The ruling means Chobani's "Zero Sugar" yogurt lawsuit can move forward, because a federal appeals court rejected the company's main legal defense. On July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v.
Chobani, LLC, reversing a lower court's dismissal and reviving a proposed nationwide class action over the yogurt's sugar claims. For anyone tracking class action settlements, this is a case to watch rather than one to file a claim in yet. No settlement exists, and the decision only clears the way for the lawsuit to proceed — it does not decide who wins.
Official resources:
- Read the original research from Abajournal — Use this page to review the original research.
- Read the official notice from Skadden — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What the Court Actually Decided
- Why the Case Was Dismissed Before, and Why That Changed
- What This Means for Class Actions Generally
- Which Other Products and Companies Are Affected
- What Happens Next, and What to Watch For
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the Court Actually Decided
The case centers on a sweetener called allulose, a sugar alternative that occurs naturally in small amounts in foods like figs and raisins but is added in larger quantities to many "reduced sugar" products. Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch, writing for the panel, held that FDA's regulatory definition of "total sugars" covers all monosaccharides — a category that includes allulose. That means a product containing a meaningful amount of allulose cannot lawfully be labeled "zero sugar" or "sugar free," according to the ABA Journal's coverage of the ruling.
Chobani's Zero Sugar Greek yogurt contains about four grams of allulose per serving, far above the roughly 0.5-gram federal threshold that triggers a "sugar free" claim, according to Thompson Coburn's analysis. Chobani's Nutrition Facts panel lists 0 grams of total sugar and 0 grams of added sugar, which the company maintains is accurate under its own reading of the rules, per Reuters' report in Insurance Journal. The named plaintiffs, James and Abigail Franco, allege they bought the yogurt at a Costco near Chicago in 2023 and are pursuing the case on behalf of a proposed nationwide class, according to Skadden's summary of the decision.
Why the Case Was Dismissed Before, and Why That Changed
In May 2025, a federal district judge in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the Francos' claims entirely. The judge relied on FDA's 2020 Allulose Guidance, a policy document that lets manufacturers exclude allulose from total and added sugar counts on nutrition labels, to find that allulose legally was not a "sugar" for labeling purposes, according to the National Law Review's report on the dismissal. The Seventh Circuit reversed that reasoning.
The panel held that the 2020 guidance reflects FDA's enforcement discretion — essentially, a statement that the agency would not pursue violations over allulose labeling — rather than a binding legal interpretation of what "total sugars" means. Because the guidance never had the force of law, it could not preempt state consumer-protection claims or control the outcome, according to Thompson Coburn's analysis of the decision. The panel also found that the plaintiffs' state-law claims are not expressly preempted by federal food labeling law, because the plaintiffs are trying to hold Chobani to the same standard the FDA's own regulation sets — not to some stricter state-specific rule, according to Sheppard Mullin's breakdown of the ruling.
What This Means for Class Actions Generally
Law firms tracking the decision, including Skadden and Faegre Drinker, describe it as closing off a defense that food companies have relied on for years: arguing that if FDA chose not to enforce a labeling rule, consumers can't sue over it either. The Seventh Circuit's answer is that an agency's decision not to enforce its own rule does not shield a company from liability under state consumer-protection law, according to Skadden's analysis. That distinction matters beyond Chobani. Many companies have pointed to FDA guidance documents — which carry less legal weight than formal regulations — as cover for labeling choices regulators haven't formally blessed but also haven't challenged.
This ruling signals that courts in the Seventh Circuit will look past that kind of informal guidance when a company's claim conflicts with the underlying regulation's text. It's worth noting the limits of what was decided. The Seventh Circuit only reversed the dismissal on preemption grounds; it sent the case back to the district court, where Chobani can still contest liability on the merits. Chobani has not been found liable, according to the Reuters report via Insurance Journal.
Which Other Products and Companies Are Affected
The ruling has already triggered a wave of similar litigation. Since the decision, class actions using the same allulose theory have been filed against David Protein, Liquid Death, Liquid I.V., WK Kellogg, and Kind, according to FoodNavigator's reporting on the litigation trend. Each targets products that pair a "zero sugar" or "sugar free" claim with allulose as a sweetening ingredient.
The common thread across these cases is the same logic the Seventh Circuit endorsed: if a product contains enough allulose to exceed the federal threshold for a "sugar free" claim, a "zero sugar" label on the package is a legal target, regardless of what the Nutrition Facts panel itself says. For readers who buy products marketed as "zero sugar" or "sugar free," the practical step is checking the ingredient list for allulose, not just the sugar line on the Nutrition Facts panel. A product can list 0 grams of sugar while still containing a sweetener that regulators classify as sugar for labeling purposes.
What Happens Next, and What to Watch For
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, including a renewed effort by Chobani to defend the claim on grounds other than preemption. No class has been certified, and no settlement fund or claims process exists at this stage. Readers interested in this case or the related lawsuits against David Protein, Liquid Death, Liquid I.V., WK Kellogg, and Kind should watch for:.
- Class certification decisions in Franco v. Chobani, which would determine who is covered by any eventual outcome
- Settlement announcements in any of the newer allulose-labeling cases, since those follow the same legal theory
- Whether other circuit courts adopt the Seventh Circuit's reading of FDA's "total sugars" definition, which would widen the ruling's reach beyond the circuit's home states
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Chobani been found liable for mislabeling its yogurt?
No. The Seventh Circuit only reversed the dismissal of the case; Chobani can still contest the claims on remand, according to Reuters' report.
Is there a settlement or claim to file in the Chobani case?
Not yet. The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings, and no class has been certified or settlement reached.
What other products are facing similar lawsuits?
David Protein, Liquid Death, Liquid I.V., WK Kellogg, and Kind have all faced allulose-related "zero sugar" class actions since the ruling, according to FoodNavigator.