A federal judge in Chicago sided with consumers this week in a products liability suit, finding enough support alleging that Kraft Heinz Co. falsely labeled its macaroni and cheese as having no preservatives.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Kraft's motion to dismiss class action fraud allegations brought by consumers who take issue with the "mac & cheese" products containing preservatives such as citric acid, sodium phosphate or sodium triphosphate.

In the case captioned Hayes v. Kraft Heinz, the Chicago-headquartered food conglomerate had argued that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the ingredients function as preservatives, among other claims.

The district court, however, disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently drew a connection between the industry practice of using artifically derived citric acid and Kraft's practices.

"Plaintiffs also cite to scholarly articles describing both ingredients' role in preserving food, as well as [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] guidance that describes citric acid as a preservative. These allegations are enough to withstand a motion to dismiss," Rowland wrote, looking to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in Mason v. Reed's, in part because of the detailed allegations that the FDA sent warning letters "that suggested citric acid was a preservative" and an explanation on how it acts as a preservative in food products.

The plaintiff, David Hayes, filed the suit in DuPage County Circuit Court before it was removed to federal court in December by Kraft's attorney, Dean Panos, a partner at Jenner & Block in Chicago. Kraft subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the class action suit led Hayes and two others for failing to allege that the ingredients are artificial or that they function as preservatives.

Kraft relied on the Illinois federal court's 2019 decision inTarzian v. Kraft. In Tarzian, the plaintiffs described the process by which citric acid could be cultivated through a synthetic process from a type of black mold, Aspergillus niger, and claimed that it was uneconomical for food producers to use natural citric acid, which can be extracted from fruit. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did not specifically allege that Kraft used the artificially produced citric acid and only alleged that the industry relied on the "commonly used" citric acid cultivation.

Rowland said that wasn't true for the present case.

"The court does not dispute Tarzian's reasoning and agrees that simply alleging a 'common industry practice' is insufficient to state a claim. However, the court believes that plaintiffs here have drawn a sufficient connection between the industry practice of using artificial citric acid and defendants’ practices," Rowland wrote, noting that the Hayes plaintiffs incorporated several academic studies and articles describing the history behind citric acid and the explosion of its artificially derived varieties.

"Plaintiffs cite articles explaining that '[o]ver 90% of the citric acid used around the globe today is produced from fermentation.' Another article explains that approximately 99% of the manufactured (as opposed to naturally occurring) citric acid in the world is cultivated from Aspergillus niger. The sources in plaintiffs’ complaint further explain that naturally occurring citric acid was used commercially until approximately 1916, where production peaked at around 17,500 tons a year. A few years later, a food chemist discovered that citric acid could be extracted from Aspergillus niger, and today, over 2 million tons are produced a year," Rowland said, finding the plaintiffs' complaint "goes beyond simple allegations of a common industry practice."

Kraft had further argued that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that its products contain citric acid that was derived artificially, pointing to a similar requirement from a ruling earlier this year from the Southern District of New York in Valencia v. Snapple Beverage.

"But plaintiffs’ allegations here do not suffer from the same defect. Plaintiffs’ complaint explains, for example, that 'unlike natural citric acid,' citric acid derived from Aspergillus niger 'is highly inflammatory.' Plaintiffs further allege that '[c]onsumption of manufactured citric acid has been associated with adverse health events like joint pain with swelling and stiffness, muscular and stomach pain, as well as shortness of breath,'" Rowland wrote. "Unlike in Valencia, plaintiffs have described several respects in which artificial citric acid differs from natural citric acid. Dismissal on this basis is thus inappropriate."

The Hayes plaintiffs are represented by local attorney David B. Levin of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, as well as Craig Straub, a partner at Crosner Legal in Beverly Hills. The California firm is leading similar cases that take issue with Kraft's claims that there are no artificial flavors or preservatives in its macaroni and cheese products, as well as claims against Ocean Spray Cranberry juice.

Messages seeking comment were not immediately returned from the plaintiffs' attorneys or from Panos on behalf of Kraft.