Why Dunkin Zero’s sugar claims drew a lawsuit

A lawsuit filed September 30, 2026 in federal court in Massachusetts challenges Dunkin Zero’s sugar marketing. It names Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc. as defendants. For restaurant beverage teams, the case illustrates why nutrition disclosures and sugar-free marketing claims have separate requirements.

Dunkin introduced Zero on March 4 as a lightly carbonated energy drink in six fruit-flavored varieties. The company promoted 20 calories in a medium and zero grams of sugar, positioning the drinks for the part of the day after morning coffee.

Plaintiff Phyllis C. Wells says she bought Zero at a Chicago drive-through, relying on its sugar claims. She alleges she overpaid for drinks sweetened with allulose.

What the company’s guides show#

Allulose appears in Dunkin’s September 21 ingredient guide. The large Blackberry Tangerine entry lists sparkling water and flavored syrup. Within the syrup’s ingredient list, allulose follows water. It also lists steviol glycosides and blends containing maltodextrin. The list identifies ingredients without specifying their individual weights.

The nutrition guide dated September 21 reports that large drink at 25 calories, 12 grams of total carbohydrate and 1 gram of dietary fiber. Both its Total Sugars and Added Sugars columns show 0 grams. The table does not break out allulose separately.

The entries vary by flavor and size. Large Juicy Peach lists 1 gram of Total Sugars and 0 grams of Added Sugars, while the medium lists 0 grams in both columns.

Why allulose can be absent from sugar totals#

In October 2020 guidance, the Food and Drug Administration described allulose as a monosaccharide, a single-unit sugar. It said it would exercise enforcement discretion for excluding allulose from Total Sugars and Added Sugars on Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels. Allulose must still appear in ingredients and count toward total carbohydrate.

That policy means FDA does not intend to enforce the requirement to include allulose in those sugar totals while it considers rulemaking. The agency cited evidence about allulose’s metabolism, low caloric contribution and dental effects. It also announced discretion for using 0.4 calories per gram of allulose in calorie calculations.

A marketing claim has separate requirements#

Federal labeling rules treat nutrient information in a nutrition label differently from the same information used elsewhere in labeling, where it becomes a nutrient content claim. Restaurant foods must meet the relevant claim definitions. Claims can rest on recipes or other reasonable nutrient calculations if preparation follows the basis for those calculations.

The sugar-free rule requires less than 0.5 grams of sugars per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving. It also restricts ingredients that are sugars or understood to contain them, allowing an asterisk explaining a trivial contribution. A qualifying calorie claim or calorie disclaimer is required too. These conditions work together; the asterisk does not replace the quantity limit.

Wells argues that allulose falls within the sugar definition and that Dunkin’s marketing violates those requirements. She also alleges that the claims deceive buyers independently of the labeling rules. Her complaint seeks damages and corrective disclosures for a proposed nationwide class and Illinois subclass.

The complaint cites Franco v. Chobani, a July 27 Seventh Circuit decision reversing dismissal of consumers’ claims about allulose-sweetened yogurt. The court held that allulose falls within the regulation’s sugar definition.

The court treated FDA’s guidance as a decision about enforcement, rather than a new definition. It rejected the argument that federal law displaced the state-law claims on the theory before it: the consumers sought to enforce standards identical to the federal requirements. Federal non-enforcement did not itself shield the company from those claims.

Franco allowed that suit to proceed because the consumers had plausibly alleged deception. They still had to prove that reasonable consumers could be misled, and other arguments remained for the lower court. The opinion did not decide Chobani’s final liability or Wells’s case.