Dunkin' Zero Sued Over Sugar Claims as Illinois Woman Leads Class Action

Hoodline ^ | October 07, 2026 | Benjamin Cortez

[ConservativeStatement]

A Chicago-area Dunkin' customer has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit claiming the chain's Dunkin' Zero energy drinks aren't nearly as sugar-free as their name suggests. The complaint, filed by Illinois resident Phyllis C. Wells, alleges the lightly carbonated beverages contain significant amounts of a sweetener called allulose — a substance she says still counts as sugar under federal labeling rules, even though Dunkin' marketed the drinks as zero sugar.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Food
KEYWORDS: allulose; dunkin; nutball; zerosugar

[kiryandil]

Sounds like she’s taking a break from her regular job of counting grains of sand on the beach at Lake Michigan...

[lee martell]

Frivolous Tort.

[SunkenCiv]

Ambulance Chasers ping.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-is-allulose

What is allulose?

Allulose is a naturally occurring sugar found at low levels in figs, raisins, wheat, maple syrup and molasses.

It’s also available as a sugar substitute and can be used in recipes for people who want to cut back (or cut out) sugar, including people with diabetes and people following specialized diets, like keto.

But when allulose is used as an artificial sweetener — such as in “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” muffins, ice cream and more — you’re getting much more of it than is natural.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac6a6f0-377c-83e8-bbe4-0fb5d3963c77

Yes. Allulose is a sugar, specifically a monosaccharide (simple sugar) closely related to fructose.

The unusual part is how your body handles it: allulose tastes sweet, but most of it isn’t metabolized for energy. As a result, it provides only about 0.2–0.4 calories per gram, compared with about 4 calories per gram for ordinary sugar, and it generally has very little effect on blood glucose or insulin.

So chemically, yes, it’s a real sugar—but nutritionally and metabolically, it behaves quite differently from table sugar (sucrose).

[ProtectOurFreedom]

LOL...good analogy. Angels on pinheads come to mind, too. I've largely switched to Allulose and Monk Fruit sweetener from Stevia and Erythritol. A few minutes of reading about it (and its safety profile) told me it's a rare sugar with 1/10 the calories of regular table sugar and a very different absorption behavior in your gut.

She's just looking for a big payday. Given FDA standards, I don't think she has a teaspoon's chance.

Under current FDA practice, allulose does not have to be counted in the Total Sugars or Added Sugars lines on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels, even though it is chemically a sugar.

Allulose is a monosaccharide (an epimer of fructose). Under 21 CFR 101.9, Total Sugars are the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides, so Allulose falls within that definition on the face of the regulation.

In October 2020 final guidance (following a 2019 draft), the FDA said it would exercise enforcement discretion and not object if manufacturers exclude allulose from the gram amounts and percent Daily Value for Total Sugars and Added Sugars, include allulose in Total Carbohydrate, and use 0.4 kcal/g (instead of the usual 4 kcal/g for carbohydrates) when calculating Calories. Allulose must still be listed in the ingredient statement. The guidance is not a completed rulemaking, so the underlying regulatory definition has not been rewritten.

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit in Franco v. Chobani held that Allulose remains a sugar under the regulation text, and that the 2020 guidance is enforcement discretion rather than a binding reinterpretation of the rule. The FDA took the same position in an amicus brief. That decision mainly affects front-of-package claims such as zero sugar or sugar free, which are limited by a separate regulation (21 CFR 101.60(c)(1)) to foods with less than 0.5 g of sugars per serving. It does not change the Nutrition Facts practice of omitting allulose from the sugar lines under the agency stated enforcement discretion.

The Dunkin case is one of the post-Chobani wave of proposed class actions over zero sugar marketing of products sweetened with Allulose. Wells alleges she bought Dunkin Zero energy drinks two or three times a week at a Chicago drive-through specifically to limit sugar, relying on the zero sugar name and marketing. The complaint says medium drinks contain about 9 grams of allulose and large ones about 11 to 13 grams, with allulose listed as a primary ingredient in the flavored syrups before they are mixed with sparkling water. Dunkin lists the drinks as having 0 grams of sugar and 0 grams of added sugars, and roughly 6 to 12 grams of total carbohydrate, consistent with the FDA 2020 enforcement-discretion guidance on Nutrition Facts panels.

The legal theory tracks Franco v. Chobani. Federal nutrient-content rules allow a sugar free or zero sugar claim only if a serving has less than 0.5 grams of sugars as defined in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(ii). That definition covers free mono- and disaccharides. The Seventh Circuit held that Allulose is a monosaccharide within that definition, and that the FDA 2020 guidance is nonbinding enforcement discretion, not a change to the rule and not a shield against state consumer-protection claims about front-of-package wording.

Wells seeks a nationwide class of Dunkin Zero buyers since the line launched on March 4, 2026, plus an Illinois subclass, and asks for damages, restitution, fees, and an order stopping the zero-sugar marketing or requiring corrective disclosures. Dunkin had marketed the line as a 20-calorie, B-vitamin drink with about 145 mg of caffeine and no sugar. No class has been certified, and the allegations have not been tested. The suit sits in the First Circuit, not the Seventh, so Franco is persuasive rather than binding there, but plaintiffs are using the same regulatory-gap argument that has produced a string of similar filings against other brands. "Damages" -- LOL...just HOW was she "damaged"?

Wells was born about 150 years too late. She would have had a field day in the 1800s.

[for-q-clinton]

I had to look it up, so I guess it depends on what your definition of sugar is. Most of us consider "sugar" as in from cane sugar.

Allulose is a low‑calorie “rare sugar” (also called D‑psicose) that occurs naturally in small amounts in foods like figs, raisins, wheat, maple syrup, and molasses, and is about 70% as sweet as table sugar.

Defintion of Sugar:
a sweet crystalline substance obtained from various plants, especially sugar cane and sugar beet, consisting essentially of sucrose, and used as a sweetener in food and drink:

biochemistry any of the class of soluble, crystalline, typically sweet-tasting carbohydrates found in living tissues and exemplified by glucose and sucrose.

But it appears the lady is completely wrong on what the FDA considers it.
FDA Classification and Labeling In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance allowing allulose to be excluded from both "Total Sugars" and "Added Sugars" on Nutrition Facts labels, while still being counted under total carbohydrates caloriecontrol.org caloriecontrol.org +2 . This means that a product sweetened with allulose can legally display 0 grams of added sugar, even though it contains a sugar molecule. The FDA requires manufacturers to list allulose in the total carbohydrate section and calculate its caloric contribution at 0.4 kcal/g

[cctrout]

Nobody goes to Dunkin Donuts thinking they are buying health food

[V_TWIN]

Nk she thinks she’s found a winning lottery ticket in the firm if an out of court settlement.

And will probably be successful.

[V_TWIN]

Let’s try this again.

No she thinks she’s found a winning lottery ticket in the form of an out of court settlement.

And will probably be successful.

[kiryandil]

And will probably be successful.

Yeah, the uninformed lynch mob in The City of Evil is all revved up and ready to go.

Future employers need to drop resumes in waste baskets if they went to Whorenell.

And tell them they're doing it, and that they don't want their brainless, uneducated keesters stinking up the joint.

[ansel12]

Fat free frozen yogurt a big NYC hit.

[kiryandil]

Sorry, wrong thread.

This one deserved to get laughed out of court, too - but you’re probably right - “And will probably be successful.”

Because the Illinois court system [state and federal] is ClownWorld.

[dfwgator]

[ansel12]

That’s the one.

[BookmanTheJanitor]

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“Nobody goes to Dunkin Donuts thinking they are buying health food”

That should be the overarching logic here, shouldn’t it?

My sister thinks they have the best coffee anywhere! Poor sis.

[FlingWingFlyer]

It would be cool to smash her in the mouth with a ZERO SUGAR Louisville Slugger.

[unixfox]

I’m wondering what this tart looks like.

[Brian Griffin]

“A Chicago-area Dunkin’ customer has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit claiming the chain’s Dunkin’ Zero energy drinks aren’t nearly as sugar-free as their name suggests....even though Dunkin’ marketed the drinks as zero sugar.”

The federal government permits some crazy stuff. Take a look at the ingredients lists for ice creams.