Liquid Death allulose lawsuits

Liquid Death's Sparkling Energy line is the subject of a cluster of proposed class actions alleging that "0g Sugar" and "Zero Sugar" claims are misleading because the drinks contain allulose.

We currently count four Liquid Death allulose cases as verified or cross-checked. A fifth case is reported by a current consumer-advertising tracker, but we have not verified it, so it is not in our count.

That split is important. The point of this page is not to produce the biggest possible lawsuit number. It is to show which dockets we can substantiate, what the complaints are reported to allege, and where the evidence remains thinner.

No court has made a final finding that Liquid Death or its corporate maker, Supplying Demand, Inc., violated the law in the cases tracked here.

The Liquid Death allulose cases we count

The federal docket indexes independently support the Loar, Truty, and Mears filings. (Loar docket) (Truty docket) (Mears docket)

Williamson is independently indexed by Law360 as a Northern District of California proposed class action filed August 24, 2026. Law360 displays the case as No. 4:26-cv-08839 and cross-references No. 3:26-cv-08839. Because public sources display both divisional prefixes, we keep the identifier in our record but avoid implying there is a substantive second Williamson case unless the court record establishes one. (Law360 case index)

What does the Williamson complaint allege?

The Williamson complaint is the strongest substantive anchor for the Liquid Death page.

Complaint-based reporting describes a 45-page proposed class action by James Williamson against Supplying Demand, Inc., the company behind Liquid Death. The filing challenges Liquid Death Sparkling Energy beverages marketed as "0g Sugar" and "Zero Sugar." (ClassAction.org)

According to that complaint-based reporting:

• allulose appears as the second-listed ingredient in the challenged Sparkling Energy drinks;
• the complaint argues that allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii);
• the complaint invokes the federal less-than-0.5-gram standard associated with sugar-free claims;
• the plaintiff alleges that consumers paid a price premium based on the zero-sugar representations; and
• the complaint seeks proposed class treatment rather than representing an already certified class.

The primary complaint is publicly linked as Williamson v. Supplying Demand, Inc. (Complaint PDF). The file is unusually large, so page-level factual detail here is limited to points corroborated by reliable complaint-based reporting rather than filling gaps from inference.

Which Liquid Death products are implicated?

Complaint-based reporting identifies the challenged line as Liquid Death Sparkling Energy, sold in four flavors:

• Murder Mystery;
• Scary Strawberry;
• Orange Horror; and
• Tropical Terror.

PPC Land's complaint review also identifies those four 12-ounce Sparkling Energy flavors and says the complaint challenges "0g Sugar" labeling while allulose appears second in the ingredient list. (PPC Land)

This page does not say that every Liquid Death product contains allulose or is part of the litigation. The verified litigation cluster concerns the Sparkling Energy line identified in the reviewed sources.

What laws does Williamson reportedly invoke?

Complaint-based reviews describe five principal theories:

• California's Unfair Competition Law;
• California's False Advertising Law;
• California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
• breach of express warranty; and
• unjust enrichment.

Those are allegations and pleaded causes of action, not judicial findings. (PPC Land)

The complaint reportedly proposes a nationwide class and a California subclass. No court has certified those classes in the sources reviewed.

Why Franco v. Chobani matters

The legal theory closely follows the issue the Seventh Circuit addressed in Franco v. Chobani.

On July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the federal regulatory definition of sugar because it is a monosaccharide. The court also held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged deception from an absolute zero-sugar representation and reversed the district court dismissal. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

Williamson was filed less than a month later.

That timing does not prove that Franco caused the filing. What can be said is that the complaint-based reporting expressly describes the Liquid Death theory through the same regulatory framework and cites the appellate decision.

The verified Liquid Death cases are spread across the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, not the Seventh.

That means Franco is persuasive authority in those courts, not binding Seventh Circuit precedent.

FDA guidance does not answer the whole front-label question

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

The current lawsuits focus on a different labeling question: whether a prominent "0g Sugar," "Zero Sugar," or equivalent nutrient-content claim complies with the regulations governing those representations.

Section 101.9 defines Total Sugars. Section 101.60(c)(1) governs sugar-free, no-sugar, and zero-sugar claims. (21 C.F.R. § 101.9) (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

That distinction between Nutrition Facts treatment and front-of-package messaging is the same structural issue that runs through much of the allulose litigation wave.

A fifth reported Liquid Death case is not in our verified count

Truth in Advertising's current tracker lists:

• Frehlinghuysen et al. v. Supplying Demand, Inc. d/b/a Liquid Death, No. 26-cv-7275, S.D.N.Y.;
• Loar;
• Mears; and
• Truty.

It describes the allegation as falsely marketing Sparkling Energy drinks as containing zero sugar when they contain allulose and reports the cases pending. (Truth in Advertising)

We list Frehlinghuysen as reported but not verified because the sources we have do not confirm that docket strongly enough to count it.

Conversely, the tracker page reviewed on October 4 does not list Williamson, even though Williamson is independently supported by Law360 and complaint-based reporting.

We do not "fix" that discrepancy by guessing.

So we:

• count the four verified records;
• list Frehlinghuysen separately as a reported but not yet verified allulose case;
• keep a note of the source discrepancy; and
• will update or correct the record if stronger court material resolves it.

How the four verified cases relate

The four verified records are separate federal dockets.

Two are in the Northern District of California, one is in the Central District of California, and one is in the Middle District of Florida.

The shared defendant and similar claim theory do not by themselves establish consolidation, coordination, or a single national proceeding.

Unless a court later orders otherwise, we treat each as its own lawsuit.

That is particularly important for class definitions, causes of action, and procedural status. Facts attributed to Williamson should not automatically be copied into Loar, Truty, or Mears.

Current procedural status

A current secondary tracker describes the Liquid Death matters as pending. That is not a complete current PACER review.

The current public sources are enough to establish the filing cluster and the allulose theory. They are not enough to state confidently that no later motion, amendment, service event, scheduling order, transfer, or other docket activity exists.

Has a Liquid Death class been certified?

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

The lawsuits are proposed class actions. Proposed classes are not certified classes.

Is there a Liquid Death allulose settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement, official settlement administrator, or court-authorized claim form for the Liquid Death allulose cases in the records reviewed as of October 4, 2026.

That does not mean we have performed a complete live PACER sweep of every docket.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Last researched: October 4, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.