In a significant victory for plaintiffs in Franco v. Chobani on July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of consumer deception claims brought by Jason and Abigail Franco, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, against Chobani over its “Zero Sugar” yogurt. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims are not expressly preempted and that they plausibly alleged consumer deception. The plaintiffs, Jason and Abigail Franco, alleged that they purchased the product advertised as “sugar free,” though it contained four grams per serving of allulose, a monosaccharide sweetener, and sought relief under various state consumer protection statutes. The district court dismissed their complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), deferring to FDA enforcement guidance and finding the claims preempted.
Led by the legal team of Yates French of Rathje Woodward LLC and Alex Burke of Burke Law LLC, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Seventh Circuit. On express preemption, the court framed the dispositive issue as whether allulose is a “sugar” under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which defines “total sugars” as “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose).” Relying on the regulation’s text and finding the FDA’s position in its amicus brief persuasive under Skidmore, the court concluded the definition unambiguously includes all monosaccharides, and thus allulose is a sugar. Because foods labeled “sugar free” must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars as defined by § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), the plaintiffs’ state-law claims, which mirror federal requirements, are not preempted. The court rejected the district court’s Auer deference to the FDA’s 2020 Allulose Guidance, characterizing it as enforcement discretion rather than a binding interpretation, and noted consistency with the FDA’s 2016 rulemaking statements.
Addressing Chobani’s alternative Rule 12(b)(6) argument, the court held the complaint plausibly alleged consumer deception. The labels allegedly promised “sugar free” despite four grams per serving of allulose, and the court found it plausible that reasonable consumers could be misled by the absolute “sugar free” claim, leaving questions of consumer understanding for discovery.
Rathje Woodward and Burke Law are pleased with the appellate court’s decision, which represents a major win for consumers and reinforces important legal protections. We remain committed to vigorously advocating for consumers’ rights and pursuing meaningful results for our clients.