‍

Martinez v. Big Food: A Case That Could Put Your Snacks on Trial from Legalcalls.com by Attorney Jeff Keiser.

Move Over, Big Tobacco—Big Food Is in the Hot Seat

Let's talk about Martinez v. Kraft Heinz, filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. This case doesn't just ask whether ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are bad for you—it asks whether the companies who make them deserve to pay for decades of damage to public health. Spoiler: It's looking like the snack aisle might need a legal defense fund.

On December 10, 2024, Bryce Martinez, a 16-year-old from Pennsylvania, kicked off what might be the most ambitious lawsuit since someone decided coffee needed a "Caution: Hot" label. His complaint takes aim at a who's who of food behemoths: Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé, and others. Apparently, if you've ever eaten cereal, drunk soda, or indulged in a bag of chips, congratulations—you might just be a victim.

A Case Where Everyone's a Plaintiff (Literally)

Martinez alleges that these companies intentionally engineered their products to be addictive, aggressively marketed them to kids and minorities, and contributed to an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. The central claim? That ultra-processed foods are the new cigarettes—delicious, deadly, and scientifically proven to keep you coming back for more.

Oh, and if you've ever felt personally victimized by a late-night craving for Oreos? Same.

But don't take this case lightly. The complaint was filed by some big-time attorneys and really answered all questions about the validity of the concept. The complaint is loaded with receipts: scientific studies, industry memos, and allegations that Big Tobacco passed down its addiction playbook when it diversified into food. Yes, you read that right—your cookie might have been designed by someone who used to work on cigarettes. If that doesn't make you rethink snack time, nothing will.

Who's Taking This Seriously?

Defendants will surely argue that they've done nothing wrong. They'll undoubtedly claim that consumers have a choice and that they're not responsible for what we put in our mouths. But the plaintiff's legal team is coming in hot with evidence of decades of marketing aimed at kids, internal discussions about the health risks of UPFs, and even alleged collaboration between food scientists and addiction researchers.

While the allegations are serious, it's fair to ask: Is anyone really taking this case seriously? After all, we're talking about suing an entire industry over what is essentially... snack food. But the comparison to tobacco litigation in the '90s isn't far-fetched. If that wave of lawsuits taught us anything, it's that when the science is strong and public sentiment is on your side, even the biggest corporate titans can fall.

Why This Case Matters (Yes, Even to You)

Here's the thing: If Martinez wins—or even if this case survives preliminary motions—it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits. Think about it: nearly every American has consumed ultra-processed foods. If these products are proven to be addictive and harmful, who isn't a plaintiff in this case? It's like the Oprah of lawsuits: You're a victim! And you're a victim! Everyone's a victim!

Whether you're a legal nerd, a health nut, or someone who just likes snacks, this case is worth watching. It has the potential to reshape how food companies operate—and how we think about the products lining our grocery store shelves. Until then, grab your popcorn (or maybe a banana) and stay tuned.

Related Roundup - Going Beyond the Core Mass Tort News

Appeals Court Urged To Reinstate Paraquat Lawsuits Previously Set for Bellwether Trials

Expert witnesses that would have testified about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson's disease were held to an unreasonably high standard by the trial judge, plaintiffs' attorneys argued. Read more

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Settlement Talks Begin With Focus on Finding Mediator, Parties Report

Potential negotiations come as the parties work to select a pool of 40 representative hair relaxer lawsuits to prepare for early bellwether test trials. Read more

Upcoming EPA Deadline to Disclose PFAS Use Means Likely Surge in Litigation for Food Industry

Reports to EPA by PFAS manufacturers and importers are likely to lead to a major increase in new consumer claims. Read more

Victims of the Eaton Fire Seek Justice for Their Losses

The San Fernando Valley Sun reports. Local and national law firms are now clamoring to gather clients in mass tort lawsuits against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that a malfunction in its equipment was the source of the Eaton Fire that decimated entire neighborhoods in Altadena and Pasadena.  Read More

Lawsuit Indicates Cartiva Implant Fails in 2 Out of 3 Patients, But Continued To Be Sold in U.S.

Cartiva implant recall was finally issued in October 2024, following years of concerns about the high failure rate and problems with the device, per Pennsylvania man's lawsuit. Read More

The Legal Calls Advantage - how we're different

• We know what really matters to you is the cost per compensable case.
• Our fraud detection department is second to none. We run a series of cross-checks to eliminate fraud. We use numerous services to verify identity, check criminal backgrounds, and confirm social security details provided. We can even confirm medical record diagnosis. You can lean on our experience to weed out fraud so you don't have to.
• Non-incentivized intake agents! Most case originators pay a bonus to their agents on signing, which leads to signing unqualified claimants.
• We conduct in-depth interviews by asking open-ended non-leading questions, like an attorney would do.

Click here to book a call

Warm regards,

Craig H. Alinder, Vice President

Office: 802-664-4201 | Email: craig@legalcalls.com

LegalCalls.com | Calendly | Download our most recent price sheet

Legal Calls, 2108 N Street, Suite 4809, Sacramento, CA 95816, (877) 853-5801

‍