Sweetener Scrutiny: What Brands Need to Know About "Sugar Free" Claims After Franco

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit suggests that following U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement guidance does not necessarily protect food and beverage companies from state law consumer class actions involving "sugar free" and "zero sugar" claims.

On July 27, 2026, in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026), the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative consumer class action alleging that Chobani deceptively labeled its Chobani Zero Yogurt as "sugar free" even though each serving contained four grams of allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener. The district court had deferred to the FDA's 2020 Allulose Guidance and held the state law claims preempted. However, the Seventh Circuit disagreed.

It held that the federal definition of "Total Sugars" in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) unambiguously includes every monosaccharide, including allulose. As a result, the plaintiffs' claims attempting to enforce requirements identical to federal law are not preempted. The court explained that the Allulose Guidance was only a statement of the FDA's enforcement discretion, not an interpretation of the regulation.

Franco is expected to encourage a new wave of consumer class actions that target "sugar free," "zero sugar" and similar nutrient content claims on products that use allulose or other monosaccharide sweeteners. Plaintiffs will most likely target food and beverage manufacturers and brand owners, private-label and store-brand sellers, retailers and ingredient suppliers that market "sugar free" products.

Holland & Knight is monitoring developments following Franco and is available to help clients assess litigation risk and defend against consumer class actions. For more information, please contact the authors.