The latest lightning rod for class action litigation is a little-know natural sweetener, allulose – a low-calorie monosaccharide found naturally in small quantities in figs, raisins, and maple syrup. Plaintiffs' lawyers are now targeting a wide variety of products labeled "no sugar" or "zero sugar" that also contain allulose, at a time when this ingredient has become a go-to sweetener for food and beverage companies looking to satisfy consumer demand for reduced-sugar products. Its appeal is straightforward: allulose delivers roughly 70 percent of the sweetness of table sugar with approximately 95 percent fewer calories, produces negligible increases in blood glucose or insulin levels, and does not promote dental decay. But what was once an ingredient in the recipe for success is quickly becoming a headache for food and beverage manufacturers.
The FDA Regulatory Gap That Launched the Lawsuit Wave
The trouble began with a disconnect between FDA enforcement policy and FDA regulations. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), "total sugars" is defined as "the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides," and allulose – a monosaccharide – falls squarely within that definition. Separately, 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) provides that a product may be labeled "sugar free" only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.
In October 2020, the FDA issued a final guidance document announcing that it would exercise "enforcement discretion" and would not take action against manufacturers that excluded allulose from "Total Sugars" and "Added Sugars" declarations on Nutrition Facts panels, pending further rulemaking. Crucially, the guidance itself stated that it was nonbinding and did not establish legal rights. Many manufacturers nonetheless relied on this guidance to market products containing multiple grams of allulose per serving as "zero sugar" or "sugar free."
The Franco Decision: A Floodgate Opens
The watershed moment came in July 2026, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087. In Franco, consumers pursued claims against Chobani, alleging that its "Zero Sugar" yogurt was misleadingly labeled because each serving contained four grams of allulose – eight times the 0.5-gram regulatory threshold to be considered "sugar free."
The district court dismissed the case, determining that the FDA's 2020 guidance preempted the plaintiffs' state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed. In a striking development, the FDA filed an amicus brief agreeing with the plaintiffs, taking the position that its own regulation unambiguously includes all monosaccharides, including allulose, in the definition of "total sugars." The court concluded that the FDA guidance did not shield companies from consumer lawsuits under state law.
Copycat Lawsuits
Since Franco, a wave of class action lawsuits following a strikingly similar template have been filed against major brands. Some of the companies targeted include:
- Liquid Death – over its "0g Sugar" Sparkling Energy drinks, which are sweetened predominantly with allulose (N.D. Cal., filed August 2026)
- David Protein (Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC) – over "0g Sugar" protein bars (N.D. Cal. and C.D. Cal., filed August and September 2026, respectively)
- Liquid I.V. – over "Sugar Free" hydration products containing four to five grams of allulose per serving (N.D. Cal., filed August 2026)
- WK Kellogg – over zero-sugar cereal claims (C.D. Cal., filed August 2026)
- KIND – over "ZEROg ADDED SUGAR" snack labeling (S.D.N.Y., filed August 2026)
These complaints allege violations of state consumer protection statutes, false advertising, and unjust enrichment, typically seeking actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees.
Risks to Manufacturers
The new litigation landscape poses risks for manufacturers selling allulose-containing products with "zero sugar" or "sugar free" claims:
- No federal preemption defense. The Seventh Circuit's holding that the FDA's 2020 guidance was merely a decision not to enforce – not an affirmative authorization – has gained traction. Manufacturers cannot rely on that guidance as a shield against state-law consumer fraud claims.
- Nationwide class action exposure. The Franco plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class, and the copycat complaints follow this model, exposing companies to liability across dozens of state consumer protection regimes.
- Price premium damages theory. Plaintiffs consistently allege they paid a price premium for products marketed as sugar-free and were "deprived of the benefit of their bargain," a damages theory courts often adopt in food labeling class actions.
- Template litigation risk. The complaints follow a "strikingly similar template," signaling that plaintiffs' firms are prepared to file systematically against any brand making comparable claims. Therefore, the barrier to the next lawsuit is low.
- Regulatory uncertainty. The FDA has not initiated formal rulemaking to exempt allulose from its sugar definition, and courts outside the Seventh Circuit may adopt the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The allulose "zero sugar" litigation wave illustrates a recurring tension in food and beverage law: the gap between what regulators tolerate and what private plaintiffs can challenge. With the FDA's own amicus brief undermining the industry's primary defense and copycat lawsuits proliferating across the country, manufacturers of allulose-containing products face a clear and present litigation risk. To defend against this litigation wave, businesses should formulate risk mitigation strategies. The time is now to reassess labeling, reformulate where necessary, and prepare legal defenses – before the next complaint lands on the docket.
For any questions regarding the "zero sugar" litigation wave or assistance with labeling compliance and risk mitigation, please reach out to Samuel Lanier Felker, Alexandra Bruce Rychlak, Desislava K. Docheva, or any member of the Food and Beverage Team.