California shoppers who bought BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar may be covered by a proposed class action alleging BA Sports Nutrition labels the drink “Zero Sugar” even though it contains allulose, which the complaint calls a sugar. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A Whittier, California shopper filed a proposed class action on September 14, 2026, claiming that BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar drinks are not sugar-free. The case is Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-10366, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. BA Sports Nutrition makes BodyArmor, and Coca-Cola has owned the company outright since it bought the remaining stake in November 2021 for $5.6 billion. Coca-Cola is not named as a defendant.The whole case comes down to one ingredient. Allulose is listed third on the label, after filtered water and citric acid, and the complaint argues it is a sugar under federal labeling rules. If it is, the complaint says, the drink cannot be labeled “Zero Sugar.” BA Sports Nutrition has not responded in court, and none of the claims has been proven.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Is Allulose a Sugar?
Chemically, allulose is a rare monosaccharide, a close relative of fructose. It tastes sweet but has far fewer calories than table sugar, which is why it shows up in “zero sugar” and keto products.Legally, the answer is contested. The federal rule defines total sugars as “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides,” and in 2016 the FDA said allulose had to be counted. Then, in guidance issued in 2019 and finalized in October 2020, the agency said it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on the Nutrition Facts panel, because it is not metabolized the way other sugars are. That is why the BodyArmor panel can show 0 grams of sugar.
The complaint argues that the guidance only governs the Nutrition Facts panel. In its view, the guidance never changed the underlying definition, and never authorized a front-label “Zero Sugar” claim. That claim has its own rule, 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), which the complaint says the drink fails in two ways:
• The sugar limit. A “zero sugar” food must have less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving. The complaint argues that allulose, as the third-listed ingredient, is almost certainly present above that level. It offers the ingredient order as evidence rather than a measured amount.
• The missing asterisk. A food carrying the claim cannot contain an ingredient that is a sugar unless the ingredient list flags it with an asterisk saying it adds only a trivial amount. The complaint says allulose appears with no asterisk.
Why This Argument Is Spreading
The theory got a boost 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 deserves no deference. It revived a “sugar free” case over Chobani yogurt. BodyArmor’s case is in California, which falls under the Ninth Circuit, so that ruling is persuasive there but not binding.Since then, similar complaints have piled up. OCA has covered the Special K “zero added sugar” suit, the Monin sugar-free syrup suit and the Trader Joe’s chocolate chips suit. Trade press has also reported cases against brands including Liquid Death, Liquid I.V. and Kind.
What the Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The complaint brings seven counts under California law: breach of express warranty, three separate counts under the Unfair Competition Law (unlawful, unfair and fraudulent), the False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. The “unlawful” count relies on California’s Sherman Law, which adopts federal food labeling rules as state law. The complaint says the plaintiff bought the Lemon Lime flavor several times over about six months at a Ralphs in Whittier.The complaint asks for restitution, damages, punitive damages where available, and an order requiring corrective labeling and advertising. For now, the CLRA count seeks only an injunction. The complaint says the plaintiff will send the pre-suit notice that law requires and may add a damages claim after 30 days.
Who Would Be Covered?
The proposed class is all persons who bought the three named Flash I.V. Zero Sugar flavors in California, going back three or four years depending on the claim. BA Sports Nutrition and its employees are excluded. Although BodyArmor is sold nationwide, buyers in other states are not part of this case as it is currently pleaded.What Happens Next
BA Sports Nutrition will likely move to dismiss. Defendants in these cases have generally argued that the FDA guidance lets them treat allulose as not a sugar, that federal law preempts the state claims, and that no reasonable shopper is misled when the Nutrition Facts panel shows 0 grams. How California federal judges treat Franco will matter here, and in every other allulose case filed in the state. If the case settles, we will update this page with how to file.Questions
The label says 0g sugar. How can the lawsuit say it has sugar?
FDA guidance finalized in 2020 lets manufacturers leave allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines, so the Nutrition Facts panel can show 0 grams. The complaint argues that guidance only covers the panel. It says the federal rule still defines sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides, which would include allulose, and that a front-label “Zero Sugar” claim has to meet that definition. No court has ruled on this in the BodyArmor case.
Which BodyArmor drinks are included?
The complaint names three flavors of BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar: Lemon Lime, Pineapple Passion and Watermelon Punch. It does not target regular BodyArmor, BodyArmor Lyte or other Flash I.V. products.
I bought it outside California. Am I covered?
Not as the complaint is written. The proposed class is limited to people who bought the named drinks in California, and the claims are brought under California law. That could change if the complaint is amended or a similar case is filed elsewhere.
Is allulose unsafe?
The lawsuit does not say so. It is about how the drink is labeled and what shoppers paid, not about health risks. The FDA has not objected to allulose being used as a food ingredient.
Sources
• Class action complaint, Walsh v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-10366 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 14, 2026)• 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)
