Published
October 12, 2026
People who bought Grüns, immün or nütrops “Sugar Free” gummies since May 2024 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Grüns Nutrition and Unilever label the supplements sugar free while each daily pack contains 6 to 9 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. Grüns Nutrition, Inc. and Unilever United States, 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?
Grüns Nutrition, Inc., the maker of Grüns greens gummies, and Unilever United States, Inc., which the complaint says completed its purchase of Grüns on June 1, 2026, were sued on August 31, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is Ulberg v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11269. It is a proposed class action brought by four shoppers from New York, California and Pennsylvania, not a settlement, and the court has not ruled on any of its claims.The complaint targets the gummies Grüns sweetens with allulose and sells as “Sugar Free,” along with “Sugar Free” gummies under the company’s immün and nütrops brands. It alleges every daily pack contains 6 to 9 grams of allulose, that allulose is a sugar under federal labeling rules, and that both the “Sugar Free” claim on the front and the sugar figures on the Supplement Facts panel are therefore false. It is a separate case from the earlier Grüns “comprehensive nutrition” lawsuit in New York, which challenged a different marketing claim.
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
D.N.J. · No. 2:26-cv-11269 · filed August 31, 2026
What’s Alleged
“Sugar Free” gummies with 6–9 g of allulose per pack
The suit says allulose is a sugar under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), so the claim and the Supplement Facts sugar line are false
Products
Grüns, immün and nütrops Sugar Free gummies
11 product lines, including four kids’ versions · bought in the U.S. since May 14, 2024
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
No class certified, no settlement and no claim form
What the Packages Say, According to the Complaint
The complaint describes each package as making three statements about the same pack. The front panel carries the words “Sugar Free” in a starburst. The Supplement Facts panel lists Total Sugars as less than 0.5 grams on nine of the products and as 0 grams on the immün and nütrops gummies. A third panel carries a net-carb callout that, on the adult Original gummies, reads “1 g Net Carbs = 15 g Total Carbs − 6 g Dietary Fiber − 8 g Allulose.”The complaint treats that equation as the company’s own statement of how much allulose is in a pack: 8 grams in the five adult greens flavors, 6 grams in the four kids’ versions, 7 grams in immün and 9 grams in nütrops. Allulose is also the first ingredient listed under “Other Ingredients” on every product, which under federal rules means it is the heaviest of those ingredients.
The suit leans on the cane-sugar versions to make its point. Grüns sells each gummy in a “Low Sugar” formula too, and the complaint says the paired labels list the same total carbohydrate and the same dietary fiber, with cane sugar first in one ingredient list and allulose first in the other. The adult Low Sugar Original declares 8 grams of total sugars; its Sugar Free twin declares under half a gram while its own net-carb equation subtracts 8 grams of allulose. The complaint reads that as a gram-for-gram swap of one sweetener for another, and says the company’s websites charge $5.00 more on subscription, and $6.67 more as a one-time purchase, for the Sugar Free version of five of the products.
Why the Complaint Calls Allulose a Sugar
Allulose is a monosaccharide, a single-unit sugar molecule closely related to fructose, and the FDA has described it that way. 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 argues that definition turns on chemistry, not on calories or effect on blood sugar, so allulose falls inside it.From there it pleads two violations, each in the alternative to the other. The first is the front-panel claim. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), a food may be labeled “sugar free” only if it has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving and per reference amount, and only if any ingredient that is a sugar is flagged with an asterisk pointing to a statement such as “adds a trivial amount of sugar.” The complaint says each pack holds 12 to 18 times the 0.5-gram limit and that no asterisk appears on any label.
Because the gummies are dietary supplements, the complaint spends several pages showing those rules reach them. It cites 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(a), which applies the nutrient content claim rules to dietary supplements as well as ordinary foods, and notes that § 101.60(c)(1) carves out no exception for supplements even though neighboring provisions do. It also argues that a supplement’s reference amount is the most its label recommends per occasion — one pack here, since each label says to take no more than one a day — so the serving and the reference amount are the same and the gummies fail on both.
The second violation is pleaded against the Supplement Facts panel itself. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.36(b)(2)(i), total sugars must be declared on a supplement label whenever the amount exceeds what can be rounded to zero, which is anything from half a gram up. The complaint alleges the “less than 0.5 g” and “0 g” entries understate the sugars in every pack, and that the “Includes 0 g Added Sugars” line on nine products is false for the same reason.
Beyond the labeling rules, the complaint notes that allulose is not authorized as a food ingredient in the European Union, Great Britain, Canada or Brazil, and cites studies reporting gastrointestinal symptoms after allulose intake and a consumer group’s comments raising concerns about children. No personal-injury claim is pleaded; every count is about the label.
The FDA’s 2020 Allulose Guidance and the Other Side of the Argument
The main obstacle for the plaintiffs is guidance the FDA issued in October 2020. In it, 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 both Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels, and when they count allulose at 0.4 calories per gram instead of 4. The sugar and calorie figures the complaint quotes from the Grüns panels track that approach, and the company’s own website, as quoted in the complaint, calls allulose “an FDA-approved, low-calorie, natural sugar substitute.” Defendants in other allulose cases have relied on the same guidance and argued that federal law preempts state-law claims about labels the FDA regulates.The complaint’s answer is that the guidance is not a regulation. By its own terms it is non-binding, it was issued pending a future rulemaking to change the definition of total sugars that has not happened, and it addresses only what goes inside the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts panels. It does not mention “Sugar Free,” § 101.60 or nutrient content claims at all, so the complaint argues it cannot authorize the front-panel claim. On preemption, the complaint says the state-law claims seek only what the federal rules already require, which federal law allows states to enforce.
The complaint does not rely on Franco v. Chobani, LLC, the July 27, 2026 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that allulose counts as a sugar under the federal definition and revived a claim over a “zero sugar” yogurt. That ruling binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin; this case was filed in New Jersey, which sits in the Third Circuit. The wider wave 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 nine counts. For the New York subclass, it claims deceptive practices and false advertising under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. For the California subclass, it claims violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (for now seeking only an injunction and a declaration, with a stated plan to add damages after a statutory notice period), the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. For the Pennsylvania subclass, it claims violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. On behalf of every class, it claims breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under New Jersey law, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment.The claims against Unilever are limited to conduct from June 1, 2026, the date the complaint gives for the close of the acquisition. The complaint says the deal terms were not disclosed and reserves the right to reach earlier sales if discovery shows Unilever’s ownership began sooner.
The suit asks the court to certify the classes and seeks compensatory damages; the statutory minimum or enhanced damages available under the New York and Pennsylvania statutes; restitution; interest; an order stopping the “Sugar Free” labeling and requiring corrective advertising; and attorneys’ fees and costs. Its theory of loss is a price premium: buyers allegedly paid more than the gummies were worth, including the surcharge for the Sugar Free version. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed nationwide class is everyone in the United States who bought any of the Sugar Free products for personal, family or household use, and not for resale, from May 14, 2024 through the date of judgment. The complaint picks May 14, 2024 as the date the first Sugar Free product went on sale. Three subclasses cover purchases made in New York, California and Pennsylvania, defined by where the gummies were bought rather than where the buyer lives.The products named are the adult Grüns Sugar Free Superfoods Greens Gummies in Original strawberry, Popsicle “Firecracker,” Sweet & Juicy Mango, Minions “Bello Banana Berry” and Raspberry Lemonade; the kids’ Strawberry Burst, Minions, Firecracker and Raspberry Lemonade versions; immün Sugar Free 13-in-1 Immunity Gummies in Sour Pineapple, in both pack sizes; and nütrops Sugar Free Functional Nootropics Gummies in Lemon Clouds. The cane-sugar Low Sugar versions are not part of the case. The companies, their officers and employees, the judges assigned to the case and their staff, resellers, and anyone who opts out are excluded. These classes are only proposed; a judge decides whether to certify them at class certification.
What Happens Next
The case is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi, with Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte. Summonses were issued for both defendants on September 1, 2026; later docket entries are not described in the public record.A case at this stage typically moves next to the defendants’ response, either an answer or a motion to dismiss. Defendants in earlier allulose cases have generally pressed the FDA guidance and federal preemption at that stage. If claims survive, the parties exchange evidence in discovery, and the plaintiffs 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 products are in the Grüns sugar free allulose lawsuit?
The complaint challenges the allulose-sweetened gummies sold as “Sugar Free”: the adult Grüns Superfoods Greens Gummies in Original strawberry, Popsicle “Firecracker,” Sweet & Juicy Mango, Minions “Bello Banana Berry” and Raspberry Lemonade; the kids’ versions in Strawberry Burst, Minions, Firecracker and Raspberry Lemonade; immün Sugar Free 13-in-1 Immunity Gummies in both pack sizes; and nütrops Sugar Free Functional Nootropics Gummies. The cane-sugar “Low Sugar” versions are not part of the case.
How much allulose is in a pack of Grüns Sugar Free gummies?
According to the complaint, which relies on the net-carb equation printed on each package, a 20-gram pack of the adult greens gummies contains 8 grams of allulose, a 15-gram kids’ pack contains 6 grams, an immün pack contains 7 grams and a nütrops pack contains 9 grams. The same packages list total sugars as less than 0.5 grams, or 0 grams on immün and nütrops.
Is this the same lawsuit as the Grüns comprehensive nutrition case?
They are separate cases. Cavallaro-Kearins v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc., filed in New York in 2025, challenges the “comprehensive nutrition” claim on Grüns packaging, and a judge dismissed most of it in May 2026. Ulberg v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc., filed in New Jersey on August 31, 2026, is about the “Sugar Free” label on the allulose-sweetened gummies and also names Unilever.
Why is Unilever a defendant in the Grüns lawsuit?
The complaint says Unilever United States, Inc. completed its acquisition of Grüns on June 1, 2026, and that the gummies have carried the same “Sugar Free” claim since then. It seeks to hold Unilever responsible for conduct from that date forward and says it may try to extend the claims to earlier sales once the deal terms come out in discovery. Unilever has not been found liable for anything.
Does the FDA let companies leave allulose out of the sugar count?
In October 2020 guidance, the FDA said it would use enforcement discretion and not object when companies exclude allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. The complaint argues the guidance is non-binding, did not change the regulation that defines sugars, and does not address “Sugar Free” claims at all. How a court treats that guidance is likely to be a central question in the case.
Is there a Grüns sugar free settlement or claim form?
There is no settlement, fund or claim form. The case was filed on August 31, 2026 and 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, Ulberg v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc. and Unilever United States, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11269 (D.N.J., filed August 31, 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, 101.36(b)(2) and 101.60(c)(1) — the federal definitions of sugars, the nutrient content claim rules, the Supplement Facts rules and the “sugar free” standard.
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026).
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Ulberg v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11269 (D.N.J.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel, Grüns Nutrition, Inc. or Unilever United States, 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
Ulberg v. Grüns Nutrition, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-11269
Court
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Judge
Claire C. Cecchi
Date Filed
August 31, 2026
Defendant
Grüns Nutrition, Inc. and Unilever United States, Inc.
Claims against Unilever cover conduct from June 1, 2026
Products or Conduct
Grüns, immün and nütrops “Sugar Free” gummies sweetened with allulose
6 to 9 grams of allulose per pack, according to the complaint
Claims
N.Y. GBL §§ 349–350; California CLRA, UCL and FAL; Pennsylvania UTPCPL; breach of express and implied warranty; unjust enrichment
Class Status
Proposed — not certified
Nationwide class plus New York, California and Pennsylvania subclasses
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Court Docket
View the Docket on CourtListener
