Brand coverage · Last reviewed
So Nourished allulose lawsuits
The short answer
- One verified proposed class action challenges “Sugar Free” claims on So Nourished sweeteners.
- Rule in play: 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) (the sugar-free rule, which Franco addressed).
- 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.
So Nourished at a glance
- Verified cases
- 1
- Federal districts
- 1
- Circuits
- 1
- Classes certified*
- None identified
- Settlements*
- None identified
Latest filing September 20, 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 So Nourished cases has not been published yet. Allegations are not findings of fact.
The So Nourished cases we track
Filed after Franco
Verified So Nourished cases by filing date, July 27, 2026 to October 3, 2026. Filed within 8 weeks of the ruling.
- Jul 27, 2026Franco v. Chobani: the Seventh Circuit reverses the dismissal
- Sep 20, 2026 · C.D. Cal.Matlow et al. v. So Nourished, Inc.
1 case, newest filing first
| Filed | Case | Wording challenged | Court | Franco is | Latest supported status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matlow et al. v. So Nourished, Inc.No. 2:26-cv-10690 | “Sugar Free” | C.D. Cal. | 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 So Nourished 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)(1)
Sugar Free
Addressed in Franco: The sugar-free rule, § 101.60(c)(1), which Franco v. Chobani addressed.
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.
So Nourished: product groups
So Nourished sweeteners
“Sugar Free”
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
- So Nourished Sweeteners (Secondary source)
- Matlow v. So Nourished, Inc. (Court-derived docket index)
So Nourished: status in reviewed records
Matlow et al. v. So Nourished, 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
- So Nourished Sweeteners (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 2 sources
- Matlow v. So Nourished, Inc.Court-derived docket index · Justia Dockets · Sep 20, 2026 · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026
- So Nourished SweetenersSecondary source · Truth in Advertising · Reviewed Oct 3, 2026