This is where we simply have to agree to disagree. Ultimately, I think her lawsuit falls apart, as she claims the label didn't say there was sugar in the product, but the image of the very label that states "evaporated cane juice" also very clearly shows that there are most definitely sugars in the product. 17 grams of them, in fact.
How she could claim the first, without looking an inch to the right and not see the second, is beyond all reason and logic.
I agree, and when you see “17 grams of sugar”, it is a good bet that added sugars are involved. But the purpose of nutritional labels is to convey information in the clearest possible manner. It’s purpose is not to kill off stupid people. There is absolutely no good reason to use the term “evaporated cane juice” rather than “sugar”.
As far as the actual lawsuit goes, I know that a similar lawsuit failed, but the fact that the FDA has recommended the term not be used may change the outcome in this case. She may be stupid. This may be a frivolous lawsuit. But none of that negates the underlying unethical acts taken by this company. It really is as bad as the ones who use “celery juice” instead of nitrates (IIRC, some even went so far as to say “no added nitrates”!). It is just blatantly unethical.