Allulose labeling

The current allulose litigation makes more sense if a food package is separated into three layers:

1. ingredient disclosure;
2. Nutrition Facts declarations;
3. marketing and nutrient-content claims such as "Zero Sugar," "Sugar Free" or "No Added Sugar."

Those layers are related, but they are not governed by exactly the same rules.

That is why a product can list allulose as an ingredient, present a Nutrition Facts panel that excludes allulose from Total Sugars under FDA enforcement discretion, and still face a lawsuit challenging a separate sugar claim.

Layer one: ingredient disclosure

If allulose is used as an ingredient, it is subject to ingredient-list requirements.

The current lawsuits generally do not depend on allulose being completely hidden.

Many plaintiffs instead argue that the product disclosed allulose but simultaneously made a sugar-related representation they say was misleading or inconsistent with federal nutrient-content rules.

That distinction matters.

A case about a misleading front-label claim is not necessarily defeated simply because the ingredient appeared somewhere else on the package.

Whether a disclosure cures or changes the consumer impression is a case-specific legal question.

Layer two: Nutrition Facts

21 C.F.R. § 101.9 governs Nutrition Facts labeling.

The regulation defines Total Sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides.

Allulose is a monosaccharide.

FDA's 2020 guidance nonetheless says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion allowing allulose to be excluded from the amounts declared as Total Sugars and Added Sugars.

Allulose remains in Total Carbohydrate.

This is the source of one of the most confusing visual outcomes for consumers: a product can contain allulose and still show a Total Sugars figure that does not count it under FDA's current enforcement policy.

Bought a product named in these cases? Share your purchase →

Layer three: nutrient-content and marketing claims

21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c) governs sugar-related nutrient-content claims.

Section 101.60(c)(1) addresses sugar-free type claims.

Section 101.60(c)(2) addresses no-added-sugar type claims.

These rules are separate from the narrow question of how allulose is counted on the Nutrition Facts panel.

The current lawsuits frequently argue that a manufacturer cannot automatically use FDA's Nutrition Facts enforcement policy as permission for any marketing statement it wants to make about sugar.

Defendants can dispute that theory.

Why Franco changed the landscape

The Seventh Circuit's July 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani held that allulose falls within the regulatory definition of sugar.

The court viewed FDA's allulose guidance as an enforcement-discretion policy, not a change to the definition itself.

That gave plaintiffs a significant appellate precedent for cases involving sugar-free type claims.

But Franco did not resolve every possible allulose label.

The litigation now includes multiple claim families

We count 58 verified or cross-checked cases.

The cases are tagged to multiple reported claim families, including:

• Zero Sugar;
• Sugar Free;
• 0g Sugar;
• Zero Added Sugar;
• No Added Sugar;
• No Sugar Added;
• 0g Added Sugar;
• 0g Total Sugars.

That breadth is why a site should never replace the exact package language with a generic "zero sugar lawsuit" label in the underlying case record.

The litigation is also geographically distributed

Verified cases span 12 federal districts and 6 circuits.

That matters for precedent.

Franco is binding within the Seventh Circuit, but other federal circuits can develop their own appellate law.

A user reading a Ninth Circuit case should be able to see immediately that Franco is persuasive rather than controlling Seventh Circuit precedent there.

The practical takeaway

The allulose issue is not:

FDA says allulose is sugar versus FDA says it is not sugar.

The real framework is:

• allulose is chemically a sugar;
• the regulation structurally includes monosaccharides;
• FDA allows special Nutrition Facts treatment through enforcement discretion;
• separate rules govern sugar-related nutrient-content claims;
• courts are now deciding how those pieces fit together on real products.

Sources cited in this guide (5)

• 21 C.F.R. § 101.9
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60
• FDA allulose guidance
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC
• The alluloselawsuit.com case tracker, with the sources cited on each case page.