and the dangerous chemicals contained therein are not the same. For those reasons, leave to amend must be denied.”
Importantly, this was not merely an initial pleading dismissal. After being afforded an opportunity to amend, the plaintiff still failed to plausibly allege that any particular defendant or product caused his injuries. The court’s denial of further leave to amend reflects its conclusion that the deficiencies were not curable through additional generalized allegations.
Previous Dismissal Also Based on Failure to Prove Causation
As we noted in our previous legal alert about ultra-processed foods facing lawsuits throughout the country, the case was previously dismissed when U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez found two primary legal deficiencies:
- Failure to Prove Causation: Judge Perez ruled the complaint did not plausibly connect the defendants’ specific products to the teen’s Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The judge noted these diseases have a multitude of causes, and Martinez did not establish a clear link to the defendants’ ultra-processed foods.
- Lack of Specificity (Pleading Requirements): The complaint was deemed a “shotgun pleading” because it targeted more than 100 products from multiple food companies, not specifying the exact products the teen ate or drank, how much, when he consumed them or what relation they had to his diagnoses. The lack of specificity provided insufficient notice to the food and beverage companies, hindering their ability to prepare a defense.
Perhaps, most importantly, the court rejected efforts to rely on alternative liability and market-share liability theories to bridge the causation gap. That aspect of the decision may prove particularly significant in future UPF litigation because it indicates plaintiffs cannot avoid product-specific causation requirements simply by alleging industry-wide conduct.
Ultra-Processed Food Litigation Continues Despite Significant Scientific and Legal Hurdles
Ultra-processed foods are a staple of diets throughout the nation — because they are accessible, affordable and convenient due to their long shelf lives and ready-to-eat nature. It is important to recognize the scientific literature concerning UPFs remains developing and highly nuanced. Researchers continue to debate how to define UPFs, whether specific health risks can be attributed to processing itself or particular ingredients, and the extent to which observed health outcomes may be influenced by numerous lifestyle, dietary, socioeconomic and genetic factors.
That hasn’t prevented them from receiving a great deal of attention from researchers, governments, media and the courts. As we uncovered in our previous legal alert entitled “Ultra-Processed Foods Regulations: 5 Things Food Companies Should Know,” the legal and reputational risks associated with ultra-processed foods have never been greater for food and beverage companies.
Similar lawsuits are at various stages of litigation throughout the country. They generally accuse food and beverage companies of using the same tactics as tobacco companies to get children addicted to ultra-processed foods, leading to harmful health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other adverse health conditions. The lawsuits seek financial awards that will cover treatment costs and any suffering that occurs because of those diseases.
The lawsuits may also seek changes to ingredients, labeling, advertising and more. They accuse food and beverage companies of knowingly hiding research that shows the foods are unhealthy, misleading labeling, deceptive and aggressive marketing – all in an effort to get consumers addicted to the products.
The decision to dismiss Martinez does signal plaintiffs will need to meet rigorous pleading requirements with specific detail. Vague allegations won’t cut it. Future plaintiffs will likely need to identify specific products, specific manufacturers, meaningful exposure histories and competent scientific evidence supporting both general and specific causation.
Because the court resolved the case on threshold pleading and causation grounds, it did not reach numerous additional defenses that may arise in future UPF litigation. Those defenses could include federal preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, First Amendment limitations on compelled commercial speech, challenges to the reliability of causation evidence under Daubert, the absence of scientifically reliable proof that particular products cause particular diseases, and the inability to establish exposure to specific products over meaningful periods of time.
How Harris Beach Murtha Can Help
Food and beverage companies would be smart to engage experienced legal counsel to assist with proactively navigating this complex legal landscape. The upsurge in litigation may be a catalyst for food and beverage companies to be proactive about ingredients, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and more. An experienced attorney can help develop a plan that not only responds to litigation decisions, but also evaluates the risk of past and future practices and proactively mitigates that risk.
Harris Beach Murtha recommends the following steps:
- Monitor federal and state actions. The federal government is seeking to develop a formal definition of UPFs; this will likely increase the number of lawsuits claiming UPFs lead to harmful health conditions, as it creates a new basis for consumer protection lawsuits and false advertising claims if marketing and advertising conflict with the official UPF classification.
- Monitor Formulations. Companies should continually monitor evolving regulatory developments and assess whether reformulation opportunities align with business, scientific and regulatory objectives.
- Review marking and advertising claims. Ensure the products are being marketed and labeled in honest and lawful ways.
- Develop defense strategies. Defense strategies should focus on causation, exposure, reliance, damages and regulatory defenses. Scientific experts addressing nutrition, epidemiology, toxicology, addiction science, consumer behavior and risk assessment may all play important roles in challenging generalized allegations concerning UPFs.
Although plaintiffs’ counsel will likely continue filing UPF cases, Martinez demonstrates that traditional tort principles remain substantial barriers to recovery. Courts are unlikely to permit industry-wide liability theories that dispense with individualized proof regarding product identification, exposure, causation and damages. For food and beverage manufacturers, the decision provides a meaningful roadmap for challenging similar claims at the pleading stage.
Harris Beach Murtha’s Medical and Life Sciences Industry Team frequently handles such cases and analyzes relevant related decisions. If you need assistance with a case or have questions, please reach out to attorney Kelly Jones Howell at (212) 912-3652 and khowell@harrisbeachmurtha.com, or the Harris Beach Murtha attorney with whom you most frequently work.
This alert is not a substitute for advice of counsel on specific legal issues.
Harris Beach Murtha’s lawyers and consultants practice from offices throughout Connecticut in Bantam, Hartford, New Haven and Stamford; New York State in Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, New York City, Niagara Falls, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Long Island and White Plains; as well as in Boston, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey.