Published
October 11, 2026
Updated
October 31, 2026
People who bought Dunkin’ Zero energy drinks since March 2026 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Dunkin’ markets them as “zero sugar” and “0g of sugar” even though each is sweetened mainly with allulose, which the suit says is 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. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc. have 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 Chicago woman filed a proposed class action against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and its parent, Inspire Brands, Inc., on September 30, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where Dunkin’ is based. The case is Wells v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14463.Three more proposed class actions over the same drinks followed: one in federal court in New York filed September 29, 2026, and Massachusetts cases filed October 19 and October 30, 2026. All three are described below.
The complaint targets Dunkin’ Zero, a line of sparkling energy drinks Dunkin’ introduced on March 4, 2026. Dunkin’ promotes the line as “zero sugar” and says a medium has “0g of sugar, 145mg of caffeine, and 20 calories.” The complaint says the drinks are sweetened mainly with allulose, which it argues is a sugar under federal labeling rules, so the “zero sugar” claims are false. According to Boston.com, Dunkin’ did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and none of the claims have 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.
Status
Complaint Filed
Filed September 30, 2026 · D. Mass. · no class certified
Allulose Per Drink (Complaint’s Estimate)
About 9 grams in a medium, 11–13 in a large
A “zero sugar” claim requires under 0.5 grams of sugars per serving
Who It Covers (Proposed)
U.S. buyers since March 4, 2026, plus an Illinois subclass
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
Which Drinks Are Named?
The complaint covers every drink sold under the Dunkin’ Zero name, in all sizes:- Launch flavors (March 4, 2026): Blackberry Tangerine, Tropical Mango and Juicy Peach
- Launch combinations: Glamberry, Sunzest and Blushpop
- Later additions: Watermelon Lime, Splashberry, Heatwave and Melon Paradise
What Dunkin’s Own Guides Show, According to the Complaint
The complaint quotes Dunkin’s published ingredient guide. Each Dunkin’ Zero is sparkling water plus one or more flavored syrups whose ingredients begin “Water, Allulose,” followed by flavors, caffeine sources and other ingredients present at 2% or less, including stevia extract.Dunkin’s nutrition guide lists 0 grams of total and added sugars for every Dunkin’ Zero, but between 8 and 13 grams of total carbohydrate depending on size and flavor. Because allulose is the only ingredient that contributes carbohydrate in more than trace amounts, the complaint estimates about 9 grams of allulose in a medium and 11 to 13 grams in a large. Dunkin’ does not list allulose separately.
Why Allulose Matters
FDA rules allow a “sugar free” or “zero sugar” claim only if a food has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, and define sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides. The complaint says allulose is a monosaccharide, so it counts. In guidance finalized in 2020, the FDA said it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on nutrition labels; plaintiffs in these cases argue that guidance does not cover front-of-package or menu claims.The complaint relies on the Seventh Circuit’s July 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, which held that allulose is a sugar under the federal definition. Dunkin’ is the latest of more than a dozen brands sued over allulose since then; OCA’s allulose lawsuit tracker lists them, including the similar suits over Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free and BodyArmor Flash I.V.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought a Dunkin’ Zero at a Dunkin’ restaurant for personal, family or household use from March 4, 2026 through class certification, and an Illinois subclass of buyers at Illinois restaurants.It brings claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for the Illinois subclass, and for breach of express warranty under Massachusetts law, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment for the nationwide class. It says the plaintiff plans to add a claim under Massachusetts’s consumer protection law, Chapter 93A, after a required notice period. It seeks damages, restitution and an order requiring corrected advertising.
Other Dunkin’ Zero Lawsuits
Wells is not the only suit over these drinks. Three other proposed class actions against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc. make the same core allegation: that Dunkin’ Zero is advertised as “zero sugar” or “0g of sugar” even though it is sweetened with allulose, which the complaints say is a sugar.Schoenrock v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-06058 (E.D.N.Y.). Filed September 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a Nassau County, New York resident who says she bought the drinks at a Dunkin’ on Long Island. It covers the six launch flavors and combinations and any other Dunkin’ Zero drinks advertised as zero sugar. The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought the drinks during the limitations period, and a New York subclass. It brings claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 for the New York subclass, and claims for fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment for the nationwide class. It asks for compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and an order requiring accurate labeling.
Bondi v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14738 (D. Mass.). Filed October 19, 2026 in the same Massachusetts federal court as Wells, by an Illinois resident. It covers the same ten Dunkin’ Zero varieties and estimates about 8 to 10 grams of allulose in a medium and 11 to 13 grams in a large. It proposes the same nationwide class as Wells (buyers at Dunkin’ restaurants since March 4, 2026), an Illinois class, and a class of buyers in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington under those states’ consumer fraud laws. Its other claims are under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, for breach of express warranty under Massachusetts law, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and it says the plaintiff plans to add a Chapter 93A claim after the notice period.
De La Pena v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14912 (D. Mass.). Filed October 30, 2026 in the same Massachusetts federal court by three buyers from Massachusetts, Illinois and California, against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc. It covers the same ten Dunkin’ Zero varieties in all sizes and estimates about 8 to 10 grams of allulose in a medium and 11 to 13 grams in a large. It quotes Dunkin’s March 4, 2026 launch announcement, which called Dunkin’ Zero “a zero-sugar energy drink,” and relies on the Seventh Circuit’s Franco v. Chobani decision. It proposes a nationwide class of U.S. buyers, a California subclass and an Illinois subclass. Its claims are under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law for the California subclass, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act for the Illinois subclass, and breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and common-law fraud for the nationwide class. It seeks damages, including punitive damages, restitution and an order requiring Dunkin’ to stop the “zero sugar” marketing. The complaint is embedded below.
As of October 20, 2026, the first three cases had not been consolidated or coordinated, and no court had ruled on the claims in any of them. The fourth was filed on October 30, 2026.
What Happens Next?
Dunkin’ has not yet answered the complaint, and the court has not ruled on whether the claims can go forward. As of October 20, 2026, the Wells docket showed only early filings, such as summonses, a magistrate-judge assignment notice and attorney admission requests; no answer, motion to dismiss, transfer request or consolidation motion had been filed. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form.Questions
Which Dunkin’ drinks are in the lawsuit?
Every drink sold under the Dunkin’ Zero name, in all sizes: Blackberry Tangerine, Tropical Mango, Juicy Peach, Glamberry, Sunzest and Blushpop, introduced March 4, 2026, and the Watermelon Lime, Splashberry, Heatwave and Melon Paradise varieties added later.
How much allulose is in a Dunkin’ Zero?
Dunkin’ does not list allulose separately. The complaint estimates about 9 grams in a medium and 11 to 13 grams in a large, based on the total carbohydrates in Dunkin’s nutrition guide and its ingredient lists, where allulose follows water in each Dunkin’ Zero syrup. Dunkin’s guide lists 0 grams of total and added sugars.
Who is covered by the Dunkin’ Zero lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people who bought Dunkin’ Zero drinks at a Dunkin’ restaurant for personal use since March 4, 2026, plus an Illinois subclass. No class has been certified.
Is there any money to claim from the Dunkin’ lawsuit?
No. There is no settlement, certified class or claim form. If the case settles or a class is certified, class members would be notified of any way to take part.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint — Wells v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:26-cv-14463 (filed September 30, 2026), via CourtListener: Complaint (PDF)• Class Action Complaint — Schoenrock v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:26-cv-06058 (filed September 29, 2026), posted by Truth in Advertising: Complaint (PDF) · Docket
• Class Action Complaint — Bondi v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:26-cv-14738 (filed October 19, 2026), via CourtListener: Complaint (PDF)
• Class Action Complaint — De La Pena v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:26-cv-14912 (filed October 30, 2026): Complaint (PDF) · Docket
• Docket — Wells v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14463 (D. Mass.), via CourtListener: Docket
• Boston.com, “Dunkin’ says its drinks have zero sugar. One woman says that’s misleading.” (October 6, 2026): Boston.com
• FDA, “The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (Guidance for Industry, October 2020): FDA Guidance
The October 30, 2026 Complaint
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed
Case Title
Wells v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
Case Number
1:26-cv-14463
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Date Filed
September 30, 2026
Proposed Class
U.S. buyers of Dunkin’ Zero since March 4, 2026, plus an Illinois subclass
Related Cases
Schoenrock v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-06058 (E.D.N.Y.); Bondi v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14738 (D. Mass.); De La Pena v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14912 (D. Mass.)
Complaint
Complaint via CourtListener
