E.D. Pa. Denies Amendment in First UPF Personal Injury Suit Over Causation Gaps
In-house counsel for ultra-processed food and consumer packaged goods companies must monitor this ruling, as it establishes a strict product-specific causation requirement that blocks generalized industry-wide liability theories in private personal injury claims.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz, the first private ultra-processed food (UPF) personal injury lawsuit. The court held that generic, industry-wide allegations linking UPFs broadly to disease, and broad liability theories targeting the UPF category as a whole, fail to meet the pleading standard for but-for causation. The ruling makes clear that private plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a specific defendant’s individual product caused their alleged harm, rather than relying on generalized scientific claims about UPFs as a product class. Government enforcement actions against UPF manufacturers are not affected by this decision.