Brand coverage · Last reviewed
Conagra allulose lawsuits
The short answer
- One verified proposed class action challenges “No Added Sugar” claims on Keto baking products marketed as having no added sugar.
- Rule in play: 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2) (the no-added-sugar rule, which Franco did not decide).
- Every case here is in the Seventh Circuit, where Franco v. Chobani is binding on the issue it decided.
- No liability finding, class certification or court-approved settlement has been identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.
Conagra at a glance
- Verified cases
- 1
- Federal districts
- 1
- Circuits
- 1
- Classes certified*
- None identified
- Settlements*
- None identified
Latest filing September 17, 2026. * In the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026; not a complete same-day docket review. Settlement status explained
This page is built from the structured case record. A full editorial guide to the Conagra cases has not been published yet. Allegations are not findings of fact.
The Conagra cases we track
Filed after Franco
Verified Conagra cases by filing date, July 27, 2026 to October 3, 2026. Filed within 8 weeks of the ruling.
- Jul 27, 2026Franco v. Chobani: the Seventh Circuit reverses the dismissal
- Sep 17, 2026 · N.D. Ill.Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc.
1 case, newest filing first
| Filed | Case | Wording challenged | Court | Franco is | Latest supported status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc.No. 1:26-cv-11420 | “No Added Sugar” | N.D. Ill. | Binding | Complaint filed |
No cases match these filters. If you bought a product that isn’t here, you can still share your purchase.
Open the Conagra cases in the case tracker
Records reviewed through October 3, 2026. Verified totals include only supported core labeling cases. Sources and methodology.
The rule in play
The federal rule treats “sugar free” and “no added sugar” claims under separate subsections. Claim families below come from our case record; they group reported allegations.
21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2)
No Added Sugar
Not decided in Franco: The no-added-sugar rule, § 101.60(c)(2). Franco v. Chobani addressed the sugar-free rule, not this one.
Franco v. Chobani held that allulose falls within the federal definition of sugar for the regulation it interpreted. It did not decide liability, and its binding effect is limited to the Seventh Circuit.
Conagra: product groups
Keto baking products marketed as having no added sugar
“No Added Sugar”
Product groups summarize allegations in the reviewed cases. A listed product does not establish class membership, payment eligibility, or that every flavor or variant is challenged.
Sources for this module
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
Conagra: status in reviewed records
Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc.
Complaint filed; no later outcome identified in reviewed sources
Public docket-index snapshot. Checked October 3, 2026. This is the latest status supported by the public sources reviewed. It is not represented as a complete same-day PACER docket review.
Public docket indexes and secondary tracker reports do not establish the contents of the complete current court docket.
Sources for this module
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
Settlement and claims-process review
The reviewed sources do not represent a complete same-day PACER review of every docket. A proposed class is not a certified class, and dismissal alone does not establish a settlement.
Background reading
Source record
Primary and court-derived sources are listed first. Secondary reporting is used for discovery and cross-checking.
Show all 2 sources
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc.Court-derived docket index · Law360 · Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026
- Sanderson v. Conagra Brands, Inc.Court-derived docket index · Justia Dockets · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026