Court Kills Morgan & Morgan's Bid to Revive Kraft Heinz Food Suit

A federal judge has rejected Morgan & Morgan's attempt to revive its ultra-processed food lawsuit against Kraft Heinz and other food companies — the second time the case has been thrown out.

U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District Pennsylvania denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint this week. She had originally dismissed the suit in August 2025, calling it "woefully deficient." The proposed amended complaint, she found, suffered from the same fatal defects as the original.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) issued a strong statement of support for the decision. "Judge Perez recognized that American courts should not be alternative legislatures and weaponized by billboard lawyers looking to manufacture liability where none exists," said ILR President Stephen Waguespack. "This is now the second time this case has been rejected, and for good reason. There is no causation, no credible evidence, and no legitimate legal theory — only a law firm seeking to pad its reported $2.4 billion revenue stream."

The case, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., et al., is a test of a broader litigation strategy targeting the food industry over ultra-processed products. The ILR framed the ruling as a decisive rebuke of that strategy, which it describes as built not on science or evidence but on the prospect of a massive payday for plaintiff attorneys.

The court's reasoning cuts at the heart of the plaintiffs' approach. The law does not recognize industry-wide liability, and a plaintiff cannot simply cast a wide net over an entire sector of the economy and demand that companies prove their innocence. In the court's view, the case failed on the basics: no proven causation between a product and an injury.

The decision also affirms a foundational principle of the U.S. legal system, according to the ILR. When a party cannot prove causation between a product and injury, courts are not an appropriate venue for seeking sweeping policy changes — matters that belong in the legislative and regulatory process.

For Kraft Heinz and the other named defendants, the ruling removes an immediate legal threat and sets a precedent against copycat claims. The stakes extend beyond one case: Morgan & Morgan's reported $2.4 billion revenue stream, cited by Waguespack, signals the financial firepower behind mass tort campaigns aimed at the food sector.

The ILR says it will keep watching. The group pledged to monitor this situation and any copycat litigation closely, and to advocate for a legal system that demands real evidence, real causation, and real accountability for plaintiffs and their attorneys.

The message to plaintiffs' firms is now on the record in Pennsylvania federal court: ultra-processed food claims without proof of causation will not survive, no matter how the complaint is redrafted.