Zero sugar label lawsuits: why brands are getting sued

The legal theory in one paragraph

Every one of these cases runs on the same three-step argument. One: 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines “sugars” as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides — a purely chemical test. Two: allulose is a free monosaccharide, so it is a sugar under that definition. Three: § 101.13(i)(3) forbids a nutrient content claim that is “false or misleading in any respect,” and 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1) makes misleading labeling misbranding. Therefore a front-of-pack “0g Sugar” on an allulose-sweetened product is unlawful.

The defence is equally compact: the FDA expressly permits excluding allulose from the panel's sugar lines, consumers care about calories and blood sugar rather than chemistry, and state-law claims that second-guess a federal labeling scheme are preempted.

Until 2026, the defence was winning often enough that firms were cautious. Then that changed.

The ruling that changed the math

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC. The court held that allulose is a sugar under the governing regulation, that state-law claims enforcing the identical federal standard are not preempted, and that a “zero sugar” label on a product containing four grams of allulose per serving could plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer.

The FDA appeared as amicus at the court's invitation and confirmed the chemical point directly: yes, allulose is a “sugar” as the term is defined at § 101.9(c)(6)(ii).

For plaintiffs' firms that removed the two biggest risks at once — the preemption defence and the “no reasonable consumer would care” defence. What follows a ruling like that is predictable: a wave of near-identical complaints against the most visible brands in the category.

Which products are exposed

The risk is not about a category, it is about a specific combination: a prominent front-of-pack sugar claim, plus allulose (or a comparable compound) in the ingredient list. Plenty of products have one without the other and are not exposed at all.

The most recent high-profile filing is the David protein bar lawsuit, filed August 24, 2026 in the Northern District of California, which challenges the brand's “28g Protein | 150 Calories | 0g Sugar” promise.

How brands typically respond

Four responses show up again and again, often in combination.

• Reformulate quietly. Swap allulose for a sugar alcohol like maltitol or erythritol, which are not monosaccharides and sidestep the argument entirely. The David complaint alleges exactly this kind of change in February 2025.
• Soften the claim. “0g sugar” becomes “0g added sugar,” “no sugar added,” or the number simply moves to the back panel where the FDA rule clearly protects it.
• Fight on preemption. Still the strongest defence outside the Seventh Circuit, since other circuits have not ruled.
• Settle. Cheaper than years of discovery when the fund is a few million and the label change was going to happen anyway.

From a buyer's point of view the third and fourth are the ones that matter — only a settlement produces a claim form.

What buyers actually get out of these cases

Modest money and a changed label. That is the honest accounting.

Food-labeling settlements in this shape typically create a fund of a few million dollars, pay $5–$40 per household without proof and somewhat more with receipts, and require the company to drop or qualify the claim going forward. Attorneys' fees and administration come out first, which is why per-person checks look small relative to the headline number — the arithmetic is laid out in why settlement checks are so small.

The injunctive part is arguably worth more than the cash. A label that stops overstating its case affects every future buyer, not just the class.

How to track these without living on court dockets

The practical problem is timing. A complaint filed today produces a claim window years from now, and claim windows run 60 to 120 days. Most eligible people miss out simply because nobody told them.

You can do this manually — dockets are public on CourtListener, and administrators post notices on their own sites — but it means remembering to check for years. Owed watches filings and settlement sites and emails you when a case you bought into actually opens for claims, with the official link. We never file for you and never take a cut.

If you want the general version of this habit, how to get notified of class action settlements covers the free routes too, and how to find open settlements covers what is claimable today.

Glossary

Nutrient content claim

A front-of-pack statement about how much of a nutrient a food has. Regulated separately from the Nutrition Facts panel.

Preemption

The argument that federal labeling law displaces state consumer-protection claims. Rejected for allulose claims by the Seventh Circuit in 2026.

Reasonable consumer standard

The test in false-advertising law: would an ordinary shopper be misled? Cases often live or die here.

Injunctive relief

A court order changing future behaviour — here, fixing the label — as opposed to paying money for past harm.

Sugar alcohol

Compounds like erythritol and maltitol. Chemically distinct from monosaccharides, which is why they avoid this particular argument.

FAQ