People in the United States who bought Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Humm Kombucha LLC labels the cans “Zero Sugar” even though each one is sweetened with about 10 grams of allulose, which the complaint says is a sugar under federal 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. Humm Kombucha LLC has not been found liable, has not yet responded to the complaint, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. No product has been recalled, and the complaint does not allege that any Humm product is unsafe. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action accuses Humm Kombucha LLC of selling a canned kombucha called “Zero Sugar” that is sweetened with a sugar. The complaint, James v. Humm Kombucha LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02009, was filed on September 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, and is assigned to Judge Adrienne Nelson. The named plaintiff is a Multnomah County consumer represented by Wade Kilpela Slade LLP, with The Casey Law Firm as local counsel. Humm, which is based in Bend, Oregon, has not yet responded.According to the complaint, every can of Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar says “ZERO SUGAR” on the front and carries a round “0 GRAMS SUGAR” seal, while the ingredient list names allulose syrup immediately after the kombucha base. The complaint argues that allulose is a sugar under the federal definition, that each 12-ounce can contains roughly 10 grams of it, and that the “zero sugar” claim is therefore false and prohibited by federal labeling rules. These are allegations; no court has ruled on them.
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.
How the Complaint Gets to 10 Grams of Sugar
The Nutrition Facts panel on each can lists 0 grams of Total Sugars, and the complaint does not challenge the panel itself. Since FDA guidance finalized in 2020, manufacturers have been allowed to leave allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines because the body does not metabolize it the way it does other sugars. That is why a product sweetened with allulose can show 0 grams there.The complaint focuses instead on the front-label claims, which fall under a different rule. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), a food may be labeled “sugar free” or “zero sugar” only if a serving contains less than 0.5 grams of sugars as defined in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which counts all free mono- and disaccharides. Allulose is a monosaccharide, a close chemical relative of fructose, so the complaint argues it counts toward that limit even though the guidance lets it be left off the panel.
The complaint does not cite a lab test for the amount. It works from the label: each can declares 10 grams of Total Carbohydrate and no fiber, sugar alcohols, protein or fat, and allulose syrup is the only sweetener listed, so the complaint infers that essentially all 10 grams are allulose. That would be about 20 times the 0.5-gram limit. It also says the product fails the rule a second way: a “zero sugar” food may contain an ingredient that is a sugar only if the ingredient list flags it with an asterisk and a statement that it adds a trivial amount of sugar, and the asterisk after allulose syrup on Humm's cans instead points to “From plant-based ingredients.”
Why Allulose Labels Are Being Challenged Now
On July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose is a sugar under the federal definition, in a case over a “zero sugar” yogurt with about 4 grams of allulose per serving, and revived the consumer claims in that case. According to the complaint, the FDA filed an amicus brief at the court's invitation taking the same position on the regulation's text. The Humm complaint relies heavily on that decision and alleges that Humm's cans contain more than twice as much allulose per serving as the yogurt in Franco. The case was filed in Oregon, which is in the Ninth Circuit, so Franco is persuasive there rather than binding.Similar complaints have followed the decision. OCA has covered suits over BodyArmor Flash I.V. Zero Sugar, Hero Bread's “0G Sugar” labels, Trader Joe's “0g Sugar” gummy worms and Special K “zero added sugar” cereal. The Humm complaint also states that Humm has been sued before over the labeling of these beverages.
What the Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The complaint brings three claims. The first, on behalf of the Oregon subclass only, is under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which allows a buyer to recover actual damages or $200, whichever is greater, and attorney fees; the complaint alleges Humm's violations were willful, reckless or knowing. The other two, on behalf of the nationwide class, are breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. For the warranty claim, the complaint says Humm was put on notice by a letter dated September 8, 2026, three weeks before the suit was filed.It offers three alternative ways to measure each buyer's loss: the difference between the price paid and the value of a sweetened drink, the full purchase price on the theory that the product could not lawfully be sold as labeled, or the full price of a product the buyer says would not have been bought otherwise. The complaint says the named plaintiff bought the Raspberry Lemonade flavor for about $7.49 on or about August 7, 2026, and had it delivered to a home in Oregon. It asks for class certification, damages, restitution, interest, attorney fees and a jury trial, and states that it does not seek an injunction.
Who Would Be Covered?
The complaint proposes two groups:- National Class: everyone in the United States who bought Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar for personal use, not for resale.
- Oregon Subclass: everyone who bought the product in Oregon for personal use, not for resale.
What Happens Next
The docket shows three entries so far, all from September 29, 2026: the complaint, the court's standard notice of case assignment with a discovery and pretrial scheduling order, and a summons issued for Humm. That initial order sets discovery to close by January 27, 2027 and a joint alternative dispute resolution report and pretrial order for February 26, 2027; deadlines in class actions are routinely reset once the parties appear. Humm will have a chance to respond, most likely with a motion to dismiss. Defendants in the allulose cases have generally argued that the FDA guidance permits treating allulose as something other than a sugar, that federal law preempts the state claims, and that a shopper who sees 0 grams of sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel is not misled. How courts in the Ninth Circuit treat Franco will shape this case and the other allulose suits filed there. If the case settles, this page will be updated with how to file.Questions
The Humm Zero Sugar can says 0 grams of sugar. Why does the lawsuit say it has sugar?
FDA guidance lets manufacturers leave allulose out of the Total Sugars line on the Nutrition Facts panel, which is why the panel can show 0 grams. The complaint says it does not challenge the panel. It argues that the front-label “ZERO SUGAR” and “0 GRAMS SUGAR” claims are governed by a separate rule, which allows those claims only when a serving has less than 0.5 grams of sugars as federal regulations define them, and that allulose meets that definition. No court has ruled on the argument in the Humm case.
Which Humm Kombucha products are in the lawsuit?
The complaint targets Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar, the canned line sold in flavors including Açaí Blueberry, Blood Orange, Peach Tea and Raspberry Lemonade. It does not challenge Humm's Original kombucha, which is not labeled zero sugar.
Who would be covered by the Humm Kombucha lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought Humm Probiotic Kombucha Zero Sugar for personal use, plus an Oregon subclass of people who bought it in Oregon. It argues the class period reaches back to the first sale of the product. No class has been certified, and the definitions can change if the complaint is amended.
Is there any money to claim from the Humm Kombucha lawsuit?
Not at this stage. The case was filed on September 29, 2026, Humm has not yet responded, and there is no settlement, fund or claim form. The complaint asks for damages for the national class and, for the Oregon subclass, actual damages or $200 per person under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, whichever is greater; any payment would depend on a settlement or a judgment.
Does the lawsuit say allulose is unsafe?
No. The complaint is about how the drink is labeled and what buyers paid, not about health risks. It does not ask for a recall or an order changing the label; it seeks money damages and restitution only.
Sources
• Class Action Allegation Complaint, James v. Humm Kombucha LLC, No. 3:26-cv-02009 (D. Or., filed Sept. 29, 2026), embedded below• CourtListener docket for James v. Humm Kombucha LLC, including the September 29, 2026 notice of case assignment and scheduling order
• Justia docket for James v. Humm Kombucha LLC
• 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii), 101.13 and 101.60(c)(1); Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605–646.638
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026)
Class Action Complaint (PDF)
The complaint as filed on September 29, 2026 — 25 pages, including the label claims, the ingredient and nutrition panels, and the federal rules described above.OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site, not a claims administrator or law firm. We participate in the Amazon Associates program, and the product links on this page — including links to the Humm kombucha the lawsuit is about — are affiliate links; we may earn a commission on purchases made through them. The links are provided so readers can identify the products at issue and do not reflect any view on the merits of the allegations.
