Trader Joe’s, Welch’s targeted in allulose lawsuits over sugar-free claims

Allulose class action lawsuits overview:

• Who: Consumers filed multiple class action lawsuits against Trader Joe’s Company, PIM Brands Inc., Promotion In Motion Inc., Welch Foods Inc., Linus Technology Inc., Chobani LLC and Goli Nutrition Inc.
• Why: The plaintiffs claim the companies marketed their products as sugar-free despite sweetening them with allulose.
• Where: The allulose lawsuits were filed in federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

A new Trader Joe’s class action lawsuit alleges the retailer’s No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips are not sugar-free. Two consumers filed the lawsuit in Illinois federal court, claiming Trader Joe’s deceived shoppers who relied on the “No Sugar Added” label. The chocolate chips are sweetened with allulose, a sugar under federal labeling standards, according to the complaint.

The Trader Joe’s class action lawsuit claims consumers paid a price premium for the chocolate chips, believing they contained no sugar. Plaintiffs propose an Illinois class and a broader multistate class covering eight states.

Four separate allulose lawsuits accuse PIM Brands, Promotion In Motion and Welch Foods of marketing Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as sugar-free despite using allulose as a sweetener. Consumers filed the complaints in New York, Illinois and California federal courts between Sept. 1 and Sept. 15, 2026, targeting the Mixed Fruit, Berries ‘N Cherries and Island Fruits flavors.

Welch Foods, a Michigan cooperative that owns the Welch’s trademarks, licenses the brand to Promotion In Motion to manufacture and sell the Fruity Bites nationwide, according to one class action lawsuit. Welch Foods also retains approval rights over the product’s labeling and is named as a co-defendant in one of the four lawsuits. The lawsuits seek to represent a California-only class and a nationwide class, alongside subclasses in 30 states and the District of Columbia. 

PIM Brands, a separate New Jersey company named in two other complaints, is described only as the maker and seller of the Fruity Bites. The PIM Brands lawsuits propose a New York-only class and multistate classes.

David protein bars, Chobani yogurt and Goli gummies also face lawsuits over allulose

Three separate allulose lawsuits also accuse the maker of David protein bars of falsely marketing the line as containing “0g Sugar.” Two class action lawsuits were filed in California and a third in Florida between Aug. 24 and Sept. 10, seeking to represent nationwide and state-specific classes. All three complaints claim the bars are sweetened with allulose despite the “0g Sugar” banner on their wrappers.

A separate class action lawsuit, filed in Florida federal court on Sept. 9, accuses Chobani of mislabeling its Chobani Zero Sugar Greek Yogurt line as containing zero sugar. 

Additionally, Goli Nutrition is also facing a class action lawsuit over its “zero sugar” Apple Cider Vinegar, Ashwagandha+ and Pre+Post+Probiotics Gummies. The plaintiff contends that one serving contains 2g of allulose and that “neither [the] plaintiff nor reasonable consumers have the specialized knowledge needed to determine independently whether allulose is a sugar.”

Meanwhile, Supplying Demand is also facing class action allegations over its allulose-sweetened “0g Sugar” Liquid Death energy drinks.

Have you bought any “0g sugar” or “sugar-free” products that contain allulose? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bryan J. Geiger of Seraph Legal P.A.; Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm P.C.; Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC; Adrian Gucovschi and Nathaniel Haim Sari of Gucovschi Law Firm PLLC; L. Timothy Fisher, Joshua B. Glatt and Caroline C. Donovan of Bursor & Fisher P.A.; Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP; Joshua B. Swigart and Spencer L. Pfeiff of Swigart Law Group APC; Daniel G. Shay of Shay Legal APC; and Benjamin Heikali, Joshua Nassir, Ruhandy Glezakos and Ammad Bajwa of Treehouse Law LLP.

The allulose class action lawsuits are Pardo-Manrique v. Chobani LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-02009, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Dash v. Linus Technology Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-646, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; McCarthy v. Linus Technology Mergersub LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-09958, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Yovino v. Linus Technology Mergersub LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-08834, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Mercado v. Goli Nutrition Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-09807, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Ross v. PIM Brands Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-05551, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Santoyo v. PIM Brands Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-11316, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; Alexander, et al. v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-11329, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; Maghoney v. Promotion In Motion Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-05235-GPC-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; and Feliciano v. Promotion In Motion Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05405, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• CookUnity hit with class action over claims emails used false headlines
• Logitech class action alleges G Pro X Superlight mouse has design defect
• Abbott lawsuit alleges spinal cord stimulators can fail, worsen nerve damage
• Hyundai recalls Ioniq 9 SUVs due to power-folding seat defect