Franco v. Chobani

Franco v. Chobani is the most important appellate decision in the current allulose labeling wave.

On July 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a proposed consumer class action involving Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt.

The court held that allulose falls within the federal regulation's definition of sugar and concluded that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged consumer deception.

That did not end the case in the plaintiffs' favor. It returned the litigation to the district court for further proceedings.

This page now covers activity in the district court after the remand.

Case at a glance

What were the plaintiffs alleging?

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

The legal theory centered on two federal labeling provisions.

21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines Total Sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides.

21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) governs claims such as "sugar free," "no sugar" and "zero sugar" and cross-references the sugar definition in § 101.9.

Because allulose is a monosaccharide, the plaintiffs argued that the product's sugar-free marketing conflicted with the federal standard and could support state consumer-protection claims.

Those allegations were not findings of liability.

Why did the district court dismiss the case?

The district court dismissed the case on May 29, 2025.

The dismissal relied on a preemption theory tied to FDA's treatment of allulose.

FDA's 2020 guidance says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion allowing manufacturers to exclude allulose from the amounts declared as Total Sugars and Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel.

The district court treated FDA's policy as significant to the federal labeling standard.

The plaintiffs appealed.

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

What did the Seventh Circuit hold?

The Seventh Circuit reversed.

Its analysis focused heavily on the text of the regulation.

Section 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines Total Sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides. The court concluded that the examples listed in the regulation do not narrow that broader definition.

Because allulose is a monosaccharide, the appellate court held that allulose falls within the definition.

The court also treated FDA's guidance as an enforcement policy rather than a regulatory amendment.

That distinction was critical.

FDA can announce that it does not presently intend to enforce a declaration requirement in a particular way. That does not necessarily change the text of the regulation that another federal rule incorporates.

What did the court decide about preemption?

Chobani argued that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' state-law claims.

The Seventh Circuit rejected the express-preemption theory that had supported the district court's dismissal.

The appellate court concluded that, on the allegations before it, the plaintiffs were not attempting to impose a state-law requirement different from the federal standard. Their theory was that Chobani's label violated a requirement parallel to federal law.

The opinion did not eliminate every possible defense.

The court noted that Chobani had other Rule 12(b)(6) arguments that were not before the appellate court and could be raised after remand.

That limitation is important. A successful appeal from dismissal is not equivalent to final liability.

What did the court decide about deception?

The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged deception.

That is a pleading-stage conclusion.

At that stage, the question is whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim assuming the properly pleaded allegations are evaluated under the applicable standard.

The court did not decide what a jury would ultimately find or whether the plaintiffs could prove damages.

What happened after the appeal?

A public federal-court filing feed shows:

• September 15, 2026: an amended complaint filed as docket entry 59;
• September 24, 2026: a deadlines or hearings entry as docket entry 62.

The filing-feed provider expressly states that its indexed material is not the complete docket history.

In short, the case returned to the Northern District of Illinois after the Seventh Circuit reversal. A public federal-court filing feed shows an amended complaint filed September 15, 2026 and a deadlines or hearings entry on September 24, 2026. That feed is not a complete PACER docket, so later activity may not appear in it.

Why Franco matters beyond Chobani

The post-Franco filing wave spans dozens of separately docketed proposed class actions involving many different brands and several kinds of sugar claims.

We count 58 verified or cross-checked cases.

The largest concentrations are currently in federal courts within the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, with additional cases in the Second, Eleventh, First and Third Circuits.

The significance of Franco therefore has two dimensions.

Inside the Seventh Circuit

Federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin are bound by Seventh Circuit precedent on the federal-law question decided in Franco, subject to later controlling developments.

Outside the Seventh Circuit

Courts can consider Franco as persuasive authority, but other courts of appeals can reach their own conclusions.

That is one of the most important reasons to track the litigation by circuit rather than treating all federal cases as interchangeable.

Franco and "No Added Sugar" cases

The appellate decision is central to the definition of allulose as sugar.

But it should not be mechanically pasted onto every newer case.

Franco involved a sugar-free theory associated with § 101.60(c)(1).

Several newer cases challenge "Zero Added Sugar," "No Added Sugar," or similar wording associated with § 101.60(c)(2).

Those cases may raise overlapping questions, but the operative regulatory language is not identical.

A well-sourced case page should therefore show the exact challenged claim before discussing how closely Franco fits.

What Franco does not establish

The decision does not establish that:

• Chobani has been found liable;
• the plaintiffs have proven consumer deception;
• a class has been certified;
• damages have been awarded;
• a settlement exists;
• every allulose-containing "zero sugar" product violates federal law;
• no other dismissal argument can succeed;
• FDA has found allulose unsafe.

Those distinctions matter whenever the case is summarized.

Timeline

Frequently asked questions

Did Chobani lose the lawsuit?

Chobani lost the appeal from the district court's dismissal on the issues decided by the Seventh Circuit. That is not the same as a final judgment holding Chobani liable.

Is the Chobani case over?

No. The dismissal was reversed and the case returned to the district court. Public filing-feed information we reviewed shows activity after the remand in September 2026.

Is there a Chobani allulose settlement?

No court-approved Chobani settlement has been identified in the records we reviewed as of October 3, 2026. Our review is not a complete current PACER docket for every case, so this is a dated finding, not a guarantee that no settlement exists.

Did the court rule that allulose is unsafe?

No. The appellate decision concerns labeling law, preemption and pleading-stage deception.

What is the appellate case number?

No. 25-2087 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Sources cited in this guide (5)

• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087
• FDA allulose guidance
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.9
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60
• Docket Nexus public federal-court feed for Franco v. Chobani, used only for the reported post-remand entries and with its incompleteness caveat.