Hero Bread allulose lawsuits

Hero Bread faces at least two verified or cross-checked proposed class actions challenging "0G SUGAR" or equivalent zero-sugar marketing on allulose-containing baked goods.

The two verified cases are especially useful for understanding how Franco v. Chobani can matter differently depending on venue:

• Martin v. Hero Labs, Inc. was filed in the Northern District of California, within the Ninth Circuit; and
• Allen v. Hero Labs, Inc. was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, within the Seventh Circuit.

The primary Martin complaint is unusually detailed. It identifies nine allulose-containing Hero products and alleges allulose quantities ranging from one to eight grams per labeled serving.

No court has made a final finding that Hero Labs violated the law.

The verified Hero Bread allulose cases

The primary Martin complaint was filed September 14. (Complaint PDF)

The federal docket index confirms Kimberly Allen filed the later Illinois case on September 29, 2026, with Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman assigned and Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain designated. (Allen docket)

Truth in Advertising groups Martin and Allen as Hero zero-sugar allulose matters and reports them pending as of the tracker review. (Truth in Advertising)

Which Hero products does the Martin complaint identify?

The complaint limits its defined products to allulose-containing versions of nine Hero items:

1. Classic Burger Buns;
2. Classic Hot Dog Buns;
3. Flour Tortillas, 8-count, 12.4 oz / 352 g, canola-oil formulation;
4. Buttermilk Biscuit;
5. Cheddar Biscuit;
6. Pumpkin Spice Scone;
7. Orange Scone;
8. Lemon Poppy Seed Scone; and
9. Pain au Chocolat.

Versions that do not contain allulose are expressly excluded from the complaint's product definition. (Martin complaint)

That limitation belongs on the public page. A brand-level article should not imply that every Hero Bread formulation is part of the lawsuit.

What does the complaint say about the "0G SUGAR" representations?

The Martin complaint alleges that Hero uses "0G SUGAR" on the front labels of:

• Classic Burger Buns;
• Classic Hot Dog Buns; and
• the specified Flour Tortillas.

It further alleges equivalent sugar representations on Hero's official product pages for the biscuits, scones, and Pain au Chocolat. (Martin complaint)

The named plaintiff, Devan Martin, alleges he bought Hero Classic Burger Buns from a Bristol Farms store in West Hollywood on September 3, 2026, saw and relied on the "0G SUGAR" representation, and would not have bought the product on the same terms had he known it contained allulose.

That is the plaintiff's pleaded reliance theory, not a court finding.

How much allulose does the primary complaint allege?

The complaint says Hero's own product information disclosed the following amounts per labeled serving:

(Martin complaint)

The complaint argues that those amounts conflict with the sugar representations under the federal labeling framework.

Again, the quantities are sourced to allegations and product information reproduced or described in the complaint. The court has not made a merits finding accepting the plaintiff's legal conclusion.

The lawsuit distinguishes front-label claims from the Nutrition Facts panel

One of the strongest parts of the Martin complaint is that it does not rely on a vague argument that the Nutrition Facts panel itself must always show allulose as Total Sugars.

It focuses on statements outside the Nutrition Facts panel.

The complaint states that information appearing as part of the Nutrition Facts panel is not itself a nutrient-content claim under § 101.13(c), while the "0G SUGAR" statements on front labels and official product pages are separate claims characterizing sugar content. (Martin complaint)

That distinction mirrors the broader allulose litigation problem:

• FDA guidance gives enforcement discretion for allulose in the Nutrition Facts sugar declarations;
• the nutrient-content claim regulations still govern separate zero-sugar representations.

(FDA allulose guidance)

What classes does Martin propose?

The complaint proposes:

• a Nationwide Class;
• a Multi-State Consumer Protection Subclass; and
• a California Subclass.

The proposed Nationwide Class covers people who purchased one or more defined products for personal use while those products contained allulose and bore or were marketed with a sugar representation, during the maximum legally permitted period. (Martin complaint)

Those are proposed class definitions. No class has been certified in the records reviewed.

What causes of action are pleaded in Martin?

The primary complaint pleads four counts:

1. California Unfair Competition Law;
2. California False Advertising Law;
3. consumer-protection statutes on behalf of the proposed multi-state subclass; and
4. unjust enrichment on behalf of the proposed nationwide class.

(Martin complaint)

That cause-of-action list belongs specifically to Martin. We do not automatically copy it into Allen without reviewing the later complaint.

Why the Allen case is strategically different

Allen v. Hero Labs, Inc. was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

That places it within the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit's July 27, 2026 Franco v. Chobani ruling is therefore binding on federal district courts in that circuit for the legal issue it decided: allulose falls within the relevant regulatory definition of sugar. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

By contrast, Martin is in the Ninth Circuit, where Franco is persuasive rather than binding.

That gives the two Hero cases a potentially important jurisdictional difference even though they are reported to involve the same broad allulose / zero-sugar theory.

What do we know about Allen?

The federal docket index establishes:

• plaintiff Kimberly Allen;
• defendant Hero Labs, Inc.;
• case No. 1:26-cv-11934;
• filing date September 29, 2026;
• Northern District of Illinois;
• Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; and
• Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain.

(Justia docket)

Truth in Advertising connects Allen to Hero's zero-sugar allulose claims.

We have not used Martin to assume that Allen contains the same nine-product definition, the same proposed classes, or the same causes of action.

Those details should be added only when the Allen complaint is obtained and reviewed.

Current procedural status

Truth in Advertising reports the Hero allulose matters pending as of the current tracker review. We treat that as secondary tracker status. It is not a substitute for a complete current PACER docket. (Truth in Advertising)

The Allen public docket index was retrieved on its filing date and should not be used to imply that nothing has happened since.

Has a Hero Bread class been certified?

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

Is there a Hero Bread settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved Hero allulose settlement, official settlement administrator, or court-authorized claim form 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.