Chobani's 'zero sugar' defence failed: court says allulose is sugar under FDA rules

In July 2026 the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC: allulose — the trendy low-calorie sweetener — 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, and because Chobani's products contained more than 0.5 grams of allulose per serving, the court concluded they did not qualify for the claims.

Chobani's defence rested on FDA's 2020 guidance, which permits manufacturers to exclude allulose from 'Total Sugars' and 'Added Sugars' lines on Nutrition Facts labels. The court, agreeing with the FDA, held that the guidance reflects an enforcement policy rather than a change to the underlying regulations — and it doesn't address voluntary nutrient content claims like 'zero sugar' at all.

The panel also rejected Chobani's preemption argument: because plaintiffs alleged the labelling violated the very requirements FDA's regulations impose, state consumer-protection claims could proceed. And consumers could plausibly be misled by an absolute 'zero sugar' claim on a product carrying four grams of allulose per serving. The ruling does not establish that Chobani is liable — but the defence is gone.

The consequences arrived within two months. Copycat class actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where Franco is binding precedent, target Parker v. Trader Joe's ('0g sugar per serving' on gummy worms where allulose is the second ingredient, filed Sept. 16) and Sanderson v. Conagra ('0g Added Sugar per serving' on Duncan Hines Keto Friendly baking mixes, filed Sept. 17). Law-firm advisers flagged the same exposure for FDA's February 2026 enforcement discretion on 'no artificial colors' claims.

No damages yet — but within two months the ruling spawned copycat suits against Trader Joe's and Conagra, putting every allulose 'zero sugar' claim in play.

The labelling leaned on guidance the FDA itself characterizes as enforcement policy, not a change to the regulation's text.

The 2020 guidance never covered voluntary claims like 'zero sugar' — only the nutrition-facts declarations.

Preemption failed because the plaintiffs alleged violation of the very FDA requirements Chobani pointed to in its own defence.

Absolute claims are the risky kind: the court found consumers plausibly misled by 'zero sugar' on four grams of a sugar per serving.

Agency guidance is enforcement discretion, not a licence: if the regulation's text still calls your ingredient sugar, state consumer laws can too.

Franco proceeds with liability undetermined, but the Seventh Circuit's reading is binding in the Northern District of Illinois, where copycat suits against Trader Joe's and Conagra were filed in September 2026. Advisers are telling makers of allulose-containing beverages, protein powders, electrolyte products and vitamin gummies to re-review 'sugar free', 'zero sugar', '0g sugar' and 'no added sugar' claims, and expect the same logic to test FDA's 2026 'no artificial colors' enforcement discretion.