I'd have to read the particulars of the case to see if the case has merrit before I would form an opinion.

You say that "Last I checked it was a choice." Yes, it is a choice, but is it an informed choice? Cigarette smoking was a choice too, and most people were falsely lead to believe that smoking was good for you. Evidence later revealed that the Cigarette manufacturers knew very well that it was not healthy and surpressed that information and continued to advertise that it was very healthy to smoke. Once they did that, they broke the law and are then liable.

Likewise, if it can be proven that KFC knew their food was unhealthy and yet they advertised that it was healthy, then they can be held liable for health problems suffered by those who ate the food.

You can have one of 2 ways....

(1) The government looks after the people and decides what is best by regulating the food industry and banning all foods that are not healthy. This is how many communist countries are.

or....

(2) Have a free market and allow companies to sell what they wish, but then people are entitled to sue companies who sell them products which cause harm.

The companies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to go unregulated, then they must be held responsible when their products cause harm.