Updated October 16, 2026
When we first wrote about the Chobani allulose lawsuit, the lesson was that FDA enforcement discretion and the underlying regulation were doing different things. A company could build around the agency’s published guidance and still face a challenge to the promise on its packaging.
That concern has become much harder to treat as one company’s problem.
September reporting identified allulose-related lawsuits involving DAVID Protein, Liquid Death, Liquid I.V., WK Kellogg and KIND. Complaints also challenge Costco’s Kirkland Signature hydration mix and Welch’s Fruity Bites. These are allegations, not findings that the companies violated the law. [1], [2], [3]
For food brands, the growing list raises a practical question: if your claims strategy needs to change, how prepared is the rest of your business to move with it?
Where the Chobani Case Stands
On July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Franco v. Chobani. The court held that allulose falls within the relevant federal definition of sugars and that the consumers had plausibly alleged deception. The case could continue in district court; the decision did not establish final liability. [4]
A public court-filing index subsequently listed an amended complaint on September 15 and a scheduling-related entry on September 24. That index is incomplete. Our review of accessible records did not identify a later final judgment or court-approved settlement. [5]
The distinction matters. Brands are making decisions while litigation continues, with some important legal questions still unresolved.
The Claim Needs Its Own Review
FDA’s published guidance describes enforcement discretion for excluding allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on Nutrition Facts labels, along with using a calorie factor of 0.4 calories per gram. That guidance did not amend the underlying regulation. [6]
A Nutrition Facts calculation therefore cannot carry the entire claims review. The wording elsewhere on the package needs its own support.
The newer lawsuits also reach different claims. “Sugar free” and “no added sugar” have distinct requirements, and the Chobani ruling does not automatically resolve every added-sugar dispute. Each statement needs to be evaluated against the actual formula, process and applicable rule. [7]
For a brand, the useful next step is a specific legal assessment that the product and operations teams can work from. What language is being evaluated? What facts support it? What changes, if any, does counsel recommend?
Those answers establish the problem the business needs to solve.
How Much of Your Product Depends on the Promise?
A sugar claim can become embedded in almost every decision surrounding a product: the development brief, package design, price positioning, retail presentation and reason a consumer picks it up.
That makes it worth asking how much of the product’s appeal would remain if the language changed.
Does the brand have a compelling taste, format or use occasion it can communicate more clearly? Is the sugar statement one benefit among several, or the foundation of the entire proposition?
The answers affect the scope of the response. A business considering different packaging language needs to understand how that language fits its customer promise. A business determined to preserve a particular claim needs to know whether a technically and economically workable product can support it.
These are decisions to make together. Otherwise, the development team can spend months solving for a claim the commercial team has not fully evaluated.
Changing Allulose Means Understanding Its Job
Our earlier article, Why Are You Really Using Allulose?, asked brands to understand why the ingredient earned its place in the formula.
That question becomes especially useful when considering a change.
The development brief should document the functions that must be preserved and the compromises the brand can accept. Sweetness is one consideration. Depending on the product, the team may also need to evaluate texture, bulk, moisture behavior, browning or freezing performance.
A proposed replacement needs to be assessed in the finished system. What happens during processing? Does the product still perform through its intended shelf life? Can the manufacturer run it consistently? Are the ingredients available at a workable cost and order quantity?
A promising bench sample begins that evaluation. Pilot validation and commercial planning establish whether the proposed direction is ready to move forward.
Your Packaging Order Is Part of the Decision
Consider a brand with finished goods in market, several months of printed packaging and another production run approaching.
Even a decision limited to claim wording has operational consequences. Artwork approval, packaging lead times, inventory disposition, retailer content and product photography all need coordination. Any treatment of existing inventory should follow the legal assessment.
A formulation change adds further dependencies: ingredient sourcing, manufacturer review, testing, specifications and production validation.
This is why preparation has value before a final decision is required. A brand can establish what each path would involve, where the long lead times sit and which upcoming commitments deserve review.
Knowing those facts gives leadership a basis for acting deliberately when counsel’s recommendation arrives.
Build Options While You Have Time to Evaluate Them
At Alchemy, we would organize the work around three connected questions:
- What claim can the brand support? Qualified counsel evaluates the wording against the product and governing requirements.
- What product can the team deliver? Development establishes the technical options, performance targets and validation work.
- What would implementation require? Operations maps sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, cost and timing.
The result should be a practical comparison of feasible paths. Retaining the formula, changing the positioning and developing an alternative can each involve different tradeoffs. The right decision depends on the product and the business.
The lawsuits’ expansion gives brands a reason to do this work now. Waiting adds commitments while leaving the options undefined.
Give Your Business Room to Respond
The developments ahead will include how courts handle the newer claims, what happens after remand in Chobani and whether FDA changes the governing framework.
Brands can prepare while those questions develop. Review the claim. Understand the ingredient’s role. Map the commitments already made. Establish what a viable alternative would require.
That preparation makes legal advice actionable across the business—and helps protect the product experience customers came for in the first place.
Alchemy in the Kitchen helps food and beverage brands connect formulation, sourcing, manufacturing and commercial operations. If allulose is central to your product strategy, contact us to evaluate your practical options alongside your legal team’s claims review.
This article provides industry commentary, not legal advice. Complaints contain unproven allegations. Case-status statements reflect publicly accessible sources reviewed October 16, 2026.
