Allulose lawsuit

A large group of proposed class actions is challenging foods, beverages and supplements that contain allulose while using claims such as "Zero Sugar," "Sugar Free," "0g Sugar," "Zero Added Sugar," "No Added Sugar," or "No Sugar Added."

The central issue is labeling, not an allegation that allulose is inherently unsafe.

Plaintiffs generally argue that allulose is a monosaccharide, federal regulations define sugars to include free monosaccharides, and certain sugar-related marketing claims are therefore misleading or unlawful when a product contains allulose. Defendants can raise different arguments based on the exact label, FDA policy, preemption, reasonable-consumer standards and the law governing the particular case.

The litigation accelerated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani on July 27, 2026. The court held that allulose falls within the federal regulation's definition of sugar and reversed the dismissal of a proposed consumer class action involving Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt.

That decision matters. It is not a final judgment that Chobani deceived consumers, and it does not make every allulose product with a sugar-related claim unlawful.

Litigation snapshot

We are also researching a small number of reported cases and leads that are not yet verified. They stay out of our counts until the sourcing is stronger.

The geographic spread is significant. In the verified dataset, the largest concentrations are currently in the Ninth Circuit and Seventh Circuit, with cases also appearing in the Second, Eleventh, First and Third Circuits.

That matters because Franco is binding federal appellate precedent inside the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Courts elsewhere can consider the reasoning, but they are not bound by the Seventh Circuit in the same way.

Why is allulose at the center of these cases?

Allulose occupies an unusual place in federal food labeling.

FDA describes allulose as a sugar that is metabolized differently from traditional sugars. It is a monosaccharide.

At the same time, FDA's 2020 guidance says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion to allow manufacturers to exclude allulose from the amounts declared as Total Sugars and Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel. FDA also permits a value of 0.4 calories per gram for nutrition-label calorie calculations.

The guidance does not rewrite the underlying regulatory definition.

21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines Total Sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides. Because allulose is a monosaccharide, the Seventh Circuit held in Franco that allulose falls within that definition.

A separate regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c), controls nutrient-content claims such as "sugar free," "zero sugar" and "no added sugar."

The present litigation grows out of the interaction among those rules.

What are plaintiffs alleging?

The exact theory varies by case.

Our verified dataset includes cases tagged to several different claim families, including:

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

These categories overlap. One case can challenge more than one type of statement, so claim-family totals should not be added together as if each represented a separate lawsuit.

That distinction is not cosmetic.

"Zero Sugar" and "Sugar Free" claims are closely tied to § 101.60(c)(1). Claims about "No Added Sugar" are addressed separately in § 101.60(c)(2). A lawsuit challenging "0g Total Sugars" may also implicate the rules governing the Nutrition Facts declaration and numerical nutrient statements.

That is why we record the exact reported package wording and also group it into a claim type for comparison.

Which companies and products are involved?

The verified litigation is no longer confined to one or two brands.

The dataset includes cases associated with products sold under brands including Chobani, Liquid Death, Liquid I.V., DAVID Protein, KIND, Special K, Magic Spoon, Hero Bread, BODYARMOR, Monin, Trader Joe's, Welch's, Grüns, Emergen-C, Nick's, Joyride, Goli, Kirkland Signature and Dunkin', among others.

The product categories are similarly broad. They include yogurt, beverages, hydration mixes, protein bars, snack bars, cereal, candy, gummies, baked goods, sauces, ice cream, syrups, sweeteners, chocolate chips and other reduced-sugar products.

A product's presence in the dataset means it is tied to a tracked case record. It does not mean the allegations have been proven.

What did Franco v. Chobani actually decide?

The plaintiffs in Franco alleged that Chobani marketed its Zero Sugar yogurt as sugar free even though the product contained allulose.

The district court dismissed the case on preemption grounds.

The Seventh Circuit reversed.

The appellate court concluded that:

• the regulation's definition of Total Sugars includes all free monosaccharides;
• allulose is a monosaccharide;
• FDA's allulose guidance is an enforcement-discretion policy rather than a rewrite of the regulation;
• the plaintiffs' state-law theory was not expressly preempted on the ground accepted by the district court;
• the plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumer deception at the pleading stage.

The court did not decide final liability, certify a class, approve a settlement or award damages.

After remand, a public federal-court filing feed we reviewed shows an amended complaint filed on September 15, 2026 and a deadlines or hearings entry on September 24. That feed expressly does not represent the complete docket history.

Is this one nationwide allulose class action?

No.

The current wave is a collection of separate proposed class actions involving different:

• plaintiffs;
• defendants;
• products;
• challenged statements;
• federal districts;
• proposed class definitions;
• state-law causes of action.

Some brands have multiple cases.

A complaint styled as a class action means the plaintiff is asking to proceed on behalf of a proposed class. It does not mean a class has already been certified.

We also do not describe the litigation as an allulose MDL unless the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation actually creates one.

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

Is there an allulose settlement?

No court-approved, category-wide settlement has been identified in the records we reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

That wording is intentional.

V1.1 created a procedural-check record for every core case, but it did not obtain a complete same-day PACER docket for every matter. The site therefore should not turn the current absence of an identified settlement into an absolute universal statement.

The same rule applies to class certification and claim forms.

For current status, see the dedicated Allulose Lawsuit Settlement page.

Can consumers file a claim now?

An attorney intake form is not the same thing as a court-approved settlement claim form.

A law firm can investigate potential claims before a class is certified or a settlement exists. An official settlement claim process generally requires a specific case, court-approved notice or settlement process, defined class, deadlines and official claim instructions.

We have not identified a universal court-approved allulose claim form in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

What happens next?

The most important developments to watch are:

• how district courts outside the Seventh Circuit treat Franco;
• whether courts distinguish sugar-free theories from no-added-sugar theories;
• motions to dismiss and preemption arguments;
• amendments to complaints;
• consolidation or coordination of related cases;
• class-certification motions and rulings;
• settlements or judgments;
• additional appellate decisions;
• FDA rulemaking or guidance changes.

The filing wave itself is useful evidence that the issue has spread. It is not evidence that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.

What this litigation does not establish

The existence of these lawsuits does not establish that:

• allulose is unsafe;
• every allulose-containing product is mislabeled;
• every consumer who purchased one of these products is a class member;
• every proposed class will be certified;
• every case will survive dismissal;
• consumers are currently entitled to payment;
• a nationwide settlement exists.

Each case has to be evaluated from its own complaint, docket, product, label and governing law.

Frequently asked questions

Is allulose legally sugar?

In Franco v. Chobani, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation it interpreted because allulose is a monosaccharide and the regulation includes all free mono- and disaccharides.

FDA also describes allulose as meeting the chemical definition of a sugar while treating it differently for certain Nutrition Facts declarations under enforcement discretion.

How many allulose lawsuits are there?

The number changes as cases are filed, verified, dismissed or otherwise updated. As of October 3, 2026, we count 58 verified or cross-checked cases.

Are the cases only about "Zero Sugar"?

No. Verified cases challenge several distinct kinds of wording, including Sugar Free, 0g Sugar, No Added Sugar, Zero Added Sugar and related statements.

Did Franco create a nationwide rule?

It created binding federal appellate precedent within the Seventh Circuit. Courts in other circuits may consider its reasoning but are not bound by it in the same way.

Is there a settlement claim form?

No universal court-approved allulose settlement claim form has been identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

Sources

Primary and controlling authorities:

• 21 C.F.R. § 101.9
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60
• FDA: The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087

Dataset support:

• The alluloselawsuit.com case tracker, with the sources cited on each case page.