239 Lawsuits: How Big Food Litigates Against Nutrition Laws

A cross-border investigation by Lighthouse Reports and an international media coalition documents 239 lawsuits filed between 2010 and 2025 in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India, all challenging public health measures like front-of-pack warning labels, junk-food advertising limits, and soda and ultra-processed food taxes. Together the cases represent roughly 595 years of litigation. Where plaintiffs could be identified, more than a third of the private suits traced back to just nine parent companies, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez — the same firms that publicly position themselves as partners in fixing diet-related disease.

The tactics vary by country but share a goal: delay, dilute, or kill regulation. Mexico accounts for the bulk of the cases (193), most aimed at its labelling rules, with one Pepsi bottler arguing soda was safer than local water in rural areas; courts rejected many of these claims. In Brazil, industry associations rather than named brands bring the suits to shield corporate reputations, and 11 cases have hamstrung the health regulator ANVISA. Colombia’s challenges came largely from citizens who often turned out to be lawyers tied to food companies, while the industry poured millions into political donations during a health-tax debate. In Europe, the pressure frequently arrives as legal threats invoking EU competition and state-aid rules, stalling policy before any bill is even passed.

Beyond the courtroom outcomes, the investigation frames litigation itself as the weapon: the cost and duration of these fights impose a chilling effect on under-resourced governments, deterring health policy regardless of whether the companies ultimately win. An accompanying academic paper analyzing the dataset is forthcoming.