KIND allulose lawsuits

The proposed class actions against KIND are part of the broader allulose labeling wave, but they are not simple copies of the Chobani case.

The challenged wording is different.

The primary allegation reported in the KIND cases is that certain bars prominently marketed as "ZEROg Added Sugar" contain allulose that was added during production. The plaintiffs argue that this conflicts with federal rules governing no-added-sugar claims.

That matters because Franco v. Chobani involved a sugar-free theory under one subsection of the federal regulation, while no-added-sugar claims are governed by a separate subsection.

No court has yet established that KIND violated the law on this theory in the cases tracked here.

The KIND allulose cases we track

Law360's case index confirms Coprew as a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:26-cv-07380, assigned to Judge Denise L. Cote. (Law360 case index)

Federal docket indexes separately confirm White and Santoyo. (White docket) (Santoyo docket)

Truth in Advertising groups those three cases under KIND Zero Added Sugar Bars and reports them pending as of our review. That is current secondary tracking evidence, not a complete PACER status check. (Truth in Advertising)

What does the Coprew complaint allege?

Complaint-based reporting on Coprew says the lawsuit challenges KIND bars marketed with the prominent claim "ZEROg Added Sugar."

The report says the complaint alleges approximately five grams of allulose in each bar and identifies allulose as a high-ranking ingredient in the products. Those are allegations attributed to the complaint. (ClassAction.org)

The reported product list includes:

• Dark Chocolate Nuts & Sea Salt;
• Caramel Almond & Sea Salt;
• Raspberry Vanilla Cashew; and
• Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate.

The same report says the complaint alleges allulose is added during processing and argues that the front-panel "ZEROg Added Sugar" representation is therefore impermissible or misleading under the plaintiff's reading of federal and California law. (ClassAction.org)

We do not assume the exact product list or allulose quantity in Coprew is identical in White or Santoyo unless their complaints independently establish it.

The regulatory issue is "added sugar," not just "sugar"

This is the most important distinction on the KIND page.

21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) governs sugar-free, no-sugar and zero-sugar claims.

KIND's reported challenged language is instead "ZEROg Added Sugar," which points to § 101.60(c)(2), the subsection governing terms such as "no added sugar," "without added sugar," and similar claims. (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

The regulation includes conditions about sugars or ingredients containing sugars being added during processing or packaging and additional requirements that must be evaluated in context.

That means the legal question is not merely:

Is allulose a sugar?

It also includes:

How does the added-sugar rule apply when allulose is intentionally added as an ingredient?

That issue has not been finally decided in the KIND cases tracked here.

How Franco v. Chobani helps, and where it stops

Franco matters because the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the federal regulation's definition of sugar.

That directly undermines an argument that allulose is categorically outside the regulatory definition because it is metabolized differently from traditional sugars. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

But Franco concerned a sugar-free claim under § 101.60(c)(1).

The KIND cases challenge added-sugar wording associated with § 101.60(c)(2).

So Franco can be highly relevant without mechanically deciding the KIND cases.

This is exactly why our litigation database stores the claim family for each case rather than grouping every filing under a generic "zero sugar" label.

Why the court matters for Santoyo

Santoyo v. KIND LLC was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

That court sits within the Seventh Circuit, where Franco is binding on the regulatory issue it decided.

Coprew and White are in the Southern District of New York, within the Second Circuit.

The New York court can consider Franco as persuasive authority but is not bound by a Seventh Circuit decision.

That jurisdictional split could become important if courts begin issuing substantive rulings on how Franco applies to "No Added Sugar" or "Zero Added Sugar" claims.

What does FDA's allulose guidance say?

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

That guidance is a central part of why allulose labeling can look counterintuitive.

A product may have allulose listed as an ingredient while its Nutrition Facts panel reflects FDA's enforcement-discretion approach.

The current lawsuits ask whether that policy also permits the challenged front-of-package nutrient-content claim.

The Seventh Circuit in Franco emphasized that FDA's guidance did not amend the underlying regulatory definition of sugar. The added-sugar cases then ask an additional question under § 101.60(c)(2).

See FDA Allulose Rules for the regulatory background.

Current procedural status

The KIND tracker reports the three verified cases pending as of our October 3 review. (Truth in Advertising)

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

Has a KIND allulose class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

The complaints seek class treatment. That does not mean a court has certified the proposed classes.

Is there a KIND settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved KIND allulose settlement or official claim form in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

An attorney investigation page or signup form is not a settlement claim process.

A note about lawsuits we do not count

Our research process has surfaced other litigation involving KIND during the same period.

We do not classify a lawsuit as an allulose case merely because it names the same company.

To enter the public allulose count, the docket must have independent evidence tying the complaint to allulose and the challenged sugar-related representation.

That rule prevents the site's case count from growing through association rather than evidence.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Last researched: October 3, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.