Updated November 6, 2026
Liquid Death and DAVID Protein are among dozens of food and beverage brands facing proposed class actions over a claim that has become central to many better-for-you products: “zero sugar.”
The lawsuits allege that Liquid Death’s Sparkling Energy drinks and DAVID Protein bars cannot be marketed as containing “0g Sugar” or “Zero Sugar” because they contain allulose, a low-calorie sweetener that is chemically classified as a sugar. Similar lawsuits now target Trader Joe’s, KIND, Magic Spoon, and other manufacturers over claims such as “No Sugar Added” and “Zero Added Sugar.”
The litigation has expanded rapidly since a federal appeals court revived a lawsuit against Chobani in July 2026. According to Truth in Advertising, 100 proposed class actions had been filed in federal courts following that decision as of October 23, 2026. Most remained pending, and the allegations against the individual brands have not established liability.
Liquid Death, DAVID Protein, and Trader Joe’s Face Growing Allulose Lawsuits
DAVID has built much of its protein bar marketing around three numbers: 28 grams of protein, 150 calories, and 0 grams of sugar. A proposed class action filed in Northern California alleges that the final number is misleading because the bars contain allulose. The plaintiff claims he relied on the representation and paid more for the product as a result.
Liquid Death faces similar allegations involving its Sparkling Energy line. The lawsuits challenge “0g Sugar” and “Zero Sugar” representations because allulose appears among the ingredients. According to one complaint, allulose is the second-listed ingredient, immediately after carbonated water.
The litigation has since expanded across several food categories. In September, Trader Joe’s became the subject of separate lawsuits involving its Sweet & Sour Gummy Worms and No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips. The complaints allege that consumers were misled by sugar-related claims because both products contain allulose.
In Parker v. Trader Joe’s Co., filed September 16, 2026, in the Northern District of Illinois, plaintiffs challenge the “0g Sugar” representation on the gummy worms. A separate lawsuit, Alexander v. Trader Joe’s Co., filed the same day in the same court, challenges the “No Sugar Added” representation on its dark chocolate chips. A third lawsuit involving the gummy worms was filed in California later that month.
KIND has also faced proposed class actions involving its Zero Added Sugar bars. Plaintiffs allege that the products contain several grams of allulose despite prominent representations about their added sugar content. Similar allegations have emerged against Magic Spoon cereals, Duncan Hines baking mixes, and other products marketed to consumers seeking to reduce sugar intake.
These lawsuits share a common regulatory issue, but the precise wording on each package may determine how federal labeling rules apply.
The Chobani Ruling Put “Zero Sugar” Claims Under New Pressure
The growing litigation follows the Seventh Circuit’s July 27, 2026, decision in Franco v. Chobani. The case concerns yogurt marketed as “sugar free” despite containing four grams of allulose per serving.
A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit, relying partly on FDA guidance allowing manufacturers to exclude allulose from the Total Sugars declaration on Nutrition Facts labels. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that allulose falls within the federal regulatory definition of sugar and that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged consumer deception.
The distinction lies in how the FDA treats allulose for different labeling purposes.
Under its 2020 guidance on allulose, the FDA allows manufacturers to exclude allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars amounts displayed in the Nutrition Facts panel. The agency adopted this enforcement policy because allulose is metabolized differently from traditional sugars and has a smaller effect on blood glucose and insulin.
However, the underlying federal regulation still defines Total Sugars to include free monosaccharides, a category that includes allulose. Federal rules also restrict the use of claims such as “sugar free” and “zero sugar” to products meeting specific conditions, including generally containing less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving and customary reference amount.
The Seventh Circuit concluded that the FDA’s decision not to enforce certain Nutrition Facts requirements does not prevent consumers from pursuing state-law claims based on federal labeling standards.
The court did not determine that Chobani committed false advertising. It allowed the case to proceed, leaving questions of liability and consumer deception for further proceedings. The ruling nevertheless provided plaintiffs with a legal basis for challenging similar representations by other manufacturers.
Why “No Sugar Added” Claims Present a Different Legal Question
The Trader Joe’s and KIND lawsuits introduce another issue: whether manufacturers can market products containing allulose as having “No Sugar Added” or “Zero Added Sugar.”
Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2), these claims face requirements that differ from those governing “sugar free” products. Among other conditions, manufacturers generally cannot add sugars or ingredients containing sugars that functionally substitute for added sugars during processing.
This language creates potential exposure for products in which allulose serves as a sweetener. Plaintiffs may argue that adding allulose conflicts with the requirements for a “No Sugar Added” claim, even when the Nutrition Facts panel reports zero grams of Added Sugars under the FDA’s enforcement policy.
The Seventh Circuit’s Chobani decision did not directly decide whether products containing allulose violate the separate rules governing “No Sugar Added” claims. Courts reviewing the newer lawsuits must assess the applicable requirements, the products’ formulations, and the specific allegations.
Consumer interpretation also remains relevant. Plaintiffs increasingly allege that purchasers rely on prominent sugar claims when choosing products and are willing to pay more for foods perceived as healthier alternatives.
For manufacturers, this creates potential advertising liability beyond the Nutrition Facts panel. Product descriptions on retailer websites, digital advertisements, and packaging can repeat the same claims, increasing exposure if a court later finds those representations misleading.
The expanding litigation also raises questions about whether manufacturers should revise their advertising, change product formulations, or defend existing claims based on the FDA’s treatment of allulose. Those decisions carry commercial consequences, particularly for brands whose product identity depends on low-sugar positioning.
Strategic By Design: The Juris Law Group, P.C. Perspective on Food Labeling and Advertising Liability
The allulose lawsuits illustrate the limits of relying exclusively on FDA enforcement guidance when reviewing consumer-facing claims.
A manufacturer may calculate Total Sugars consistently with the FDA’s current enforcement policy while facing litigation over the language used elsewhere on its packaging. The Chobani ruling demonstrates that an agency’s decision not to enforce a labeling requirement does not necessarily prevent private lawsuits under state consumer protection laws.
At Juris Law Group, P.C., our food and beverage attorneys assess how product formulations, labeling requirements, and advertising representations interact. For allulose-containing products, that review should distinguish quantitative Nutrition Facts declarations from claims such as “Zero Sugar,” “Sugar Free,” and “No Sugar Added.” Each expression carries different legal considerations.
Over the next 12 months, Liquid Death, DAVID Protein, Trader Joe’s, and other defendants may face decisions about whether to defend existing claims, revise packaging, or reconsider how allulose is presented to consumers. Early court rulings may help clarify which legal theories can proceed, particularly where plaintiffs challenge added-sugar representations rather than traditional sugar-free claims. The outcomes will depend on the specific products, applicable law, and evidence presented.
For the broader food and beverage industry, the litigation may influence how manufacturers evaluate low-sugar product positioning. Companies introducing new allulose-based products will need to consider whether their advertising claims remain defensible under existing FDA regulations while federal labeling policy continues to evolve. The distinction between permitted nutritional calculations and legally supportable marketing claims is likely to remain central to these disputes.
Common Legal Inquiries
1. Can products containing allulose legally claim to have “Zero Sugar”?
The answer depends on the product and the applicable labeling requirements. The FDA permits allulose to be excluded from Total Sugars on Nutrition Facts panels under its enforcement policy. However, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose remains a sugar under the federal regulation governing sugar-free claims, creating potential exposure under state consumer protection laws.
2. Are “Zero Sugar” and “No Sugar Added” subject to the same FDA rules?
No. “Zero Sugar” claims generally require products to contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving and customary reference amount, along with other conditions. “No Sugar Added” claims are governed by separate requirements addressing sugars and certain sugar-containing ingredients added during processing. Both types of claims are being challenged in allulose lawsuits.
3. Have the lawsuits against Liquid Death, DAVID Protein, and Trader Joe’s established false advertising?
No. The complaints contain allegations that must be evaluated through the litigation process. Although the Seventh Circuit allowed the Chobani lawsuit to proceed, it did not determine liability. The newer cases involve different products and labeling representations, and their outcomes will depend on the evidence and applicable law.
