Published
October 12, 2026
People who bought Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar, Ashwagandha+ or Pre+Post+Probiotics gummies may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Goli Nutrition labels the supplements “Zero Sugar” while each serving contains about 1 to 2 grams of allulose, which the complaint 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. Goli Nutrition, 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?
Goli Nutrition, Inc., the company behind Goli’s apple cider vinegar gummies, was sued on September 24, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is Bruno v. Goli Nutrition, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11039. It is a proposed class action brought by one Illinois shopper, not a settlement, and the court has not ruled on any of its claims.The complaint targets three gummy supplements Goli sells under a “Zero Sugar” banner: Apple Cider Vinegar, Ashwagandha+ and Pre+Post+Probiotics. It alleges each serving contains roughly 1 to 2 grams of allulose, that allulose is a sugar under federal labeling rules, and that the “Zero Sugar” claim on the bottles and in Goli’s online advertising is therefore false. The suit is one of a run of cases filed against allulose-sweetened products since a federal appeals court ruling in July 2026; a similar case over Grüns “Sugar Free” gummies was filed in New Jersey in August.
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
C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-11039 · filed September 24, 2026
What’s Alleged
“Zero Sugar” gummies with about 1–2 g of allulose per serving
The suit says allulose is a sugar under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), putting each serving over the 0.5-gram limit for a sugar-free claim
Products
Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar, Ashwagandha+ and Pre+Post+Probiotics gummies
Sold as “Zero Sugar” since a September 2024 launch, according to the complaint · stores, goli.com, Amazon and other retailers
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
No class certified, no settlement and no claim form
What the Labels Say, According to the Complaint
The complaint says “ZERO SUGAR” is one of the main design elements on the front of each bottle, and that Goli repeats the claim on its own website and on its Amazon and Walmart.com listings, where the gummies are described as “Zero Sugar” and as having “0g of sugar.” It alleges the claim has run continuously since the products launched in September 2024. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts panel on each bottle lists 0 grams of Total Sugars and 0 grams of Added Sugars.The complaint does not say the gummies were lab tested. Instead, it works out the allulose from the numbers Goli prints. The Apple Cider Vinegar and Ashwagandha+ panels, it says, declare 4 grams of total carbohydrate per serving, 2 grams of dietary fiber and no sugar; the Pre+Post+Probiotics panel declares 5 grams of carbohydrate and 4 grams of fiber. That leaves about 2 grams and about 1 gram of carbohydrate per serving that the panels do not account for. None of the panels lists sugar alcohols, and the Pre+Post+Probiotics label says it contains none.
The complaint then argues that nothing else in the gummies could supply that carbohydrate. It says the active ingredients weigh only milligrams per serving, stevia is used in minute amounts, pectin, flavors and acids appear after allulose on the ingredient lists, and the fruit and vegetable juice is there as a coloring. On that basis it alleges, “on information and belief,” about 2 grams of allulose per serving in the Apple Cider Vinegar and Ashwagandha+ gummies and about 1 gram in Pre+Post+Probiotics: four times and twice the 0.5-gram limit for a sugar-free claim.
The named plaintiff, an Illinois resident, says he bought Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies at a Walmart in Illinois in June 2025 for about $11.99, relied on the “Zero Sugar” claim, and would not have bought them, or would have paid less, had he known they contained allulose.
Why the Complaint Says “Zero Sugar” Breaks the Federal Rules
Allulose is a monosaccharide, a single-unit sugar molecule closely related to fructose. Federal rules define a food’s “sugars” as the sum of all free monosaccharides and disaccharides, 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii). The complaint quotes the FDA’s 2016 rule revising the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels, which said allulose, as a monosaccharide, had to be counted in Total Sugars unless a later rulemaking changed that, and says no such rulemaking ever happened. It also cites Franco v. Chobani, LLC, the July 27, 2026 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the federal definition of sugar.“Zero sugar” is one of the phrases governed by 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), the federal standard for “sugar free” claims. The complaint stresses that the rule has two requirements and a product must meet both. Under subsection (i), a serving must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars. Under subsection (ii), the product may contain no ingredient that is a sugar unless that ingredient is marked with an asterisk on the ingredient list pointing to a statement such as “adds a trivial amount of sugar.” The complaint alleges the gummies fail the first test on the allulose figures above, and fail the second because allulose appears with no asterisk and no qualifying statement. On the Ashwagandha+ and Pre+Post+Probiotics bottles, it says, allulose is listed second under “Other Ingredients,” right after soluble tapioca fiber; the complaint does not describe the order on the Apple Cider Vinegar label.
The complaint calls the products dietary supplements and refers throughout to their Supplement Facts panels, but it does not include a separate argument that the sugar-free rule reaches supplements, as some other allulose complaints do. The link it relies on is 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b), which it quotes: that rule covers claims about nutrients that must be listed in nutrition labeling under § 101.9 (Nutrition Facts) or § 101.36 (Supplement Facts). Federal law separately deems a dietary supplement to be a food, 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff). In a single paragraph, the complaint also argues “Zero Sugar” is a variation of “no added sugar” and must meet that standard too.
For the California claims, the complaint points to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which adopts the federal food-labeling rules as California law. It alleges the gummies are misbranded under that law, and uses the alleged violations as the basis for its “unlawful practices” claim under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint also cites studies reporting stomach upset from allulose, but it pleads no personal-injury claim; every count is about the label.
The FDA’s 2020 Allulose Guidance and the Other Side of the Argument
Goli’s side of the case is not part of the complaint. In other allulose cases, defendants have relied on guidance the FDA issued in October 2020, in which the agency said it would exercise enforcement discretion, meaning it would not object, when manufacturers leave allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels and count it at 0.4 calories per gram rather than 4. The 0-gram sugar figures the complaint quotes from Goli’s panels are consistent with that approach. Defendants in those cases have also argued that federal law preempts state-law claims about labels the FDA regulates.The Goli complaint does not mention the 2020 guidance. Its theory rests on the front-of-bottle “Zero Sugar” claim, which falls under § 101.60 rather than the rules for filling in the Supplement Facts panel. It also argues that a nutrition-panel declaration is not itself a nutrient content claim, 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(c), so the panel cannot be what makes “Zero Sugar” true. Because the complaint’s allulose figures come from label arithmetic rather than testing, the amounts themselves could also be contested.
Franco binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. This case was filed in California, which sits in the Ninth Circuit. The wider group of suits that followed Franco is collected on OCA’s allulose “zero sugar” class action tracker.
The Claims and What the Suit Seeks
The complaint pleads six counts. Count I is brought for a multi-state class under the consumer protection laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. Count II is brought for the Illinois subclass under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. For the California subclass, Counts III through V claim violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. Count VI claims unjust enrichment for the nationwide class, or in the alternative the California subclass.The suit asks the court to certify the classes and appoint class counsel, and seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where the law allows them; restitution; prejudgment interest; a declaration that Goli’s conduct violated the statutes cited; an order requiring Goli to stop labeling and selling the gummies as “Zero Sugar” and to make corrective disclosures; and attorneys’ fees and costs. Its theory of loss is a price premium: buyers allegedly paid more for the gummies than they would have without the claim. The plaintiff demands a jury trial. He is represented by Srourian Law Firm, P.C. and Laukaitis Law LLC.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed nationwide class is everyone in the United States who bought any of the three Goli Zero Sugar gummies for personal use during the longest period the law allows. The multi-state class covers buyers in states whose consumer protection laws the complaint describes as materially similar to the eight it lists. Two subclasses cover people in Illinois and in California who bought the gummies for personal use.Goli and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, government entities, the judges assigned to the case and their immediate families, and anyone who opts out are excluded. The complaint reserves the right to change these definitions. They are only proposed; a judge decides whether to certify any class at class certification.
What Happens Next
A case at this stage typically moves next to the defendant’s response, either an answer or a motion to dismiss. Defendants in earlier allulose cases have generally raised the FDA guidance and federal preemption at that point. If claims survive, the parties exchange evidence in discovery, and the plaintiff would later ask the court to certify the classes. A settlement can come at any point and would need court approval, with notice to class members, before anyone could file a claim.Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
Nothing is required at this stage. There is no settlement, no claim form and no deadline, and buyers do not have to sign up anywhere to be part of a class if one is later certified. If the case settles or a class is certified, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies, what records may be asked for, and the deadlines to file a claim, object or opt out.Questions
Which Goli gummies are in the zero sugar lawsuit?
The complaint names three products: Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies, Goli Zero Sugar Ashwagandha+ Gummies and Goli Zero Sugar Pre+Post+Probiotics Gummies. It says Goli has sold them as “Zero Sugar” since their September 2024 launch, in stores and online through goli.com, Costco, Walmart, The Vitamin Shoppe and Amazon. Goli gummies without the Zero Sugar label are not part of the case.
How much allulose does the lawsuit say is in Goli Zero Sugar gummies?
The complaint alleges, on information and belief, about 2 grams of allulose per serving in the Apple Cider Vinegar and Ashwagandha+ gummies and about 1 gram in the Pre+Post+Probiotics gummies. It does not cite a lab test. It reaches those figures by subtracting the dietary fiber and the 0 grams of sugar on each Supplement Facts panel from the total carbohydrate, and arguing that no other ingredient could account for the rest.
Is allulose considered a sugar under federal labeling rules?
Allulose is a monosaccharide, and federal rules define sugars as the sum of all free monosaccharides and disaccharides. In Franco v. Chobani, LLC, decided July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within that definition. Separately, FDA guidance from October 2020 says the agency will not object when companies leave allulose out of the sugar lines on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. Franco binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin; the Goli case was filed in California, in the Ninth Circuit.
Does the FDA let companies leave allulose out of the sugar count?
In October 2020 guidance, the FDA said it would exercise enforcement discretion and not object when manufacturers exclude allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. The guidance addresses what goes on those panels. The Goli complaint does not discuss it; it argues that a “Zero Sugar” claim is governed by a separate rule, 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), which sets a 0.5-gram limit and requires a sugar ingredient to be flagged on the ingredient list.
Is there a Goli zero sugar settlement or claim form?
There is no settlement, fund or claim form. The case was filed on September 24, 2026, it is at the complaint stage, and no class has been certified. Money would be available only if the case settles or the plaintiffs win, and a court-approved notice would then explain who qualifies and how to file.
Sources
• Class action complaint, Bruno v. Goli Nutrition, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11039 (C.D. Cal., filed September 24, 2026), the source of every allegation above.• The case docket on CourtListener.
• FDA, The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Guidance for Industry (October 2020).
• 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii), 101.13(b)–(c) and 101.60(c)(1) — the federal definition of sugars, the nutrient content claim rules and the “sugar free” standard; 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff), the definition of a dietary supplement.
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026).
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Bruno v. Goli Nutrition, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11039 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel or Goli Nutrition, 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 — Allegations Only
Case Title
Bruno v. Goli Nutrition, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-11039
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
September 24, 2026
Defendant
Goli Nutrition, Inc.
Products or Conduct
Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar, Ashwagandha+ and Pre+Post+Probiotics gummies labeled “Zero Sugar”
About 1 to 2 grams of allulose per serving, according to the complaint
Claims
State consumer protection laws (eight states); Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; California CLRA, UCL and FAL; unjust enrichment
Class Status
Proposed — not certified
Nationwide and multi-state classes plus Illinois and California subclasses
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Court Docket
View the Docket on CourtListener
