Joyride allulose lawsuits

Joyride's allulose litigation currently consists of two verified or cross-checked proposed class actions against Project 7, Inc.:

• Edwards v. Project 7, Inc., filed September 9, 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois; and
• Switzer v. Project 7, Inc., filed September 11, 2026 in the Northern District of California.

The primary Switzer complaint is unusually explicit about the product labels. It identifies four Joyride candies, alleges that each bag contains 13 grams of allulose per serving, and says the packaging repeatedly uses "ZERO Sugar" language.

The Edwards case is also important because it was filed in the Seventh Circuit, where Franco v. Chobani is binding on the regulatory issue it decided.

No court has found Project 7 liable in either case.

The verified Joyride allulose cases

The federal docket index confirms Edwards was filed by Aretha Edwards in the Northern District of Illinois on September 9. (Justia docket)

The federal docket index confirms Switzer was filed September 11 in the Northern District of California. (Justia docket)

Truth in Advertising currently highlights the Switzer case under Joyride gummy candies and describes the allegation as "ZERO Sugar" marketing despite allulose. (Truth in Advertising)

Which Joyride products does the Switzer complaint name?

The primary complaint identifies four products:

• Joyride Zero Sugar Peachy Mango Rings;
• Joyride Zero Sugar Fruity Gummy Bears;
• Joyride Zero Sugar Sour Gummy Worms; and
• Joyride Zero Sugar Sour Fruit Gummies.

The named plaintiff, Katie Switzer, alleges she bought all four products through Amazon in or around April 2023 while living in Fremont, California. (Primary Switzer complaint)

The complaint does not define every Joyride product sold by Project 7 as part of the case.

What exactly does the Switzer complaint allege the packaging says?

The complaint says the front of each challenged product prominently displays:

"ZERO Sugar"

It further alleges the back panels repeat messages including:

"ZERO sugar per serving"

and

"absolutely ZERO SUGAR"

The complaint's theory is that those absolute claims communicate that the candy contains no sugar while the products contain allulose. (Primary Switzer complaint)

The primary complaint says 13 grams of allulose per bag

This is one of the clearest quantity allegations in the current litigation wave.

The Switzer complaint says each challenged product's back label states that the product contains 13 grams of allulose per bag, or per serving.

It then compares that amount with the federal less-than-0.5-gram threshold for a zero-sugar claim and argues that 13 grams is 26 times the threshold. (Primary Switzer complaint)

That is a complaint allegation grounded in label information. It is not a judicial finding that the legal conclusion follows.

What does Edwards add to the picture?

Complaint-based reporting on Edwards describes a somewhat broader set of Joyride marketing claims.

It says the complaint challenges "Sugar Free," "Zero Sugar," and "0 Sugar" messaging and alleges that allulose is the first-listed and predominant ingredient in the candy.

The report says the products include gummy worms, gummy bears, fruit gummies, and licorice twists, and that different varieties disclose either eight or 13 grams of allulose per serving. (ClaimDepot)

The named plaintiff is reported to have bought Joyride Sour Peachy Mango Rings at a Target store in Chicago.

Because the Edwards primary complaint was not directly retrieved in this editorial pass, those product and quantity details remain attributed to complaint-based reporting rather than presented as independently reviewed primary facts.

The proposed classes differ by case

Switzer

The Switzer complaint proposes:

• a Nationwide Class;
• a California Class; and
• a California Consumer Subclass.

The California subclass definitions are tied to residents who bought the products during the applicable limitations period, with the consumer subclass further limited to personal, family, or household purchases. (Primary Switzer complaint)

Edwards

Complaint-based reporting says Edwards proposes:

• an Illinois subclass; and
• a broader multi-state class covering Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

(ClaimDepot)

Those are proposed class definitions. Neither case has a certified class in the records reviewed.

What claims does Switzer plead?

The primary Switzer complaint pleads California claims including:

• Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
• False Advertising Law;
• Unfair Competition Law;
• breach of express warranty;
• breach of implied warranty;
• unjust enrichment; and
• common-law fraud.

The lawsuit alleges the zero-sugar representations violate the federal nutrient-content rules and California's parallel Sherman Law framework. (Primary Switzer complaint)

The complaint's federal regulatory theory invokes § 101.60(c)(1), including both the quantitative sugar threshold and the ingredient-disclosure provision.

Why the two courts matter

Edwards is in the Northern District of Illinois.

That court sits within the Seventh Circuit, so Franco v. Chobani is binding there on the regulatory issue the appellate court decided: allulose falls within the federal definition of sugar relevant to the sugar-free rule. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

Switzer is in the Northern District of California, within the Ninth Circuit.

There, Franco is persuasive rather than binding.

That gives the two Joyride cases a useful natural experiment in how the same regulatory theory may be treated in different circuits.

FDA guidance versus front-of-package candy claims

FDA's 2020 allulose guidance concerns enforcement discretion for Nutrition Facts declarations.

The Joyride complaints challenge separate sugar-related marketing claims.

The Switzer complaint expressly distinguishes the Nutrition Facts panel from nutrient-content claims appearing elsewhere on packaging and argues that "ZERO Sugar" is governed by §§ 101.13 and 101.60(c)(1). (Primary Switzer complaint)

That is the same structural distinction that appears throughout the current allulose litigation wave.

Current procedural status

Truth in Advertising reports the Switzer matter pending.

Our status checks for the two cases are based on public docket indexes and tracker/reporting sources, not a complete same-day PACER sweep. (Truth in Advertising)

Has a Joyride class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in either verified Joyride allulose case in the records reviewed as of October 4, 2026.

Is there a Joyride settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement, settlement administrator, or official 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.