Monin allulose lawsuit

The Monin allulose case is unusually specific about product scope.

De La Paz v. Monin, Inc., filed September 8, 2026 in the Central District of California, challenges 17 Monin products marketed as "Sugar Free" while allegedly containing allulose.

The reviewed complaint-based sources describe 16 syrups plus Monin Sugar Free Sweetener. The lawsuit argues that allulose is a monosaccharide included within the federal definition of sugar and that the challenged products therefore do not meet the conditions for a "Sugar Free" nutrient-content claim.

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

The verified Monin allulose case

The federal docket index confirms plaintiff Henry De La Paz, defendant Monin, Inc., the September 8 filing date, and case No. 2:26-cv-10024. The docket snapshot shows the complaint and opening papers filed that day. (Justia docket)

A public court-feed archive later shows an initial order on September 22, 2026. That is useful evidence of post-filing activity but still does not represent the entire current docket. (Open Public Records)

Which 17 Monin products does the lawsuit identify?

Complaint-based reporting identifies these products:

Classic flavors

• Sugar Free Vanilla Syrup;
• Sugar Free French Vanilla Syrup;
• Sugar Free Caramel Syrup;
• Sugar Free Chocolate Syrup; and
• Sugar Free White Chocolate Syrup.

Fruit flavors

• Sugar Free Raspberry Syrup;
• Sugar Free Blue Raspberry Syrup;
• Sugar Free Blackberry Syrup;
• Sugar Free Strawberry Syrup;
• Sugar Free Peach Syrup;
• Sugar Free Mango Syrup;
• Sugar Free Pomegranate Syrup; and
• Sugar Free Coconut Syrup.

Other flavors

• Sugar Free Lavender Syrup;
• Sugar Free Almond (Orgeat) Syrup; and
• Sugar Free Triple Sec Syrup.

Sweetener

• Monin Sugar Free Sweetener.

(OpenClassActions)

The lawsuit does not purport to challenge every Monin product. Products outside the Sugar Free line should not be swept into the page merely because they share the Monin brand.

What does the complaint allegedly say about the label?

The complaint-based sources say "Sugar Free" appears multiple times on the front label of the challenged products.

They also report that allulose appears in the ingredient lists.

The plaintiff's theory is that a front-panel promise that a food is "Sugar Free" must comply with the federal nutrient-content rule even if FDA permits different treatment of allulose within the Nutrition Facts panel. (OpenClassActions)

Unlike some other allulose complaints, the public summaries reviewed do not establish a single exact allulose grams-per-serving figure for all 17 Monin products.

The complaint is reported to allege, on information and belief, that the products exceed the sugar-free threshold once allulose is counted.

We keep that distinction instead of inventing a number.

The Sugar Free rule has two components

The Monin theory focuses on 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1).

Complaint-based reporting emphasizes two parts of that rule:

1. a quantitative condition requiring less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, using the regulatory definition of sugars; and
2. an ingredient-disclosure condition that can require an asterisk and a statement such as "adds a trivial amount of sugar" in specified circumstances.

The Monin complaint reportedly alleges that the products fail both.

It says the allulose should count toward the sugar threshold and that allulose appears in the ingredient list without the relevant asterisk-and-footnote treatment. (OpenClassActions)

Those remain allegations. No court has ruled that the Monin labels violate § 101.60.

Why the Nutrition Facts panel does not end the case

FDA's 2020 guidance allows allulose to be excluded from Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on the Nutrition Facts label through enforcement discretion. (FDA guidance)

The Monin lawsuit treats that as different from a front-label "Sugar Free" nutrient-content claim.

That difference is the recurring structural issue across the current litigation wave.

Section 101.9 defines sugars. Section 101.60 governs sugar-content claims. A manufacturer's Nutrition Facts treatment under FDA guidance does not automatically answer whether a separate "Sugar Free" claim satisfies § 101.60. (21 C.F.R. § 101.9) (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

How Franco v. Chobani fits

The Monin case was filed after the Seventh Circuit's decision in Franco v. Chobani.

In Franco, the court held that allulose falls within the federal regulatory definition of sugar because it is a monosaccharide. The court also treated FDA's allulose guidance as enforcement policy rather than a regulatory amendment. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

But Monin's case is in the Central District of California, within the Ninth Circuit.

So Franco is persuasive authority there, not binding precedent.

The proposed classes are limited to California

This is one of the most important practical differences between Monin and several other allulose cases.

Complaint-based reporting says the complaint proposes:

• a California class of state residents who bought the challenged products within the limitations period; and
• a California consumer subclass for purchases made for personal, family, or household use.

It does not propose a nationwide class in the complaint as reported. (OpenClassActions)

That means a purchaser in another state is not within these proposed class definitions as they are currently described.

No class has been certified.

What legal claims are reported?

The complaint is reported to plead seven California-law counts:

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

The case uses California's Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law as the state-law route for incorporating federal food-labeling standards. (OpenClassActions)

Again, those are pleaded theories, not findings that Monin violated those laws.

What purchase does the named plaintiff allege?

Complaint-based reporting says Henry De La Paz bought Monin Sugar Free French Vanilla Syrup online in or around July 2024 while living in California.

The reported theory is that he relied on the Sugar Free representation and would not have bought the product on the same terms had he known it contained allulose.

That is the plaintiff's allegation of reliance and economic injury.

Current procedural status

The initial federal docket snapshot shows only opening filings on September 8.

A later public court feed reports an initial order on September 22.

That demonstrates post-filing activity but not a complete current docket.

OpenClassActions describes the matter as early-stage and had not identified a substantive response from Monin when it reported on the case. (OpenClassActions)

Has a Monin class been certified?

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

Is there a Monin allulose settlement or claim form?

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