Allulose Is Fueling a New Wave of Sugar Labeling Suits

The latest allulose lawsuits share an ingredient, but they do not all challenge the same label claim. Some target “sugar free” or “zero sugar” statements, which speak to how much sugar a product contains. Others target “no added sugar” or “zero added sugar” statements, which speak to whether sugar was added during production. That distinction matters to both the allegations and the defense.

The filings follow the 7th Circuit’s July 27, 2026, decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC. The court held that allulose falls within the regulatory definition of sugar relevant to “sugar free” labeling and that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged deception. It allowed the case to proceed; it did not decide ultimate liability.

Plaintiffs are now applying that ruling to a broader range of foods. The recent complaints challenge products marketed with “zero sugar” or “sugar free” claims, as well as products marketed with “no added sugar” or “zero added sugar” claims. Their common premise is that the product contains allulose. But a ruling about the regulatory requirements for “sugar free” does not, by itself, resolve every question raised by an “added sugar” claim. Each claim calls for attention to its exact wording, the product’s formulation, and the rule that governs that wording.

The pace of the filings suggests this theory will reach more product categories. Food and beverage companies using allulose should review their front panel sugar claims individually, rather than assuming that every “zero” or “no added” claim presents the same risk.

What Franco v. Chobani Actually Decided

The catalyst is the 7th Circuit's July 27, 2026, decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC. FDA regulations define “sugars” to include all free monosaccharides and disaccharides; a product may be labeled “sugar free” only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. In 2020, the FDA issued nonbinding guidance allowing manufacturers to exclude allulose from the Nutrition Facts Label's sugar lines. But that guidance did not amend the regulatory definition of “sugars” or address front-of-package claims like “sugar free” or “zero sugar.”

In Franco, the court held that allulose remains a “sugar” under the regulation, that the plaintiffs' challenge to a “zero sugar” claim was not preempted by federal law, and that they had plausibly alleged deception. The case was remanded; the court did not decide whether the label was actually misleading. Franco is a pleading-stage ruling, not a merits determination, but it is the ruling that matters most to the plaintiffs' bar: a theory that clears the first procedural hurdle and opens the door to discovery.

The Regulatory Gap

The central lesson is that FDA enforcement discretion is not a litigation safe harbor. A company that relied on the 2020 guidance to omit allulose from the Nutrition Facts Label was likely acting consistently with the FDA's enforcement posture. But the guidance addressed only the Nutrition Facts Label. It did not purport to authorize front-of-package “sugar free” or “zero sugar” claims on products containing several grams of allulose per serving, and Franco holds that such claims are not shielded from state-law challenge at the pleading stage. The Supreme Court's June 2026 decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell reinforces the broader point: Agency permission to market a product does not, by itself, preempt state-law claims.

“No Added Sugar” Is a Different Question

Not all of the new filings challenge the same claim. Some target “sugar free” or “zero sugar” language, which turns on total sugar content per serving. Others target “no added sugar” or “zero added sugar” language, which turns on whether sugar was introduced during processing. Franco addressed the first category. Its reasoning does not automatically resolve the second. Companies should assess each claim type on its own terms.

Key Takeaways

• Review the exact claim, wherever it appears. Inventory products containing allulose and identify every sugar-related statement on packaging, product pages, retailer listings, and advertising. “Sugar free,” “zero sugar,” “0g sugar,” and “no added sugar” raise distinct questions and should be assessed separately.
• Do not assume the FDA’s allulose guidance resolves front-of-package claims. The guidance addresses how allulose is declared on the Nutrition Facts Label. The rules governing sugar-related claims elsewhere on the label require a separate analysis.
• Assess changes with counsel. If a review identifies a potential gap, consider whether and how to revise the claim, taking account of both ongoing litigation risk and the implications of a label change.

Franco v. Chobani allowed a challenge to “sugar free” labeling to proceed past a motion to dismiss. It did not establish that every allulose-related sugar claim is deceptive, and its reasoning does not automatically resolve claims about added sugar. But the recent filings show plaintiffs applying that reasoning across products and claim formats. Companies that have relied on the FDA’s allulose guidance as support for their marketing claims should revisit those claims in light of the decision.