Hunton Retail Law Resource

A new ultra-processed foods (“UPF”) matter was filed in Vermont this week, adding to the small but growing number of state-led actions focused on the food and beverage industry’s research, development, and marketing practices. 

In State of Vermont v. The Kraft Heinz Company, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office filed a petition in Vermont state court seeking to enforce a civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued to Kraft Heinz. The petition does not assert substantive consumer protection claims. Instead, it asks the court to compel compliance with an investigative subpoena issued under Vermont law.  

What the State Filed 

The petition was brought under 9 V.S.A. § 2460(c), which authorizes the Vermont Attorney General to investigate potential violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, including through the issuance of a CID. If a CID recipient fails to comply, the Attorney General may petition the Vermont Superior Court for an order enforcing the demand. 

The State’s Allegations of Noncompliance 

According to the petition, the State first issued a CID to Kraft Heinz on May 21, 2025, seeking information relevant to whether the company’s research, development, manufacturing, and marketing practices relating to UPFs may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Vermont law. That demand reportedly included broad questions concerning product development, and Kraft Heinz subsequently arranged for employee interviews.   

The Attorney General then issued a second CID on January 26, 2026, seeking additional information concerning the company’s relationships with research centers and marketing firms, its internal research and development structure, and documents containing terms relevant to the investigation. The petition alleges that, after multiple extensions and revised production deadlines, Kraft Heinz ultimately represented that it would provide full responses by June 8, 2026, but did not do so. 

Importantly, this case is not yet about whether Kraft Heinz violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act. Rather, it is an enforcement action focused on whether the company complied with the CID itself. The petition emphasizes that, by the time of filing, Kraft Heinz had been aware of the investigation for more than a year, yet had provided only a limited number of substantive responses, many of which the State characterizes as “misleading, obfuscating, and/or in direct contradiction of publicly available information.” The Attorney General asks the court to order Kraft Heinz to provide complete responses within 30 days. 

Takeaways 

This appears to be only the second UPF-related matter brought by a state or local enforcement authority. The first, State of California v. Kraft Heinz Co., et al., was filed by the San Francisco City Attorney against eleven major food and beverage companies and asserts deceptive marketing and public nuisance claims.  

The Vermont matter is narrower and more procedural than the California action, but it is nevertheless significant. It suggests that state regulators may continue to scrutinize UPF-related issues through consumer protection frameworks, including theories focused not only on external marketing, but also on internal product development, research practices, and corporate relationships with third parties. 

We will continue to monitor developments in the Vermont matter and broader UPF-related enforcement trends.