I'm not sure that's a reasonable comparison. If Coke and Krispy Kreme had research 50 years ago that showed the link between their products and diabetes and then funded misinformation and contradictory research for the following decades to convince people otherwise it would seem warranted to sue them?

There was a case of somebody suing McDonalds with the claims "that the combined effect of McDonald's various promotional representations ... was to create the false impression that its food products were nutritionally beneficial and part of a healthy lifestyle if consumed daily" and "that its use of certain additives and the manner of its food processing rendered certain of its foods substantially less healthy than represented" ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1181336.html ). The suit was dismissed because the lawyers who wrote the complaint didn't claim that the affected customers actually believed the advertisements.