Associate Scientist - Quality

Allulose-containing products claiming zero sugar threatened with growing litigation. 03-Sep-2026 Last updated on 03-Sep-2026 at 14:40 GMT Allulose has become a popular low-calorie sweetener for better-for-you food and beverage formulators, but products containing the ingredient are increasingly facing litigation over "zero sugar" and "sugar free" claims. (Image: Getty/iStockphoto) A wave of proposed class actions targeting "zero sugar" and "sugar free" claims is putting allulose-containing products in the crosshairs, following a pivotal Seventh Circuit ruling involving Chobani. Allulose's ability to closely mimic the taste and functionality of sugar with fewer calories has made it a go-to sweetener for better-for-you product formulators, but what was once an ingredient in a recipe for success is quickly becoming a key ingredient in a litany of litigation. In the past month, a wave of proposed class action lawsuits targeting "zero sugar" and "sugar free" claims on products containing allulose have been filed against David Protein, Liquid Death, Liquid IV, WK Kellogg and Kind alleging false advertising and consumer protection violations. The complaints follow a strikingly similar template, putting other brands making comparable claims on notice that they, too, could face litigation if the legal theory gains traction in the courts. The basic premise of the cases is that allulose is a monosaccharide - and while many consider it a "rare sugar" because it is found in such small amounts in foods like figs, raisins, jackfruit and molasses, it nonetheless falls within FDA's regulatory definition of sugar. As a result, plaintiffs argue, claims suggesting that products containing allulose have "zero" or "no" sugar can mislead consumers. Explore related questions. Case against Chobani opened the door. The theory in the cases draws on a case filed against Chobani in 2023 by consumers Jason and Abigail Franco, who argued the "zero sugar" and "sugar-free" marketing on the Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt they bough at a Costco near Chicago was deceptive because it contains allulose. A lower district court initially dismissed the case on the grounds that FDA enforcement guidance excluded allulose from the "total sugars" required on the Nutrition Facts panel, which would mean that it would not be counted towards the 0.5 gram of sugar threshold set for sugar free and zero sugar claims under the regulations. It also meant that federal law preempted the Francos' claims. However, in late July, the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case against Chobani to proceed after FDA filed an amicus brief claiming the relevant regulation is "unambiguous, and that total sugars as defined in that regulation include all monosaccharides, including allulose." It concluded: "The federal requirements at issue are plain - food products cannot be labeled sugar free unless they have less than half a gram of sugar, and sugars include every monosaccharide, including allulose." With the federal preemption argument rejected at this stage, Chobani, and potentially other products combining allulose with zero-sugar claims, could face similar allegations of consumer deception in federal courts within the Seventh Circuit. More broadly, the court decision serves as a reminder that FDA enforcement discretion is just that and not immunity from private consumer lawsuits. A recipe plaintiffs' attorneys can follow. The complaints filed against other brands since the Seventh Circuit Court's decision closely track the theory advanced in the case against Chobani, underscoring its use as a blueprint for broader wave of consumer class action litigation targeting allulose-containing products that make similar claims. For example, the case brought against Liquid Death closely tracks the arguments made in the case against Chobani, including that allulose is a monosaccharide, which falls within FDA's regulatory definition of sugar and that the FDA regulation limits 'sugar free' claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, and that allulose must be counted as sugar for purposes of that threshold. The complaint furthers the argument that the claims deceive consumers by pointing to a 2021 survey conducted by the International Food Information Council that found only 15% of respondents had heard of allulose, "let alone knew it was a sugar." Thus, it argues, consumers would reasonably rely on Liquid Death's Sparkling Energy drinks' express "0g Sugar" representation rather than understanding the ingredient list to mean that it contained a form of sugar. What happens next? As these cases continue to move through the court system, companies marketing allulose-containing products may want to act now "to evaluate and mitigate potential litigation exposure," advise lawyers with Morrison Foerster in a client alert published Monday. The alert suggests companies identify all allulose-containing products bearing sugar-related claims that may be vulnerable to similar challenges and evaluate them against FDA standards, including whether allulose exceeds the 0.5-gram threshold. It also cautions companies not to assume FDA enforcement discretion policy creates a safe harbor for consumer class action litigation. As the case against Chobani explains, FDA enforcement discretion may indicate only that the agency does not intend to pursue federal enforcement. It does not change the governing regulations or establish that the label complies with them. It also does not prevent consumers from challenging the label under state consumer protection laws, according to the alert. Finally, it notes, the case brought against Chobani "does not resolve the regulatory treatment of allulose once and for all." Rather, it explains, "FDA could undertake new rulemaking, courts outside the Seventh Circuit could disagree with Franco, and defendants in the newly filed cases have yet to present their defenses." However, it adds, "the decision has created uncertainty for companies relying on FDA's allulose enforcement-discretion policy while making affirmative sugar-related claims."

/PRNewswire/ -- Medici Brands, the parent company of David Protein and newly launched confectionery brand HallPass, today announced a $250 million Series B...

One of the most polarizing Pumpkin Spice products is back again. There are two things that have caused much debate over the last few years: The proliferation of pumpkin spice in everything and the proliferation of protein in everything. And given that the food world loves a good old mashup and a combination of all that's working into one hybrid product, it's probably no surprise that those two elements have come together. Last year, a pumpkin spice protein bar hit the market, and the prophecy was fulfilled, whether anyone was really asking for it or not. Maybe they were? Who knows. Now, it's back - but it's arguably bringing a little bit of baggage with it. Let's discuss. David Pumpkin Spice Gold Bars. Yesterday, David Protein announced that it was bringing back its Pumpkin Spice Gold Bars this fall. First released in 2025, the brand's pumpkin spice bars are (as is probably blindingly obvious) a fall exclusive, and combine pumpkin flavored dough with cinnamon, ginger, and nutmeg, along with crisps and white chocolate-flavored chunks. David puts 28 grams of protein in each bar, and they're totally sugar-free. When these dropped last year, it's fair to say they had a mixed response. There are plenty of reviews in praise of David's pumpkin spice bars, with customers on its website saying that it's their favorite flavor, and one person comparing it to a slice of pumpkin pie. Elsewhere, though, people were disappointed that David didn't use real pumpkin in the recipe, and some folks took issue with the bar's vaguely radioactive orange color. And more broadly, it and David Protein as a company were polarizing for a different reason altogether. And what reason is that? In 2025, David Protein acquired a foodtech firm called Epogee, which creates a fat-like ingredient called EPG. EPG emulates the texture and function of fat without many of its calories. Shortly after the acquisition, three Epogee customers brought a lawsuit against David Protein, claiming that it had made an artificial monopoly on EPG following their loss of access to the ingredient. The lawsuit sparked backlash against David Protein online, although in February 2026, the company received an initial victory in the case. David Pumpkin Spice Gold Bars are available now on David's website, and they can also be found in Walmart, Target, Kroger, and the Vitamin Shoppe. They will cost $29 for a 12-count box if buying them in bulk. The march of pumpkin spice is truly unstoppable.