Zero Sugar, Real Risk: Allulose Litigation Is Heating Up

“Zero sugar” foods are popular on supermarket shelves, promising palatable but healthy alternatives to sugary products like yogurt, bars or beverages. Allulose made that promise possible, because while it is chemically a sugar, and tastes like a sugar, it doesn’t behave like a sugar in the body. In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration advised it would not pursue enforcement actions against companies that excluded allulose from their sugar calculations.

In July 2026, companies that relied on got a shock: the Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs could sue companies for making “zero sugar” claims where the product contains allulose. Since then, courts have been awash with class action lawsuits alleging “zero sugar” labeling claims are false and misleading. Companies need to be aware of risks associated with such claims, even if they will have substantive defenses if sued.

What Is Allulose?

Allulose is a naturally occurring sweetener found in wheat, raisins, maple syrup and many other places. Chemically, allulose is a monosaccharide—meaning a single molecule sugar—chemically similar to fructose. To chemists, it is a sugar.

To the body, it is not. As the FDA’s guidance recognized, allulose is about 70% as sweet as other sugars, but has less than 10% the calories. It does not meaningfully raise insulin levels and does not cause cavities.

That split is what makes allulose commercially useful and legally awkward. It gives food companies a way to deliver real-tasting sweetness with far fewer calories and metabolic impact than traditional sugar, but the current FDA regulation still defines “Total Sugars” by chemical structure: “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides.” The FDA’s 2020 guidance acknowledges the mismatch, stating it would not pursue enforcement of allulose as a sugar pending further rulemaking. Since then, the rulemaking has not started but the lawsuits have.

The Chobani Case: When “Zero Sugar” Met “All Means All”

In Franco v. Chobani, consumers sued Chobani under various state laws over its “Zero Sugar” yogurt, alleging that the label was deceptive because each serving contained about four grams of allulose. Chobani argued the claims were preempted given the FDA’s 2020 allulose guidance allowed manufacturers to exclude allulose from “Total Sugars” declarations on the Nutrition Facts panel. Chobani had reason to feel confident in its labels. It had sought approval from the FDA for its “zero sugar” label and had received a temporary marketing permit. The district court sided with Chobani.

The Seventh Circuit reversed. The court held that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulations because it is a monosaccharide, and the regulation covers “all” mono- and disaccharides. The court relied on the FDA’s amicus brief that forcefully argued allulose was a sugar, notwithstanding its prior guidance on the subject. The court held that the FDA regulations defined sugars according to their chemical structure, rather than how they behave in the body. The court likewise rejected the idea that the FDA’s 2020 guidance controlled the meaning of the regulation and chided Chobani for its (seemingly reasonable) belief that FDA enforcement discretion also immunized Chobani from consumer suits.

The Seventh Circuit also rejected Chobani’s alternative argument that no reasonable consumer would read its “zero sugar” label as the FDA did, holding that this is a question of fact that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The Follow-On Cases Are Already Here

Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs’ lawyers are moving quickly. Plaintiffs have sued companies making “no-sugar” claims that make cereal, protein bars, gummies, soda and sparkling water with allulose. The theory is straightforward: if allulose is a sugar under FDA regulations, then an unqualified “zero sugar” claim may be misleading when the product contains allulose.

These cases are attractive to plaintiffs because they combine three familiar ingredients: a prominent front-label claim, a technical FDA regulation and a product category marketed to consumers who are paying attention to health claims. California law makes pleading a claim especially easy: its Sherman Law incorporates FDA regulations, and its Unfair Competition Law allows consumers to sue over “unlawful” advertising statements, such as technical violations of the Sherman Law. Companies may therefore struggle to dismiss such claims at the pleadings stage.

That said, plaintiffs should expect a real fight over what consumers understand by a “zero sugar” claim. Reasonable consumers buying “zero sugar” products are likely focused on the practical effects they associate with sugar—calories, glycemic impact, insulin response and tooth decay—not the chemical architecture of the sweetener. Put differently: does “zero sugar” communicate that the product contains nothing with the molecular composition of a sugar or that it contains nothing that acts like sugar in the body?

That distinction will be a central battleground in the next round of allulose cases. Even if plaintiffs’ attorneys can establish a technical violation of law, they will still need to prove that consumers were harmed—that is, lost money—because of the “zero sugar” claim. If consumers get what they expect from “zero sugar” products, courts may find there is no harm. As plaintiffs’ lawyers are fond of pointing out, consumers are not chemists.

Key Takeaways for Companies

Audit absolute sugar claims. If a product contains allulose or another modified sugar, review “zero sugar” and “no sugar” claims across packaging, websites, retailer listings, ads and social media.

Move before the complaint lands. The cheapest time to stress-test claim language is before screenshots appear in a class action filing.

Be aggressive in defense. If the complaint has already landed, companies have good defense arguments, including that reasonable consumers do not use import chemical definitions into their understanding of “zero sugar.”

Watch for FDA rule changes. Enforcement discretion is useful, but will likely only be preempted after the FDA formally changes the regulations.

Franco v. Chobani, LLC, 789 F. Supp. 3d 584 (N.D. Ill. 2025), rev’d, 184 F.4th 599 (7th Cir. 2026).

Franco v. Chobani, LLC, 184 F.4th 599 (2026).