Humm Kombucha allulose lawsuit

James v. Humm Kombucha LLC et al. is a proposed class action filed September 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

It challenges "ZERO SUGAR" and "0 GRAMS SUGAR" claims on Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar, which according to the complaint is sweetened with allulose syrup.

No class has been certified and no court has found Humm liable.

The verified Humm allulose case

The federal docket index lists plaintiff Lucas James, defendant Humm Kombucha LLC, the September 29 filing date and case No. 3:26-cv-02009. The case is assigned to Judge Adrienne Nelson. (Justia docket)

This is a different matter from Lawley v. Humm Kombucha LLC, an earlier District of Oregon case filed in 2023. That case is not part of the allulose litigation we track.

Which Humm products does the lawsuit challenge?

Complaint-based reporting identifies the challenged line as Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar, sold in 12-ounce cans. Reported flavors include:

• Açaí Blueberry;
• Blood Orange;
• Peach Tea; and
• Raspberry Lemonade.

(Open Class Actions)

The reporting distinguishes the Zero Sugar line from Humm's other kombucha. The lawsuit should not be read as covering every Humm product.

What wording does the lawsuit challenge?

According to complaint-based reporting, the cans say "ZERO SUGAR" and "0 GRAMS SUGAR," and allulose syrup is listed immediately after the kombucha base in the ingredients.

The complaint also reportedly takes issue with an asterisk after "allulose syrup." It argues that the asterisk points to a plant-based ingredient statement rather than the sugar disclosure the federal rule contemplates. That is the plaintiff's argument, not a finding.

How much allulose does the complaint say is in each can?

The complaint reportedly estimates about 10 grams of allulose per 12-ounce can.

That figure is an estimate, not a laboratory measurement. According to the reporting, the complaint works backward from the Nutrition Facts panel: 10 grams of total carbohydrate, with no fiber, sugar alcohols, protein or fat listed, and allulose syrup as the only listed sweetener.

A 2020 trade-press report on the line's launch described it as sweetened with monk fruit and allulose. (FoodNavigator-USA) The current ingredient list may differ from 2020. We have not reviewed a current can, so we treat the 10-gram figure only as the complaint's estimate.

The federal rule the lawsuit relies on

The theory invokes two federal regulations:

• 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which defines sugars as the sum of all free monosaccharides and disaccharides; and
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), which sets the conditions for a "sugar free" type claim, including less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving and an ingredient-disclosure condition.

(21 C.F.R. § 101.9) (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

FDA's 2020 guidance allows allulose to be left out of Total Sugars and Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts label. (FDA guidance) The lawsuit treats that as separate from whether a front-label "Zero Sugar" claim satisfies § 101.60. That is the same structural question running through the other allulose cases.

How Franco v. Chobani fits

The Humm complaint reportedly relies heavily on Franco v. Chobani.

In Franco, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the federal regulatory definition of sugar. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

The Humm case is in the District of Oregon, within the Ninth Circuit. So Franco is persuasive authority there, not binding precedent.

The proposed classes

Complaint-based reporting describes two proposed classes:

• a national class of people in the United States who bought Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar for personal use, not resale; and
• an Oregon subclass of Oregon purchasers of the challenged products for personal use, not resale.

These are proposed classes. No class has been certified.

What legal claims are reported?

The complaint reportedly pleads:

• the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act;
• breach of express warranty; and
• unjust enrichment.

These are pleaded theories, not findings that Humm violated any law.

What purchase does the named plaintiff allege?

According to complaint-based reporting, Lucas James bought Raspberry Lemonade around August 7, 2026 for about $7.49, delivered to his home in Oregon.

That is the plaintiff's allegation about his own purchase.

Current procedural status

The public federal docket index shows the complaint filed on September 29, 2026, a summons issued and an initial scheduling order entered. (Justia docket)

That is an early snapshot, not a complete current docket.

Has a Humm class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in the records reviewed as of October 6, 2026.

Is there a Humm allulose settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement, settlement fund or official claim form in the records reviewed as of October 6, 2026.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Last researched: October 6, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.