Dunkin' Zero Drinks Face Class Action Over Allulose Sugar Claims

Key points

• Phyllis C. Wells filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Sept. 30, 2026, alleging Dunkin' Zero beverages are deceptively marketed.
• The complaint states Dunkin' Zero drinks contain 9-13g of allulose, a monosaccharide, yet are labeled 'zero sugar,' violating federal standards that limit the claim to products with less than 0.5g of sugar.
• Wells claims she purchased the drinks 2-3 times weekly in Illinois, relying on the 'zero sugar' label to limit her sugar intake, and would not have bought them had she known they contained allulose.
• The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an order for Dunkin' to stop using the 'Zero Sugar' marketing or provide corrective disclosures for purchases made since March 4, 2026.
• The case follows the July 2026 Seventh Circuit ruling in Franco v. Chobani, which held that FDA enforcement guidance on allulose does not preempt state law claims regarding 'sugar-free' labeling.

Background

This litigation occurs amid heightened scrutiny of food and beverage labeling practices. In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Franco v. Chobani that companies cannot rely on FDA enforcement discretion to avoid liability for 'sugar-free' claims when products contain allulose. This decision is expected to trigger a wave of similar lawsuits against brands using monosaccharide sweeteners. Additionally, Dunkin' faced public criticism earlier in 2026 from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding its sugary drink offerings, though the current lawsuit specifically targets the 'zero sugar' marketing of its newer beverage line.

How outlets are covering it

Boston 25 News and Boston.com report the core allegations, noting that Dunkin' has not responded to requests for comment. Boston.com provides additional context on allulose, citing the Cleveland Clinic to explain that while it is a sugar substitute that does not affect blood-sugar levels, it is legally classified as a sugar under FDA regulations. Top Class Actions frames the issue as part of a broader investigation into 'no added sugar' claims across multiple brands, including Liquid I.V. and Kellogg's, suggesting a systemic issue with alternative sweeteners. Holland & Knight, a law firm, analyzes the legal implications, highlighting that the Franco v. Chobani decision has removed a key defense for companies, making them vulnerable to state law consumer class actions despite following FDA guidance.

Why it matters

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how 'zero sugar' and 'sugar-free' claims are regulated and litigated in the U.S. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it may force major beverage and food companies to reformulate products or change marketing language to avoid misleading consumers. This could impact the pricing and availability of popular 'health-conscious' products, as companies may need to disclose the presence of monosaccharides like allulose more prominently to comply with federal labeling standards.

What to watch

Dunkin' is expected to respond to the lawsuit, potentially filing a motion to dismiss based on FDA preemption arguments, though the Franco v. Chobani ruling may weaken this defense. The case will likely proceed to discovery, where the plaintiffs will seek evidence of Dunkin's marketing practices and consumer reliance on the 'zero sugar' label. Other brands using allulose or similar sweeteners may face similar lawsuits as the legal landscape shifts following the Seventh Circuit's decision.