Carey & Danis LLC is investigating "Zero Sugar" and "Sugar Free" claims on allulose-sweetened foods and drinks nationwide.
Start Your Free Case Review →You picked that “Zero Sugar” drink or snack because it fit your diet — maybe you’re watching your blood sugar, doing keto, or just trying to eat healthier. Now it turns out some of the sweetener in these products counts as sugar after all, and a federal court agrees. If you feel like you were misled, you may be entitled to compensation, and Carey & Danis LLC is looking into it.
In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose is legally a “sugar,” and that companies making absolute sugar-free claims on products containing it can be held liable under state consumer protection laws. That decision has already triggered a wave of new lawsuits against major food and beverage brands, and Carey & Danis LLC is investigating additional claims on behalf of consumers nationwide.
Federal regulations are specific about what “sugar free” can mean on a label. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), a food cannot be marketed as “sugar free,” “zero sugar,” “no sugar,” or similar unless it contains less than half a gram of sugar per serving. Separately, 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines “total sugars” as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides. Allulose — a naturally occurring sweetener increasingly used in keto, “better-for-you,” and diet-focused products — is a monosaccharide.
In 2020, the FDA issued guidance saying it would not enforce the requirement that allulose be counted toward a product’s “Total Sugars” declaration while the agency considered new rulemaking. That rulemaking never happened. Many manufacturers built their “zero sugar” marketing around that enforcement pause — and then kept it in place for six years.
In Franco v. Chobani, the Seventh Circuit held that the 2020 guidance was only a statement about the FDA’s enforcement priorities, not a legal reinterpretation of the sugar regulation, and that it does not shield a company from private lawsuits under state law. The FDA itself filed a brief in the case telling the court that allulose is unambiguously included in the legal definition of sugar. The court agreed, reversed a lower-court dismissal, and allowed Chobani’s customers to proceed with their case over “Chobani Zero Sugar” yogurt, which contained about four grams of allulose per serving.
That ruling opened the door for consumers who bought other “zero sugar” and “sugar free” products containing allulose to pursue similar claims — and plaintiffs’ firms across the country have moved quickly.
Think you may have a claim? If you bought a “zero sugar” or “sugar free” product containing allulose, you may be entitled to compensation.
Since late August 2026, lawsuits making this same argument have been filed against the makers of several major “zero sugar” and “sugar free” brands, including:
Beyond the products already named in a lawsuit, we are also reviewing other “zero sugar,” “sugar free,” and “0g sugar” syrups, tabletop sweeteners, protein bars, and cereals that use allulose as a primary sweetening ingredient. This list is not exhaustive and will be updated as the investigation develops. If the product you bought isn’t listed above but was marketed as “zero sugar” or “sugar free” and lists allulose in the ingredients, we still want to hear from you.
If you purchased a “zero sugar” or “sugar free” product that actually contained a meaningful amount of allulose, you may have paid a premium for a health or dietary benefit the product didn’t deliver. Depending on the state where you purchased the product and the specific claims involved, potential remedies in these types of cases can include reimbursement of the price premium you paid, statutory damages available under certain state consumer protection statutes, restitution or disgorgement of the company’s profits, and court orders requiring the company to correct its labeling going forward. There is no fee unless we win your case, and a case evaluation costs nothing.
Don’t wait to find out if you qualify. A free case review only takes a few minutes, and there’s no obligation.
What is allulose, and why does it matter for “zero sugar” labels?
Allulose is a naturally occurring sweetener found in small amounts in foods like figs and raisins, and it’s increasingly manufactured for use in “keto” and diet products. Chemically, it’s a monosaccharide — the same category of molecule as glucose and fructose — which is why courts and the FDA itself now say it counts as a “sugar” for labeling purposes, even though it behaves differently in the body than table sugar.
Is allulose actually considered a “sugar” under federal law?
Yes, according to the Seventh Circuit’s 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani. The court held that the FDA’s regulation defining “total sugars” includes every monosaccharide, and that allulose fits squarely within that definition. The FDA’s own brief in that case took the same position.
Didn’t the FDA say companies didn’t have to count allulose as sugar?
The FDA issued guidance in 2020 saying it would not enforce that requirement while it considered new rulemaking, which never happened. Courts have found that this guidance was only a statement of enforcement discretion — not a legal reinterpretation of what the word “sugar” means — and that it doesn’t protect companies from being sued by their own customers under state law.
Which products are being investigated?
Lawsuits have already been filed over Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt, Liquid Death Sparkling Energy, Special K “zero added sugar” cereals, certain KIND bars, David Protein bars, Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free drink mixes, and Joyride candy. We are also reviewing other “zero sugar” and “sugar free” products sweetened with allulose, including certain syrups, sweeteners, and snack bars.
Am I eligible if the product I bought isn’t on the list?
Possibly. The list above reflects products already named in litigation, not a complete list of every affected product. If you purchased a product marketed as “zero sugar,” “sugar free,” “0g sugar,” or “no sugar” that lists allulose in its ingredients, we encourage you to submit your information for a free review.
Do I need to still have the product or a receipt?
It can help your case if you do, but it is not required to start an investigation. Submit what you have, and our team will explain what documentation, if any, is needed going forward.
What does it cost to join this investigation?
Nothing up front. Carey & Danis LLC handles these cases on a contingency basis, meaning there is no fee unless we win or recover compensation on your behalf.
⚠ Time-Sensitive: Deadlines Apply
Statutes of limitations for consumer protection claims vary by state and typically run from the date of purchase. If you believe you have a claim, do not wait — contact Carey & Danis LLC today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation. There is no fee unless we win.
Carey & Danis LLC has represented consumers in food and consumer-fraud litigation nationwide. We’re closely tracking the fast-moving allulose litigation that followed the Seventh Circuit’s Franco v. Chobani decision, and we’re investigating claims on behalf of consumers who paid for products that promised “zero sugar” and didn’t deliver on that promise. There is no fee unless we win, and there is no cost or obligation to find out whether you have a claim.
This webpage is attorney advertising. Contacting Carey & Danis LLC through this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is formed unless and until you sign a written representation agreement with the firm.
Get a free, no obligation case evaluation here.