Chobani allulose lawsuits

Chobani is at the center of the allulose labeling litigation because the first major appellate ruling in the current wave came from a lawsuit over Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt.

In Franco v. Chobani, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on July 27, 2026 that allulose falls within the federal regulation's definition of sugar and that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged consumer deception. The court reversed an earlier dismissal and returned the case to the Northern District of Illinois. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

That was not a final finding that Chobani violated the law. It was an appellate ruling at the pleading stage.

Since the Franco decision, additional proposed class actions involving Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt have been filed in federal courts in New York and Florida. We track those matters separately rather than treating "the Chobani lawsuit" as one national case.

The Chobani allulose cases we track

The verified tracker should currently draw from these case records:

The federal docket index confirms Kuznicki was filed August 28, 2026 in the Eastern District of New York by Mark Kuznicki and other named plaintiffs. (Justia docket)

The federal docket index confirms Pardo-Manrique was filed September 9, 2026 in the Middle District of Florida by Gustavo Pardo-Manrique. (Justia docket)

Truth in Advertising's tracker describes both later cases as challenging Zero Sugar marketing on Chobani yogurts that contain allulose and reports them pending as of the source review. That tracker is useful current secondary evidence, but it is not a substitute for a complete PACER docket. (Truth in Advertising)

Why Franco v. Chobani is different from the later Chobani cases

The later Chobani filings matter, but Franco has a different legal weight because it produced a published federal appellate decision.

The Seventh Circuit addressed the relationship among three things:

1. the federal definition of Total Sugars in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii);
2. the conditions for sugar-free and zero-sugar claims in 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1); and
3. FDA's enforcement-discretion guidance for allulose on the Nutrition Facts panel.

The appellate court concluded that the regulation includes every free monosaccharide and that allulose is therefore sugar for the regulatory question before it. It also treated FDA's allulose guidance as an enforcement policy rather than a change to the regulation itself. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

For a deeper treatment of the holding, preemption analysis and procedural history, see our dedicated Franco v. Chobani case guide.

What did the original Chobani complaint allege?

The original Franco complaint challenged Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt labeling and alleged that the product contained four grams of allulose per serving while prominently communicating a zero-sugar message.

The Seventh Circuit opinion accepted the complaint's allegations as true for purposes of reviewing dismissal. That is a procedural requirement at the pleading stage, not a finding that the allegations were proven.

The opinion states that the plaintiffs sought to use state consumer-protection laws to challenge labeling they alleged did not comply with the federal sugar standard. The appellate court held that the express-preemption theory used to dismiss the case did not bar those claims on the record before it. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

What happened after the Seventh Circuit ruling?

The appellate decision was issued July 27, 2026.

A public federal-court filing feed later reports:

• an amended complaint on September 15, 2026; and
• a deadlines or hearings entry on September 24, 2026.

The provider expressly warns that its indexed entries are not the complete docket history. We therefore treat those dates as supported post-remand activity, not as a complete statement of everything that has happened in the district court. (Docket Nexus)

Has Chobani been found liable?

No final liability finding is established by the sources reviewed.

The Seventh Circuit held that:

• allulose is sugar under the relevant regulatory definition;
• the express-preemption theory that supported dismissal did not justify dismissal on the record before the court; and
• the plaintiffs plausibly alleged deception.

Those holdings allowed the case to proceed. They did not award damages, certify a class, approve a settlement, or decide the ultimate merits.

That distinction is particularly important because later allulose lawsuits frequently cite or rely on Franco.

Has a Chobani allulose class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

The Chobani cases are described as proposed or putative class actions. A proposed class is not a certified class.

Is there a Chobani allulose settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved allulose settlement, official settlement claim form, or court-authorized payment program for these cases in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

That is not the same as saying no settlement exists anywhere. Our review is not a complete same-day PACER check of every case.

See Allulose Lawsuit Settlement for the site's settlement-verification standard.

How the FDA guidance fits into the Chobani dispute

FDA's October 2020 guidance says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion allowing allulose to be excluded from the amount declared as Total Sugars and Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts label. It also uses 0.4 calories per gram for allulose. (FDA guidance)

The litigation issue is not simply whether FDA lets manufacturers show zero grams of sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel.

The Seventh Circuit focused on the text of the regulation incorporated into the sugar-free claim rule. Section 101.9 defines Total Sugars by reference to free mono- and disaccharides, while § 101.60 sets conditions for sugar-free and zero-sugar nutrient-content claims. (21 C.F.R. § 101.9) (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

That distinction between a Nutrition Facts declaration policy and a front-of-package nutrient-content claim is the core of the current litigation.

Why the location of each Chobani case matters

Franco was decided by the Seventh Circuit.

That decision binds federal district courts within the Seventh Circuit on the legal issues it decided, subject to later controlling developments.

Kuznicki is in the Eastern District of New York, which sits in the Second Circuit.

Pardo-Manrique is in the Middle District of Florida, which sits in the Eleventh Circuit.

Those courts can consider Franco as persuasive authority, but the Seventh Circuit does not control the Second or Eleventh Circuits.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Sources

Primary and court-derived sources used for this page include:

• Franco v. Chobani, Seventh Circuit opinion, July 27, 2026
• Franco public post-remand filing feed, Docket Nexus
• Kuznicki et al. v. Chobani, LLC, Justia federal docket index
• Pardo-Manrique v. Chobani, LLC, Justia federal docket index
• FDA allulose labeling guidance
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.9
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60
• Truth in Advertising Chobani Zero Sugar tracker

Last researched: October 3, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.