DAVID Protein allulose lawsuits

DAVID Protein faces three verified proposed class actions challenging "0g Sugar" marketing on DAVID Gold protein bars that contain allulose.

This is one of the strongest brand pages in the allulose dataset from a primary-source perspective. For this research pass, we reviewed the actual complaints in all three verified cases:

• Yovino et al. v. Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC;
• McCarthy et al. v. Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC; and
• Dash et al. v. Linus Technology, Inc.

The cases share the same basic theory, but they are not interchangeable. The named defendants differ, the proposed classes differ, and the state-law theories differ.

No court has made a final finding that DAVID's labeling violated the law in the cases reviewed.

The three verified DAVID allulose cases

The Yovino federal docket confirms Vincent Yovino filed the case August 24 in the Northern District of California. (Justia docket)

The McCarthy docket confirms Ryan McCarthy filed September 4 in the Central District of California. (Justia docket)

The Middle District of Florida docket index identifies Niki Dash's case as No. 5:26-cv-00646, filed September 10. (Justia docket index)

Truth in Advertising groups all three under DAVID "0g Sugar" Protein Bars and reports them pending. (Truth in Advertising)

The DAVID claim is central to the brand's three-number promise

The Yovino complaint describes DAVID Gold's marketing around a prominent three-part message:

"28G PROTEIN | 150 CALORIES | 0g Sugar"

It alleges the same zero-sugar message appears on wrappers, cartons, DAVID's website, product pages, and retail listings. (Yovino complaint)

The complaint further alleges that every DAVID Gold bar in its defined product set is sweetened with allulose.

Those are allegations in a complaint. The court has not ruled that the representation is false or unlawful.

Which DAVID Gold flavors are identified?

The Yovino complaint says the action concerns DAVID Gold bars in all flavors, sizes, counts, and pack configurations and notes that the product line had eight flavors.

The Dash complaint identifies eight flavors expressly:

• Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough;
• Blueberry Pie;
• Cinnamon Roll;
• Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk;
• Salted Peanut Butter;
• Red Velvet;
• Cake Batter; and
• Fudge Brownie.

The Dash complaint uses Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough as its representative product. (Dash complaint)

The formula changed, and that matters to the allegations

The primary complaints describe an important formulation change.

The McCarthy complaint alleges that an earlier DAVID Gold formulation contained seven grams of allulose per serving. It says that around February 2025 the products were reformulated so maltitol replaced allulose as the first-listed ingredient in the "binding system," while allulose moved to second. (McCarthy complaint)

The Yovino complaint makes the same core allegation about the February 2025 reformulation and says DAVID no longer discloses the amount of allulose in the reformulated products. (Yovino complaint)

So we do not flatten the record into a timeless statement that every DAVID bar contains exactly seven grams of allulose.

The more accurate description is:

• the complaints allege the earlier formulation contained seven grams per serving;
• they allege the formula changed around February 2025;
• allulose remained listed in the reformulated binding system; and
• the complaints say the current amount was no longer disclosed.

This is precisely the kind of product-history distinction a static "contains allulose" list would miss.

What does Yovino allege about the named plaintiff?

The Yovino complaint states that Vincent Yovino purchased a Blueberry Pie DAVID product from a WinCo Foods store in Brentwood, California, in early to mid 2026.

It alleges that he saw the "0g Sugar" representation before purchase, understood it to mean the product contained no sugar, and would not have purchased the product or would have paid less had he known it contained allulose. (Yovino complaint)

That is the plaintiff's pleaded reliance and economic-injury theory. It is not a judicial finding.

The proposed classes differ across the three cases

This is another reason we track the cases separately.

Yovino

The complaint pursues a multi-state consumer-protection class and a California class. It does not simply use the same class definition as every later case.

McCarthy

The complaint expressly proposes:

• a Nationwide Class covering people in the United States who purchased the products for personal use during the maximum period allowed by law; and
• a California Subclass.

(McCarthy complaint)

Dash

The Dash complaint proposes:

• a National Class covering natural persons who purchased the products in the United States for personal use, not resale, during the four years before filing; and
• a Florida Class covering qualifying purchases in Florida during the same four-year period.

(Dash complaint)

None of those proposed classes has been converted into a certified class in the records reviewed.

What laws does Dash plead?

The Dash complaint gives a useful example of how the state-law layer changes by venue.

It pleads:

• Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;
• Florida's false and misleading advertising statute, § 817.41; and
• unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that Florida has incorporated relevant federal food-labeling rules and uses the same underlying allulose and "0g Sugar" theory. (Dash complaint)

The California complaints use different state-law causes of action. That does not make them different allulose theories at the federal-regulation level, but it does matter for the claims actually pleaded.

Why Franco v. Chobani matters

The Yovino complaint expressly cites Franco v. Chobani, which the Seventh Circuit decided on July 27, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the relevant federal definition of sugar and that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged consumer deception from the zero-sugar representation. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

The DAVID cases were filed beginning four weeks later.

Again, that sequence does not prove causation. It does show that the DAVID complaints are being pleaded against a new appellate backdrop in which one federal circuit has already addressed the central regulatory classification.

The two California DAVID cases sit within the Ninth Circuit. Dash sits within the Eleventh Circuit. Franco is persuasive, not binding, in those courts.

The Nutrition Facts panel versus the 0g Sugar claim

The Dash complaint illustrates the distinction clearly.

It alleges that the representative product's Nutrition Facts panel declares "Total Sugars 0g" and "Includes 0g Added Sugars" while the ingredient statement lists allulose.

The complaint then separately attacks the "0g Sugar" representation as a nutrient-content claim under the front-label rules. (Dash complaint)

FDA's 2020 guidance allows enforcement discretion for allulose in the Nutrition Facts Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations. It does not itself rewrite the text of the sugar-free nutrient-content regulation. (FDA guidance)

That is the legal tension the DAVID complaints are trying to exploit.

Current procedural status

Truth in Advertising reports Yovino, McCarthy, and Dash pending as of the current tracker review. (Truth in Advertising)

We record that as current secondary tracker evidence, not as a complete same-day PACER review.

A different DAVID lawsuit should not be mixed into this count

DAVID Protein has also faced separate litigation about calories or fat content.

That is not the same allulose theory tracked on this page.

We count only the cases in which reliable sources connect the challenged "0g Sugar" representation to allulose. Other lawsuits involving DAVID are not added to the allulose count.

Has a DAVID allulose class been certified?

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

The complaints propose classes. They do not establish certified classes.

Is there a DAVID allulose settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement or official claim form for these allulose cases 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.