Published
October 12, 2026
People who bought Genius Gourmet Nut Roll Protein Bars in Illinois and seven other states may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Genius Gourmet, Inc. labels the bars “0g Added Sugar” while sweetening them with allulose, which the complaint says is a sugar under federal and Illinois labeling rules. 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. Genius Gourmet, Inc. 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?
Genius Gourmet, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was sued on October 2, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over the “0g Added Sugar” claim on its Nut Roll Protein Bars. The case is Edwards v. Genius Gourmet, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12126. It was filed by Laukaitis Law LLC and assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings.The complaint says the bars’ packaging advertises “0g Added Sugar” while the label of the Vanilla Caramel Peanut bar also states that it “Contains 9g Allulose.” It argues allulose is a sugar under federal and Illinois labeling rules, so the zero added sugar claim misleads shoppers. The named plaintiff, a Chicago resident, says she bought the Vanilla Caramel Peanut bars at a Costco store in Chicago on August 2, 2025 and relied on the claim.
This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, no claim form and no deadline. Genius Gourmet has not yet responded in court, and none of the allegations 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 October 2, 2026 · N.D. Illinois · no class certified
What’s Alleged
“0g Added Sugar” Protein Bars Sweetened With Allulose
the Vanilla Caramel Peanut label states “Contains 9g Allulose” per bar
Products
Genius Gourmet Nut Roll Protein Bars
label allegations concern Vanilla Caramel Peanut · the complaint is inconsistent on Peanut Butter Flavored
Who Would Be Covered
Illinois buyers, plus buyers in seven other states
MA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NY and WA · proposed classes only
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only · no settlement fund or claim form
What the Label Says, According to the Complaint
According to the complaint, the Vanilla Caramel Peanut packaging prominently displays “0g Added Sugar,” and the Nutrition Facts panel repeats the message with “Includes 0g Added Sugars.” The same label lists allulose as the second ingredient and states that the bar “Contains 9g Allulose.”The complaint also points to the Total Sugars line, which declares 2 grams per bar. It says that figure leaves out the nine grams of allulose, so the label treats allulose as if it were not a sugar at all. The named plaintiff alleges that reasonable shoppers would read “0g Added Sugar” to mean no sugar of any kind was added, and would not understand from the separate allulose disclosure that nine grams of it were.
The case rests on a price-premium theory: buyers allegedly paid more for the bars, or bought them when they otherwise would not have, because of the zero added sugar claim. The complaint also cites research linking allulose to digestive side effects such as bloating and diarrhea, but it does not plead a safety claim.
Which Flavors Are Included?
The complaint is not consistent on this point. Its second paragraph says the products come in two flavors, Peanut Butter Flavored and Vanilla Caramel Peanut. A footnote attached to that same sentence says the Peanut Butter Flavored variety is not included in the product definition or the claims. Another footnote defines the products as Nut Roll Protein Bars in all varieties bearing a “Zero Sugar” claim, although the claim challenged everywhere else in the complaint is “0g Added Sugar.”Every specific label allegation, including the nine grams of allulose and the two grams of total sugars, concerns the Vanilla Caramel Peanut flavor, which is the one the named plaintiff says she bought. The complaint reserves the right to change its product list as the case proceeds, so the scope may be clarified in an amended complaint or a court ruling.
Is Allulose an Added Sugar? The Legal Fight
Allulose is a low-calorie sweetener that is chemically a monosaccharide, a simple sugar related to fructose. Federal rules define sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides, and the complaint argues allulose falls inside that definition. It cites the FDA’s 2016 Nutrition Facts rulemaking, in which the agency said allulose had to be included in the Total Sugars declaration pending any later rulemaking, and says no such rulemaking followed.The complaint treats “0g Added Sugar” as a nutrient content claim, which federal rules allow only when their conditions are met. For no added sugar claims, the first condition is that no sugars, as federally defined, are added during processing. The complaint argues that adding nine grams of allulose to each bar is inconsistent with that condition, and that Illinois law adopts these federal labeling rules through the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The named plaintiff does not try to enforce federal law directly; the claims are brought under state consumer protection statutes and common law.
The complaint also relies on the Seventh Circuit’s July 27, 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, which held that allulose is a sugar under the federal labeling definition. Illinois sits in the Seventh Circuit, so that ruling binds the court hearing this case. Franco involved a “sugar free” claim, however, and a zero added sugar claim is governed by its own conditions, so how far the ruling reaches here may be contested.
The other side of the argument comes from the FDA. In guidance finalized in 2020, the agency said it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines of the Nutrition Facts panel, while still counting it in total carbohydrate. The complaint itself acknowledges that this guidance provides enforcement discretion for the panel. Genius Gourmet has not filed a response, so its own position is not known; defendants in other allulose cases have argued that the guidance permits their labels and that federal law preempts state-law claims.
The case is part of a wave of similar suits, including two over KIND “Zero G Added Sugar” nut bars, listed on OCA’s allulose “zero sugar” class action tracker.
The Claims and the Proposed Classes
The complaint pleads three counts:- Violations of the consumer fraud laws of eight states, on behalf of the multi-state class: Illinois, Massachusetts, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington
- Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on behalf of the Illinois class
- Unjust enrichment under Illinois law, pleaded in the alternative for the Illinois class
It proposes two classes, each limited to people who bought the products for personal use during the longest period the law allows:
- An Illinois class of buyers in Illinois
- A multi-state consumer protection class of buyers in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington
Genius Gourmet and its affiliates, officers and directors, government entities, and the judges assigned to the case are excluded. These definitions are proposals until a court certifies a class, and the complaint reserves the right to amend them or change the list of states.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify both classes and to declare that Genius Gourmet’s conduct violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the other states’ statutes and amounted to unjust enrichment. On the money side, it seeks actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution or disgorgement of revenue, attorneys’ fees and costs, and interest. The class allegations say class-wide injunctive relief would be appropriate, but the prayer for relief does not separately request an injunction. The named plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. These are requests, not awards.What Happens Next?
As of October 12, 2026, the docket shows only the complaint, the case assignment to Judge Cummings with Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez designated, and a standard notice about consenting to a magistrate judge. Genius Gourmet must be served and then respond. In food-labeling cases that response is commonly a motion to dismiss, often arguing preemption or that a reasonable consumer would not be misled. If the case survives, it would move to discovery and, later, a decision on class certification. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed or settled before any payout.Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
Nothing is required at this stage because there is no claim process, settlement fund or deadline. If the case is certified or settles, a court-approved notice would explain who is covered and what, if anything, class members would need to do.Questions
Is there a Genius Gourmet protein bar class action?
A proposed class action, Edwards v. Genius Gourmet, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12126, was filed on October 2, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It is at the complaint stage. No class has been certified, there is no settlement, and there is nothing to claim.
Which Genius Gourmet Nut Roll Protein Bar flavors are in the lawsuit?
The specific label allegations concern the Vanilla Caramel Peanut flavor, the one the named plaintiff says she bought. The complaint is inconsistent about the Peanut Butter Flavored variety: it lists that flavor as one of the products, but a footnote says it is not included in the product definition or the claims. A court filing or amended complaint may clarify the scope later.
Why does the lawsuit say “0g Added Sugar” is misleading?
The complaint says the Vanilla Caramel Peanut label states that the bar “Contains 9g Allulose” and lists allulose as its second ingredient. It argues allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar under the federal definition that Illinois law adopts, so a bar with nine grams of added allulose cannot truthfully claim zero grams of added sugar. Genius Gourmet has not responded, and none of this has been proven.
Does the Franco v. Chobani ruling apply to the Genius Gourmet case?
The complaint cites Franco v. Chobani, LLC, decided by the Seventh Circuit on July 27, 2026, which held that allulose is a sugar under the federal labeling definition. The Genius Gourmet case was filed in Illinois, so that ruling binds the trial court. Franco involved a “sugar free” claim, while this case challenges a zero added sugar claim that has its own regulatory conditions, so how far the ruling reaches here may be argued.
Is there any money to claim from the Genius Gourmet lawsuit?
There is nothing to claim. The case has no settlement fund, claim form or deadline, and there is no guarantee it will produce a payment. If it settles, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to file.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Edwards v. Genius Gourmet, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12126 (N.D. Ill., filed October 2, 2026): complaint (PDF) and docket on CourtListener.• Federal labeling rules: 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), definition of sugars and 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c), nutrient content claims for sugar content.
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026), as cited in the complaint.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Guidance for Industry (2020).
• Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505.
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Edwards v. Genius Gourmet, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12126 (N.D. Ill.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel or Genius Gourmet, Inc. The allegations have not been proven in court. This article is general information about the case. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed
Case Title
Edwards v. Genius Gourmet, Inc.
Case Number
1:26-cv-12126
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed
October 2, 2026
Defendant
Genius Gourmet, Inc.
Products or Conduct
“0g Added Sugar” claim on Genius Gourmet Nut Roll Protein Bars sweetened with allulose
Claims
Multi-state consumer fraud acts · Illinois Consumer Fraud Act · unjust enrichment
Class Status
Proposed — not certified
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Edwards v. Genius Gourmet Complaint
View the Docket on CourtListener
Edwards v. Genius Gourmet Docket
