Senior Director - Multiple Teams

Starbucks says sugar-free lawsuit allegations have no merit. October 8, 2026 by Amy Sorter - Writer and Editor, Connect Media Starbucks said the lawsuit filed against it this week over the labeling of its sugar-free protein beverages have no merit. "Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices, and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter," the company told FastCasual. But the lawsuit raises another question: What exactly does "sugar-free" mean? The answer might depend on whether a drink contains added sugar or any sugar at all. That distinction is at the center of a federal lawsuit filed late Friday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. Filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of plaintiffs in California, New York and Washington, the lawsuit alleges that eight protein beverages Starbucks sells in the U.S. contain measurable amounts of sugar despite being marketed as "sugar-free." The complaint says the drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti serving. The beverages named in the suit include Starbucks' sugar-free vanilla and caramel protein lattes and sugar-free vanilla and caramel protein matchas. Starbucks' defense is that it has been transparent about the drinks' nutritional content, publishing total sugar counts on menu boards, its website and its mobile app. The company also says the sugar is lactose, which occurs naturally in milk rather than being an added sweetener. Specifically, Starbucks says "sugar-free" describes what it adds to the drink. Meanwhile, the lawsuit asks whether consumers would reasonably understand the phrase to refer to the drink itself. The lawsuit doesn't necessarily claim that Starbucks concealed the amount of sugar in its beverages. Instead, it challenges whether "sugar-free" correctly describes finished products that contain measurable amounts of naturally occurring sugar. Starbucks isn't alone. The Starbucks case comes amid a broader series of legal challenges involving "zero sugar," "sugar-free," and "no added sugar" claims. Liquid I.V. has faced litigation over its sugar-free electrolyte drink mix. Plaintiffs argue that the product contains allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener found in some foods. The issue is complicated by the FDA's regulatory treatment of allulose, which differs from that of traditional sugars. Other allulose-containing products have faced similar issues. More significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently revived a proposed class-action lawsuit against Chobani over its "zero sugar" yogurt. The complaint alleges that the yogurt contains four grams of allulose per serving. When the Chobani lawsuit was initially filed in 2023, the company pointed to 2020 FDA guidance stating that the agency would not include allulose in the "total sugars" or "added sugars" declarations on Nutrition Facts labels while it continued evaluating the ingredient. The Seventh Circuit's decision sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings, including discovery into whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by "zero sugar" labeling on products containing allulose. The Starbucks complaint cites the Chobani decision, although Starbucks' drinks contain lactose, not allulose. What the FDA says. Unlike allulose, which is more complex from a regulatory standpoint, lactose is squarely within the FDA's definition of sugar. The agency's guidance on "sugar-free" claims says that a product may be labeled "sugar-free" only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of total sugars per labeled serving. The FDA's definition includes naturally occurring sugars as well as added sugars. That includes sucrose, fructose and lactose. Back at Starbucks, the company can accurately say it has not added sugar to its beverages. At the same time, the finished drinks can still contain substantial amounts of naturally occurring lactose from milk. This is where "no added sugar" and "sugar-free" become two very different claims. The Starbucks defense. Starbucks' argument is essentially that the "sugar-free" designation refers to the flavored syrups used in the beverages, rather than to the beverages themselves. Those syrups contain no added sugar, while the lactose comes from the protein-boosted milk used to make the drinks. The company also points to the nutritional information it provides to consumers, including the total sugar content of each beverage. This raises two questions. First, if Starbucks has been transparent with consumers about what they are actually drinking. The company says it has. And second, if a product containing 13 to 21 grams of total sugar can legally be described as "sugar-free" under the FDA's definition, which is what the plaintiff is asking. Answering these questions could prove considerably more important than whether the sugar in the drink was added at Starbucks or was already in the milk. About Amy Sorter. Amy W. Sorter is an award-winning journalist, copywriter and content producer. Sorter has generated quality articles, blogs and thought leadership pieces for multiple industries during her many decades as a writer. Her byline has appeared in local and national publications including the American Business Journal, Connect CRE, Bankrate, CURE Magazine and the Dallas Morning News. Connect with Amy:

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."