Allulose 'Zero Sugar' Lawsuits Spread to KIND, Liquid Death, David

Between August 24 and August 28, 2026, proposed class actions were filed against KIND, Liquid Death and David protein bars. The complaints allege the brands mislead shoppers by advertising zero sugar while using allulose, a monosaccharide that the plaintiffs say counts as a sugar under FDA rules, which allow a 'sugar free' claim only below 0.5 grams per serving.

Key takeaways:

• Between August 24 and August 28, 2026, proposed class actions challenged front-panel zero-sugar claims on David protein bars, Liquid Death drinks and KIND snack bars.
• Allulose is chemically a monosaccharide; the plaintiffs argue that foods with 0.5 grams or more per serving therefore cannot claim to be sugar free.
• The suits follow the Seventh Circuit's July 27, 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani, which held that allulose counts as a sugar under the FDA's definition.
• Shoppers cannot rely on the Total Sugars line on nutrition panels to spot allulose and must read ingredient lists directly.

What happened in the new allulose zero-sugar lawsuits?

Between August 24 and August 28, 2026, plaintiffs initiated three separate federal class action lawsuits challenging zero-sugar claims on allulose-sweetened consumer packaged goods. On August 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against David protein bars in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint targets David's prominent front-panel representations of zero sugar on high-protein snack bars formulated with allulose as a sweetening and bulking agent.

On August 25, 2026, a second proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Liquid Death. It challenges zero-sugar claims on Liquid Death drinks that contain about 2 grams of allulose, according to trade reporting.

On August 28, 2026, plaintiffs filed Coprew v. KIND LLC (No. 1:26-cv-07380) in federal district court, focusing on four snack bars marketed under the "ZEROg Added Sugar" product line. That lawsuit alleges KIND misleadingly markets the bars as having zero added sugar while including approximately 5 grams of allulose per bar.

These initial court filings represent early allegations, and the defendant companies have not yet completed formal defense arguments. No finding of liability, monetary settlement, or court injunction has occurred in any of the three matters. As of September 22, 2026, allulose remains permitted in the United States under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notices.

What changed after the Chobani appellate court ruling?

The legal footing for these suits changed on July 27, 2026, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC and revived a zero-sugar claim against an allulose-sweetened Chobani yogurt; see Court Says Allulose Is a Sugar. 'Zero Sugar' Labels Are in Trouble.

The conflict arises from two separate sections within Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

• Under 21 CFR 101.9, the federal standard explicitly defines total sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides, with glucose, fructose, lactose and sucrose given as examples.
• Under 21 CFR 101.60, criteria for nutrient content claims state that a food can only be labeled "sugar free," "zero sugar," or "no sugar" if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugars per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.

Because allulose (also known as D-psicose) is chemically a monosaccharide, the plaintiffs argue that products containing 0.5 grams or more of allulose violate 21 CFR 101.60 when using front-panel zero-sugar claims.

Who is affected across food brands and shoppers?

The three class actions filed in late August 2026 focus on specific consumer products across multiple grocery categories:

• David protein bars: Nutrition bars marketed with prominent zero-sugar claims that incorporate allulose to provide sweetness, chewiness, and texture.
• Liquid Death: drinks with zero-sugar claims that contain about 2 grams of allulose.
• KIND LLC: Four varieties within the "ZEROg Added Sugar" snack bar lineup containing approximately 5 grams of allulose per individual serving.

Beyond these three companies, the suits create legal uncertainty for any brand that pairs allulose with a zero-sugar claim. Brands producing low-carbohydrate baked goods, keto snacks, protein supplements, and diet beverages frequently choose allulose because it delivers roughly 70 percent of the relative sweetness of table sugar while browning during baking, providing clean texture, and avoiding the cooling sensation common to sugar alcohols.

Consumers purchasing functional foods for dietary management are also directly affected. Individuals following ketogenic diets, tracking carbohydrate intake, or managing type 1 or type 2 diabetes often seek zero-sugar items to avoid blood glucose fluctuations. When packaging displays contradictory claims, shoppers struggle to evaluate whether a food fits their nutritional requirements.

What it means for shoppers reading nutrition facts labels?

For consumers evaluating food labels, distinguishing between regulated nutrient content claims and mandatory nutrition declarations is essential. Under existing federal regulations, claims regarding sugar content are strictly defined:

• "Zero Sugar" or "Sugar Free": A nutrient content claim under 21 CFR 101.60(c) requiring less than 0.5 grams of total mono- and disaccharides per serving.
• "No Added Sugar": A claim governed by 21 CFR 101.60(c)(2) stating that no sugar or sugar-containing ingredient was added during processing, although naturally occurring sugars may remain.

In October 2020, the regulator clarified policy in FDA guidance on allulose declaration, stating that the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion to allow food companies to exclude allulose from both Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on Nutrition Facts panels. The FDA reasoned that allulose is different from other sugars: it is absorbed but not metabolized the way sugars are, provides about 0.4 calories per gram versus 4 for table sugar, and has negligible effects on blood glucose and insulin.

Because allulose is excluded from the sugar rows on the Nutrition Facts panel, shoppers cannot check the sugar line to determine if allulose is present. Its grams still count in the Total Carbohydrate row. Shoppers must review the ingredient statement to identify whether allulose is present in the product.

Shoppers comparing functional sweetening options can review our guide on Allulose vs Erythritol: Which Sugar Substitute Is Better? to understand how polyols and rare sugars differ on package labels and inside the body.

Practical guidance for shoppers evaluating allulose products:

• Check the ingredient list directly for allulose or D-psicose rather than relying exclusively on front-panel claims.
• Examine the Total Carbohydrate row, where allulose is legally included.
• Notice how you tolerate it: large amounts of allulose can cause digestive discomfort in some people.

The background on how rare sugars entered packaged food?

Allulose occurs naturally in trace amounts in dried fruits such as figs and raisins, as well as wheat and jackfruit. Because naturally occurring quantities are extremely small, commercial allulose is produced at industrial scale through the enzymatic isomerization of fructose derived from corn or other agricultural starches.

Before the FDA's guidance, allulose had to be counted as a sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, which made it less attractive to brands selling low-sugar products.

In October 2020, the FDA issued final industry guidance regarding the declaration of allulose on nutrition panels. In this document, the agency announced its enforcement discretion policy regarding the exclusion of allulose from Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on nutrition labels, provided manufacturers counted it toward Total Carbohydrates at 0.4 calories per gram.

However, the FDA did not formally amend 21 CFR 101.60, the regulation that governs front-panel claims like "sugar free." Plaintiffs argue that non-binding guidance about the Nutrition Facts panel cannot override the regulations that govern sugar-free claims, and the Seventh Circuit treated the guidance as enforcement discretion rather than a change to the rules.

There are limits to what these cases can settle: they are about label claims, not about whether allulose is safe, and long-term research on high intakes is still limited.

What to watch next for food labels and courtroom decisions?

Several upcoming regulatory and judicial developments will determine how allulose-containing products are labeled in grocery stores nationwide:

• Early motions: expect the defendants to seek dismissal; courts outside the Seventh Circuit are not bound by the Chobani decision.
• The FDA: whether the agency clarifies how allulose fits the sugar-free claim rules; it has not announced any rulemaking.
• Packaging updates: Brands facing litigation or consumer scrutiny may voluntarily revise their packaging, replacing "zero sugar" claims with phrases such as "low calorie sweetener" or disclosing allulose directly on front panels.