Class actions filed Aug. 24–25 allege several brands mislead consumers by labeling products that contain the sweetener allulose as "zero sugar." An FDA court filing said allulose meets the legal definition of sugar, weakening defenses that relied on 2020 guidance limiting agency enforcement but not private suits. Under FDA rules, "sugar-free" requires less than 0.5 g of sugar per serving; Chobani's Zero Sugar Yogurt contains about 4 g of allulose per serving. Manufacturers argue allulose is metabolized differently and has a smaller effect on blood glucose than regular sugar.
FDA Ruling Fuels New 'Zero‑Sugar' Lawsuits Over Allulose — Brands Face Class Actions
Photo Credit: iStock
Food and beverage makers that label products "zero sugar" or "sugar-free" are facing renewed legal scrutiny after the Food and Drug Administration told a court that the sweetener allulose falls within the legal definition of sugar. Class actions filed Aug. 24 and Aug. 25 target brands including Liquid Death and the maker of David protein bars, alleging their products mislead consumers by listing zero grams of sugar while containing allulose.
What the FDA Said
In a court filing, the FDA said allulose fits the statutory definition of sugar. That undercut defenses based on a 2020 FDA guidance that had discouraged agency enforcement of certain labeling but did not bar private consumer lawsuits. Plaintiffs say that guidance did not create a safe harbor for companies marketing allulose‑sweetened goods as "sugar-free."
Why It Matters
Under current FDA rules, a product may be labeled "sugar-free" only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Allulose is a naturally occurring monosaccharide — a simple sugar — and it appears in measurable amounts in some products. For example, Chobani's Zero Sugar Yogurt contains about 4 grams of allulose per serving, according to filings.
Manufacturers' Defense
Manufacturers argue that allulose behaves differently in the body than traditional sugars: they contend it contributes fewer metabolizable calories, has a smaller effect on blood glucose, and is less likely to promote tooth decay. Those factual and scientific claims are likely to be central to defendants' arguments as cases proceed.
Broader Context
The allulose disputes reflect a wider backlash against marketing claims that may overpromise or blur product attributes. Shoppers, regulators and rival companies are increasingly scrutinizing claims about nutrition, sustainability and packaging — from eco‑friendly labels at big retailers to confusing "reusable" packaging that still uses single‑use plastics.
Bottom line: As companies push novel sweeteners and bold label claims, settled legal and regulatory definitions — not just marketing preferences — will shape what can be advertised as "zero sugar."
Help us improve.
