The Seventh Circuit’s July 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC is interesting for several reasons for ad law followers and enthusiasts, and it has already spurred multiple follow-on class actions challenging “zero sugar,” “no added sugar,” and similar claims on products containing allulose. The developing litigation highlights a broader risk relevant for all regulated industries, but especially for food, beverage, and dietary supplement companies heeding evolving FDA guidance: compliance with agency guidance may reduce regulatory risk, but it may not prevent private plaintiffs from bringing claims under state consumer protection laws.
The Seventh Circuit Rejects Reliance on FDA’s Allulose Guidance
In Francov. Chobani, LLC, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose is a sugar under FDA’s existing regulations. FDA permits “sugar free” and “zero sugar” claims only when a product contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Because the products at issue contained more than 0.5 grams of allulose per serving, the court concluded that they did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for those claims.
The court reached that conclusion notwithstanding FDA’s 2020 guidance permitting manufacturers to exclude allulose from “Total Sugars” and “Added Sugars” declarations on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labeling. According to the court and the FDA, that guidance reflects an enforcement policy rather than a change to the underlying regulations.
Notably, FDA’s allulose guidance does not address voluntary nutrient content claims such as the “zero sugar” claim challenged in Franco.
FDA Enforcement Discretion Does Not Bar Private Suits
The Seventh Circuit also rejected Chobani’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted. Because the plaintiffs alleged that Chobani’s labeling violated the same requirements imposed by FDA regulations, the court held that the state law consumer protection claims could proceed.
The court further found that consumers could plausibly be misled by an absolute “zero sugar” claim on a product containing four grams of allulose per serving. The ruling does not establish that Chobani is liable, but it reinforces a broader point: compliance with nonbinding agency guidance may reduce regulatory risk but may not shield companies from private litigation.
Copycat Lawsuits Are Already Here
Within two months of the decision, plaintiffs filed copycat class actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where Franco is binding precedent:
-
Parker v. Trader Joe’s (filed Sept. 16, 2026) challenges “0g sugar per serving” claims on Trader Joe’s Sweet & Sour Gummy Worms. The complaint alleges that allulose is the product’s second ingredient and relies heavily on Franco’s holding that allulose is a sugar.
-
Sanderson v. Conagra (filed Sept. 17, 2026) targets “0g Added Sugar per serving” claims on Duncan Hines Keto Friendly baking mixes. Unlike Franco, the case focuses on the FDA regulation governing “no added sugar” claims, which contains no 0.5-gram threshold. The complaint alleges that the inclusion of allulose—a sugar—independently defeats the challenged claim and disclosing the allulose content does not make the claim compliant.
Together, these cases indicate that litigation challenging “sugar free,” “zero sugar,” and related sugar content claims on products containing allulose is likely to continue expanding.
A Broader Lesson: “No Artificial Colors” Claims
The same issue could arise outside the allulose context. In February 2026, FDA announced that it intends to exercise enforcement discretion for certain voluntary labeling claims, including “no artificial color” claims, where products contain no FD&C-certified synthetic colors but may contain naturally derived or other non-certified color additives (see our prior blog posts covering the issue here and here).
Like the allulose guidance, this policy reflects FDA’s enforcement priorities rather than a change to the governing regulations. Franco suggests that agency guidance standing alone may not shield companies from state law challenges premised on the same underlying regulatory requirements.
What Manufacturers Should Do Now
Although FDA permits manufacturers to exclude allulose from certain sugar declarations, the Seventh Circuit concluded that allulose remains a sugar under the current regulatory text. As a result, manufacturers should not assume that reliance on FDA guidance alone will immunize sugar content claims from challenge. With plaintiffs already using Franco as a roadmap for new lawsuits, companies marketing products containing allulose or similar low-calorie sweeteners, including beverages, protein powders, electrolyte products, and vitamin gummies, should consider reviewing existing “sugar free,” “zero sugar,” “0g sugar,” and “no added sugar” claims in light of this evolving litigation landscape.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
