Food Litigation Watch: State Ingredient Warnings, Color-Additive Bans, and “Ultra-Processed” Claims (Updated)

This news alert was originally published on December 4, 2025 and has been updated to reflect new updates as of February 25, 2026.

Food companies face a rapidly shifting litigation landscape on three fronts: (1) state laws requiring on-package warnings for certain food ingredients (e.g., Louisiana S.B. 14; Texas S.B. 25), (2) state bans targeting specific U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-listed color additives (e.g., West Virginia H.B. 2354), and (3) emerging consumer and municipal lawsuits alleging harms from “ultra-processed” foods. Recent developments – including industry challenges to Texas’s food label law and West Virginia’s color-additive law, a high-profile dismissal of an “ultra-processed” foods test case, and a new lawsuit brought by the City of San Francisco – offer early signals of how courts may treat compelled warnings, preemption, constitutional claims, and pleading standards in the months ahead.

Takeaways

• Two recent state warning laws—Louisiana S.B. 14 and Texas S.B. 25—create divergent disclosure regimes for foods containing specified ingredients, with different label text, formats, and timelines. Both include federal preemption “off-ramps.” Texas S.B. 25 is currently the subject of a constitutional challenge, while Louisiana S.B. 14 has not yet been challenged.
• West Virginia’s H.B. 2354 bans seven FDA-listed synthetic color additives (plus BHA and propylparaben) statewide in 2028 and sooner in school nutrition programs. The International Association of Color Manufacturers sued, and the court has now preliminarily enjoined enforcement on vagueness grounds while rejecting the bill of attainder and equal protection claims.
• “Ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) litigation:
  • A federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed a test case brought by a consumer for failure to link specific products to alleged injuries—signaling courts will demand product-specific facts and causation, not categorical critiques of “processing.” Nevertheless, more UPF lawsuits are likely.
  • San Francisco’s December 2, 2025, lawsuit against 10 major food manufacturers adds a new public-cost-recovery theory to the landscape and may spur similar actions by other public entities.

The Current Landscape

Texas’ Ingredient-Warning Statute

• The Law. Texas Senate Bill 25 requires separate warning labels on food packaging sold in the state if the food contains any of 44 specific ingredients. S.B. 25 mandates direct label text and extends the warning to online sales.
• The Challenge. In December 2025, several food and beverage trade associations sued the Texas Attorney General, challenging Section 9 of SB 25, which requires warning labels on certain foods. See American Beverage Ass'n et al. v. Paxton, No. 6:25-cv-00566 (W.D. Tex. 2025). They argue the provision compels misleading speech in violation of the First Amendment, is preempted by FDA regulation, is unconstitutionally vague, and unlawfully burdens interstate commerce. On February 11, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely violates the First Amendment and noting Texas lacks an interest in enforcing an unconstitutional statute.
• Next Steps. Texas is barred from enforcing the warning label requirement against the plaintiff associations while the case proceeds. The state could appeal, which would send the dispute to the Fifth Circuit. The ruling may also influence similar proposals elsewhere that would impose ingredient disclosures beyond federal requirements, including bills pending in Indiana (HB 1364), Tennessee (SB 2685), Wisconsin (AB 550), and Mississippi (SB 2395). Louisiana’s S.B. 14, enacted last year, would require foods containing specified ingredients to carry QR codes linking to an online disclosure and FDA approval information, but it is not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2028. No legal challenge has been brought against the Louisiana law. See B&D’s news alert for more information.
• Additional Context. In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Fifth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against a Texas statute requiring specified health warnings on adult websites. The court emphasized that “numerous and obvious less-burdensome alternatives” existed, such as a government-funded public information campaign. If Texas appeals in the food-label case, the Fifth Circuit may draw on the same logic. Additionally, a federal court recently enjoined a provision of California’s Proposition 65 food warning regulation on First Amendment grounds, underscoring the vulnerability of compelled commercial-speech mandates that are not “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

West Virginia’s Color-Additive Ban

• The Law. H.B. 2354 prohibits FD&C Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3 (and separately BHA and propylparaben) in foods sold in-state; school nutrition restrictions began August 1, 2025, and the statewide ban is effective January 1, 2028.
• The Challenge. On October 6, 2025, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) sued in federal court, alleging the statute violates equal protection, operates as a bill of attainder, and uses undefined terms (e.g., “poisonous and injurious”), inviting arbitrary enforcement. See International Association of Color Manufacturers v. Singh, No. 26-1085 (4^th Cir.). The complaint highlights tension with FDA’s certification/listing regime and emphasizes effective dates and supply-chain impacts. Expect defenses to invoke state police powers.
• Developments. On October 8, 2025, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order on the grounds that parts of the law had already gone into effect and other parts were not effective until 2028. On December 23, 2025, the Southern District of West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement on vagueness grounds, emphasizing that listing FDA-approved color additives as “poisonous and injurious” created uncertainty and enabled arbitrary enforcement. The court rejected the plaintiff’s theories that the statute is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and violates the Equal Protection Clause. West Virginia officials filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2026. The case is now before the Fourth Circuit. West Virginia officials must file their brief by March 4, with the response due April 3.
• Federal Backdrop. FDA has revoked the authorization for Red No. 3 in food effective in 2028, but it encourages the voluntary phaseout of this and other artificial colors. These federal actions will feature in both preemption and reasonableness arguments.

Consumer Ultra-Processed Food Litigation

• The Challenge. In August 2025, a federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed claims that defendants engineered “ultra-processed” foods to be addictive and harmful, because the complaint failed to identify the specific products linked to the plaintiff’s conditions, despite listing 100+ manufacturers (including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, and Coca-Cola). See Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 25-377, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164054 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025). The decision suggests generalized attacks on “processing” will face Rule 12(b)(6) headwinds absent product-specific exposure and causation allegations.
• Developments. In September 2025, the plaintiff consumer moved for leave to file an amended complaint. That motion is now before the court.
• The Context. While the definition of UPFs is debated, researchers often use the term to refer to many packaged snacks, sweets, and soft drinks that contain substances extracted from whole foods or synthesized. Courts are likely to see future claims recast as product-specific deception, failure-to-warn, or unfair-practice claims, supported (if possible) by individualized medical/exposure evidence. Several law firms are soliciting persons with type-2 diabetes or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to become plaintiffs in UPF lawsuits against food companies (see, e.g., here, here, and here).

San Francisco’s Ultra-Processed Food Litigation

• The Challenge. On December 2, 2025, the San Francisco City Attorney announced the nation’s first municipal lawsuit targeting UPFs. Filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of the State of California, the lawsuit names 10 major food manufacturers. See People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-00183-JST (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 7, 2026). The City alleges these companies engaged in unfair and deceptive acts under California’s Unfair Competition Law and created a public nuisance by contributing to chronic diet-related disease. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to recover public‑health costs borne by city and county systems.
• The Complaint. According to the complaint, manufacturers marketed UPFs as healthy or natural despite long ingredient lists that include synthetic additives, stabilizers, and substances not used in home kitchens. The research the City cites to links UPFs to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive decline.
• Context. Earlier this year, California enacted a bipartisan measure that became the nation’s first law to formally define UPFs, creating a framework for eventually removing UPFs from school settings. The state has also prohibited several additives – including certain artificial food dyes associated with behavioral issues in children – from use in schools. And back in 2010, San Francisco took an early step in this direction by barring fast-food restaurants from offering free toys with kids’ meals. This action follows San Francisco’s history of successful cost‑recovery litigation in areas such as opioids, tobacco, and lead paint.
• Together with the Philadelphia dismissal, San Francisco’s suit illustrates the twin tracks of UPF litigation: individualized personal-injury claims and public-cost-recovery theories.

Why This Matters Now

States are simultaneously experimenting with (1) compelled warnings, (2) categorical ingredient bans, (3) processing-based tort and consumer-protection theories, and (4) public-cost recovery theories. Each path tees up distinct but overlapping issues: First Amendment compelled-speech challenges, FFDCA preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause risks for multi-state distribution, and heightened pleading/causation hurdles. With key effective dates approaching (Texas and Louisiana) and West Virginia school restrictions already in force, companies may want to calibrate compliance and litigation strategies in parallel. In the near term, companies should (a) inventory products sold in the affected states, (b) assess whether ingredient lists trigger new labeling or ban provisions, and (c) coordinate regulatory, labeling, and litigation strategies across jurisdictions—rather than treating each statute or lawsuit in isolation.

[View source.]