The Seventh Circuit revived a nationwide consumer class action over Chobani's "Zero Sugar" Greek yogurt, ruling that FDA guidance alone can't shield a company from deceptive-labeling claims. The decision reopens the door for lawsuits over similar "sugar free" claims made on allulose-sweetened products nationwide. In *Franco v.
Chobani, LLC*, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of the case on July 27, 2026, in a ruling that reaches far beyond one yogurt brand according to Justia. The panel's reasoning about FDA guidance versus binding rules now shapes how courts treat an entire category of food-labeling claims.
Official resources:
- Read the original report from Faegredrinker — Use this primary source to review the complete report.
- Read the original research from Insurancejournal — Use this page to review the original research.
Table of Contents
- What the Chobani Case Was About
- Why the Court Rejected Chobani's Preemption Defense
- Who the Ruling Affects Beyond Chobani
- What This Means If You Think You Bought a Mislabeled Product
- The Bigger Pattern: FDA Guidance Isn't a Legal Shield
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the Chobani Case Was About
Chobani's "Zero Sugar" Greek yogurt contains allulose, a sweetener, at about 4 grams per serving. Federal labeling rules require a product to contain less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving to carry a "sugar free" claim. Plaintiffs argued that allulose should count toward that limit, which would make Chobani's "zero sugar" claim false according to ScienceBlog. Chobani's defense rested on FDA guidance issued in 2020 that said the agency would not enforce sugar-content labeling rules against allulose-sweetened products.
The company argued that guidance meant federal law preempted, or overrode, the plaintiffs' state-law deception claims. The FDA itself weighed in. At the panel's invitation, the agency filed an amicus brief stating that under its own regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), "Total Sugars" includes all free monosaccharides and disaccharides, meaning allulose counts as sugar regardless of the 2020 non-enforcement stance according to Sheppard Mullin.
Why the Court Rejected Chobani's Preemption Defense
Writing for the panel, Judge Kirsch held that the FDA's 2020 guidance was a discretionary choice not to enforce an existing rule, not a binding reinterpretation of what counts as sugar. A decision to look the other way is not the same as a change in the law, and only the latter can support a preemption defense according to Thompson Coburn. That distinction is the core of the ruling. Companies that build a "sugar free" or "zero sugar" claim on an agency's promise not to enforce a rule are relying on something that can be withdrawn, questioned, or contradicted by the agency itself, as happened here through the amicus brief.
The panel also rejected the argument that federal law, standing alone, blocked the plaintiffs' state consumer-protection claims according to Insurance Journal. The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings rather than decided on the merits. Chobani has not lost the case outright. It can still raise other defenses, including arguments drawn from the U.S. Supreme Court's *Durnell* precedent on FDA label approval, so liability remains undetermined according to the Drug and Device Law Blog.
Who the Ruling Affects Beyond Chobani
The ruling applies to any food or beverage maker that markets allulose-sweetened products as "sugar free" or "zero sugar" based on the same FDA non-enforcement guidance. In the Seventh Circuit, that defense no longer reliably blocks a lawsuit at the motion-to-dismiss stage according to Skadden.
Law firms tracking food-labeling litigation reported nearly 100 similar class actions filed against allulose-sweetened products after the ruling. One target is Liquid Death, sued over its "0g sugar" energy drink label according to Faegre Drinker. Anyone who bought an allulose-sweetened product marketed as sugar-free in that period may fall within the pool of consumers these suits aim to represent, though no settlement or payout has been established in any of them yet.
What This Means If You Think You Bought a Mislabeled Product
No settlement fund or claims process exists yet in the Chobani case itself. The Seventh Circuit's ruling only allows the lawsuit to continue; it does not establish that Chobani broke the law or create compensation for consumers.
The case returns to the district court, where it could be litigated further, settled, or dismissed on other grounds. For consumers who bought Chobani "Zero Sugar" yogurt or similar allulose-sweetened "sugar free" products, there are a few practical things worth knowing while the litigation proceeds:.
- Keep receipts or purchase records for allulose-sweetened "sugar free" products. A later settlement, if one happens, typically requires proof of purchase or a sworn statement.
- Watch for a class notice. If the case or one of the roughly 100 related suits settles, class members are usually notified by email, mail, or a dedicated settlement website.
- Don't expect a near-term payout. The case was remanded, not resolved, and Chobani retains defenses that could still end the case without compensation.
- Check whether any related suit — such as the one against Liquid Death — covers a product you bought, since the legal theory extends to that case too according to Faegre Drinker.
The Bigger Pattern: FDA Guidance Isn't a Legal Shield
The practical lesson for companies, and the reason this ruling is spreading beyond one case, is that resting a label claim on FDA guidance rather than a binding rule or explicit approval leaves that claim exposed. Guidance can be non-binding by design, meaning the agency can contradict it later without changing any regulation, exactly as the FDA did in its Chobani amicus brief according to Morrison Foerster. That gap between enforcement discretion and binding law is now the central issue driving the wave of new allulose-related suits, and it will likely keep surfacing in other labeling disputes where a company's claim depends on an agency choosing not to act rather than on a rule saying the claim is accurate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Seventh Circuit rule that Chobani broke the law?
No. The court only reversed the dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings; liability has not been determined according to the Drug and Device Law Blog.
Is there a settlement or claim form available now?
No settlement has been reached in the Chobani case. The ruling only allows the lawsuit to proceed.
What other products are affected by this ruling?
Nearly 100 similar suits have been filed against allulose-sweetened products, including Liquid Death's "0g sugar" energy drink according to Faegre Drinker.
Can Chobani still win the case?
Yes. Chobani can raise other defenses on remand, including arguments based on the Supreme Court's *Durnell* precedent on FDA label approval.