Brand coverage · Last reviewed
Nick's allulose lawsuits
The short answer
- Two verified proposed class actions challenge “No Added Sugar” claims on Nick's Light Ice Cream.
- Rule in play: 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2) (the no-added-sugar rule, which Franco did not decide).
- None of these cases is in the Seventh Circuit, so Franco v. Chobani is persuasive authority only.
- No liability finding, class certification or court-approved settlement has been identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.
Nick's at a glance
- Verified cases
- 2
- Federal districts
- 2
- Circuits
- 2
- Classes certified*
- None identified
- Settlements*
- None identified
Latest filing September 11, 2026. * In the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026; not a complete same-day docket review. Settlement status explained
This page is built from the structured case record. A full editorial guide to the Nick's cases has not been published yet. Allegations are not findings of fact.
On this page
The Nick's cases we track
Filed after Franco
Verified Nick's cases by filing date, July 27, 2026 to October 3, 2026. All two filed within 7 weeks of the ruling.
- Jul 27, 2026Franco v. Chobani: the Seventh Circuit reverses the dismissal
- Sep 3, 2026 · D. Del.Trapasso et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.
- Sep 11, 2026 · E.D. Cal.Avalos et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.
2 cases, newest filing first
| Filed | Case | Wording challenged | Court | Franco is | Latest supported status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avalos et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.No. 26-cv-3137 | “No Added Sugar” | E.D. Cal. | Persuasive | Reported pending | |
| Trapasso et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.No. 26-cv-1116 | “No Added Sugar” | D. Del. | Persuasive | Reported pending |
No cases match these filters. If you bought a product that isn’t here, you can still share your purchase.
Open the Nick's cases in the case tracker
Records reviewed through October 3, 2026. Verified totals include only supported core labeling cases. Sources and methodology.
The rule in play
The federal rule treats “sugar free” and “no added sugar” claims under separate subsections. Claim families below come from our case record; they group reported allegations.
21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2)
No Added Sugar
Not decided in Franco: The no-added-sugar rule, § 101.60(c)(2). Franco v. Chobani addressed the sugar-free rule, not this one.
Franco v. Chobani held that allulose falls within the federal definition of sugar for the regulation it interpreted. It did not decide liability, and its binding effect is limited to the Seventh Circuit.
Nick's: product groups
Nick's Light Ice Cream
“No Added Sugar”
Product groups summarize allegations in the reviewed cases. A listed product does not establish class membership, payment eligibility, or that every flavor or variant is challenged.
Sources for this module
- Nick's Light Ice Cream (Secondary source)
- Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
- Trapasso v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
Nick's: status in reviewed records
Avalos et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.
Pending, as reported by a secondary tracker
Recent secondary tracker report. Checked October 3, 2026. A current secondary tracker reports the case pending. This is not a substitute for a complete same-day PACER docket.
Trapasso et al. v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.
Pending, as reported by a secondary tracker
Recent secondary tracker report. Checked October 3, 2026. A current secondary tracker reports the case pending. This is not a substitute for a complete same-day PACER docket.
Public docket indexes and secondary tracker reports do not establish the contents of the complete current court docket.
Sources for this module
- Nick's Light Ice Cream (Secondary source)
Settlement and claims-process review
No verified court-approved settlement identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.
No verified class certification identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.
No verified court-approved claim form identified in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.
The reviewed sources do not represent a complete same-day PACER review of every docket. A proposed class is not a certified class, and dismissal alone does not establish a settlement.
Background reading
Source record
Primary and court-derived sources are listed first. Secondary reporting is used for discovery and cross-checking.
Show all 3 sources
- Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.Court-derived docket index · Justia Dockets · Sep 11, 2026 · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026
- Trapasso v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.Court-derived docket index · Justia Dockets · Sep 3, 2026 · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026
- Nick's Light Ice CreamSecondary source · Truth in Advertising · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026