BODYARMOR allulose lawsuit

BODYARMOR's allulose litigation currently centers on one verified proposed class action: Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, filed September 14, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The case challenges the "Zero Sugar" labeling on three BODYARMOR Flash I.V. Zero Sugar beverages. The primary complaint alleges that the drinks contain allulose, which it characterizes as a monosaccharide sugar under federal labeling regulations, and argues that the front-label claim therefore does not satisfy the federal rule for zero-sugar claims.

No court has found BA Sports Nutrition liable. No class has been certified, and we have not identified a court-approved settlement or claim form in the records reviewed.

The verified BODYARMOR allulose case

The federal docket index confirms plaintiff Michael Walsh, defendant BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, case No. 2:26-cv-10366, and the September 14 filing date. The docket snapshot shows the complaint, civil cover sheet, summons request, and notice of interested parties filed that day. (Justia docket)

The complaint itself is publicly available and is the primary factual source for this page. (Primary complaint PDF)

Which BODYARMOR products does the complaint name?

The complaint defines the challenged "Class Products" as three BODYARMOR Flash I.V. Zero Sugar flavors:

• Lemon Lime;
• Pineapple Passion; and
• Watermelon Punch.

The named plaintiff alleges that he bought the Lemon Lime version several times from a Ralphs store in Whittier, California during the six months before filing. (Primary complaint PDF)

The case does not, as currently pleaded, challenge every BODYARMOR drink.

That distinction matters because BODYARMOR sells multiple product lines. A brand hub should not convert a case about three named Flash I.V. Zero Sugar flavors into a statement about unrelated BODYARMOR products.

What does the label allegedly say?

The complaint says the principal display panel prominently states "Zero Sugar."

It alleges the Nutrition Facts panel also lists zero grams of Total Sugars and zero grams of Added Sugars.

The ingredient list, however, includes allulose as the third ingredient after filtered water and citric acid. The complaint argues that ingredient order indicates allulose is present in a meaningful quantity because federal rules generally require ingredients to be listed in descending order by weight. (Primary complaint PDF)

Importantly, the complaint does not provide a laboratory-measured grams-per-serving figure for allulose.

The correct factual statement is therefore:

The complaint alleges that allulose is the third-listed ingredient and is present in a significant quantity.

It would be an overstatement to invent an exact allulose amount.

The legal theory uses the federal Zero Sugar rule

The complaint's federal-labeling theory is based principally on 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1).

That rule permits terms such as "sugar free," "no sugar," and "zero sugar" only if specified conditions are met, including a less-than-0.5-gram sugar threshold per reference amount and labeled serving.

The complaint also points to the rule's separate ingredient-list condition. Where a product contains an ingredient that is a sugar or is generally understood to contain sugars, the rule includes an asterisk-and-footnote mechanism under specified circumstances. The complaint alleges BODYARMOR's ingredient list names allulose without such a disclosure. (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

The plaintiff's position is that allulose falls within the definition of sugars in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) because allulose is a monosaccharide. (21 C.F.R. § 101.9)

That is the same regulatory definition the Seventh Circuit addressed in Franco v. Chobani.

Why FDA guidance does not end the dispute

FDA's October 2020 guidance says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion allowing allulose to be excluded from Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on the Nutrition Facts panel. (FDA guidance)

The BODYARMOR complaint argues that this Nutrition Facts policy does not independently authorize a prominent front-label "Zero Sugar" nutrient-content claim.

That difference is central to the litigation:

• Nutrition Facts treatment is one issue;
• a separate nutrient-content claim is another.

The Seventh Circuit adopted that basic distinction in Franco, although the BODYARMOR case itself is in a different circuit.

What does Franco v. Chobani mean here?

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the relevant federal regulatory definition of sugar and reversed the dismissal of a zero-sugar case against Chobani. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

The BODYARMOR complaint was filed several weeks later.

But Walsh is in the Central District of California, which is within the Ninth Circuit.

That means Franco is persuasive authority there, not binding Seventh Circuit precedent.

A California federal court could find the Seventh Circuit's reasoning persuasive, distinguish it, or address the same regulatory question differently subject to controlling Ninth Circuit law.

What class does Walsh propose?

The primary complaint proposes a California class of people in California who purchased the named Class Products in California during the applicable class period.

The class period is tied to the maximum limitations period for each pleaded cause of action. The complaint explains that some California claims have three-year periods and others four-year periods.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed class likely contains tens of thousands of members.

Those are pleaded class allegations. The court has not certified the proposed class. (Primary complaint PDF)

This case is therefore materially narrower, as pleaded, than a nationwide consumer class action.

What claims are pleaded?

The complaint pleads California consumer and warranty theories, including:

• California Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
• California Unfair Competition Law;
• California False Advertising Law;
• breach of express warranty; and
• quasi-contract / unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks damages and equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

These are requested remedies and legal theories, not awards or findings.

Is Coca-Cola a defendant?

No, not in the complaint reviewed for this page.

BA Sports Nutrition, LLC is the named defendant.

Complaint-based reporting notes the broader corporate relationship between BODYARMOR and Coca-Cola, but Coca-Cola is not named as a defendant in Walsh. The public page should preserve that distinction rather than replacing the actual defendant with the more famous parent company. (OpenClassActions)

Current procedural status

The public Justia docket snapshot was last retrieved on the filing date and therefore does not establish that no later activity exists.

OpenClassActions describes the matter as a newly filed proposed class action, and Truth in Advertising tracks the Flash I.V. case as pending. Those are useful secondary status signals, not substitutes for a complete current PACER docket. (Truth in Advertising)

Has a BODYARMOR allulose class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in the records reviewed as of October 4, 2026.

The complaint seeks certification of a California class. That is not the same thing as a court certifying one.

Is there a BODYARMOR settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement, official settlement administrator, or court-authorized claim form for this allulose case in the records reviewed as of October 4, 2026.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Last researched: October 4, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.