The BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar lawsuit is narrower than the brand’s national reach suggests. It covers three flavors, it covers only people who bought them in California, and its main evidence is not a lab result but the order of the ingredients on the bottle. The plaintiff, a shopper from Whittier, California, says allulose is the drink’s third ingredient and that allulose is a sugar under federal labeling rules. If that is right, the complaint argues, the bottle cannot say “Zero Sugar.” None of this has been proven, and there is no money available.
Status: lawsuit filed September 14, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | Case: Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-10366 | No settlement — nothing to claim yet
Three Flavors, One Store, One State
The complaint names Lemon Lime, Pineapple Passion and Watermelon Punch, all sold as BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar. It does not reach regular BodyArmor, BodyArmor Lyte or the other Flash I.V. drinks. According to the complaint, the named plaintiff bought the Lemon Lime flavor several times over roughly six months at a Ralphs store in Whittier.
The defendant is BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, which makes BodyArmor. Coca-Cola bought the remaining stake in the company in November 2021 for $5.6 billion and has owned it outright since, but Coca-Cola is not named in the suit.
The proposed class is every person who bought one of the three flavors in California, reaching back three or four years depending on which claim is involved. BA Sports Nutrition and its employees are excluded. BodyArmor is sold across the country, yet a buyer in Arizona or New York is outside this case as it is written. That is a direct result of the legal theories chosen: every count is a California claim.
The Evidence: Where Allulose Sits on the Label
Some food-labeling suits arrive with lab reports attached. This one, as OpenClassActions.com describes it, does not. The complaint’s argument about quantity rests on the ingredient list. Allulose appears third, after filtered water and citric acid, and the plaintiff argues that a third-listed ingredient is almost certainly present at more than half a gram per serving. The complaint offers that ordering as its evidence instead of a measured figure.
Half a gram matters because of the federal rule for “zero sugar” claims, 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1). The complaint says the drink fails that rule in two separate ways:
| The amount test | A food claiming zero sugar must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving. The complaint says allulose, as the third ingredient, pushes the drink over that line. |
| The asterisk test | If a food making the claim contains an ingredient that is a sugar, the ingredient list has to flag it with an asterisk explaining that it adds only a trivial amount. The complaint says allulose carries no asterisk. |
An argument built on ingredient order is an inference rather than a measurement. Whether a judge accepts it at the pleading stage is one of the first things to watch.
Why the Nutrition Panel Shows Zero
The drink’s Nutrition Facts panel lists 0 grams of sugar, and there is a reason. The federal rule defines total sugars as “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides,” and allulose is a rare monosaccharide, a close relative of fructose. In 2016 the FDA said allulose had to be counted. In guidance issued in 2019 and finalized in October 2020, the agency changed course and said it would not object if companies left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines, because the body does not metabolize it the way it does other sugars.
The complaint’s position is that the guidance covers only the Nutrition Facts panel. It argues the guidance never rewrote the definition of sugars and never authorized a “Zero Sugar” claim on the front of the bottle, which is governed by its own rule.
The plaintiff’s position got stronger on July 27, 2026, when the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose counts as a sugar under the federal definition and that the FDA’s allulose guidance gets no deference. That ruling revived a “sugar free” case over Chobani yogurt. BodyArmor’s case is in California, part of the Ninth Circuit, where Franco can persuade a judge but does not bind one.
Seven California Counts
The complaint brings seven counts, all under California law:
- Breach of express warranty
- Three counts under the Unfair Competition Law, one for each of its “unlawful,” “unfair” and “fraudulent” prongs
- The False Advertising Law
- The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
- Unjust enrichment
The “unlawful” count borrows federal food-labeling rules through California’s Sherman Law, which adopts them as state law. The suit asks for restitution, damages, punitive damages where the law allows them, and an order requiring corrective labeling and advertising. The CLRA count asks only for an injunction for now. According to the complaint, the plaintiff will send BA Sports Nutrition the notice letter the CLRA requires and may add a damages claim once 30 days pass. The plaintiff is represented by Kuzyk Law, LLP and the Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk.
One of Several Allulose Cases
BodyArmor is one of a growing number of brands facing the same theory since Franco. OpenClassActions.com tracks related complaints over Kellogg’s Special K “zero added sugar” cereals, Monin’s sugar-free syrups and Trader Joe’s No Sugar Added chocolate chips. Trade press has also reported cases against Liquid Death, Liquid I.V. and Kind. How federal judges in California handle Franco will shape every one of the California filings.
The lawsuit does not claim allulose is unsafe. It is about the label and the price buyers paid, and the FDA has not objected to allulose as a food ingredient.
What Happens Next
BA Sports Nutrition is expected to move to dismiss. Defendants in these cases have generally argued three things: that the FDA guidance lets them treat allulose as not a sugar, that federal law preempts the state claims, and that a reasonable shopper looking at a panel showing 0 grams of sugar is not misled. OpenClassActions.com says it will add filing instructions to its BodyArmor Flash I.V. lawsuit page if the case settles. For now, California buyers do not need to do anything.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a claim in the BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar lawsuit?
No. Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC was filed on September 14, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form, and BA Sports Nutrition has not responded in court.
Which BodyArmor drinks does the case cover?
Only three flavors of BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar: Lemon Lime, Pineapple Passion and Watermelon Punch. Regular BodyArmor, BodyArmor Lyte and other Flash I.V. products are not part of the complaint.
I bought Flash I.V. Zero Sugar in another state. Am I included?
Not as the case is pleaded. The proposed class is limited to people who bought the three named flavors in California, and every claim is brought under California law. That could change only if the complaint is amended or a different case is filed elsewhere.
Did anyone test how much allulose is in the drink?
Not according to the complaint as described by OpenClassActions.com. The complaint points to allulose being listed third on the ingredient list, after filtered water and citric acid, and argues that its position makes it almost certain the drink has more than half a gram of sugars per serving. It does not offer a measured amount.
Why isn’t Coca-Cola a defendant?
The complaint names BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, the company that makes BodyArmor. Coca-Cola has owned that company outright since November 2021 but is not named as a defendant.
Sources
- Class action complaint, Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-10366 (C.D. Cal., filed September 14, 2026) (PDF)
- The Coca-Cola Company, “The Coca-Cola Company Acquires Remaining Stake in BODYARMOR”
- FoodNavigator, allulose “zero sugar” claims face growing litigation
- FDA, “The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (Guidance for Industry, final, October 2020)
- 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii) and 101.60(c)(1)
- OpenClassActions.com: BodyArmor Sued Over “Zero Sugar” Flash I.V. Drinks Made With Allulose
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: BodyArmor Sued Over “Zero Sugar” Flash I.V. Drinks Made With Allulose — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.