Published
September 14, 2026
Shoppers who bought Kellogg’s Special K Plus Strawberry Crème or Special K Zero Cinnamon cereal may be covered by a proposed class action alleging WK Kellogg Co labels the boxes “zero added sugar” while adding allulose syrup, which the complaint calls 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. WK Kellogg Co 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?
WK Kellogg Co is facing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the “zero added sugar” labeling on three Special K cereals. The case, Bender-Long v. WK Kellogg Co, No. 2:26-cv-09438, was filed August 24, 2026. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that the cereals are marketed with front-of-box statements reading “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” or “ZERO” above “0g ADDED SUGAR,” while the products are sweetened with allulose syrup. The named plaintiff alleges that allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar, and that the boxes themselves quantify it — 4 grams per labeled serving on the Strawberry Crème cereals and 3 grams per labeled serving on the Cinnamon cereal. Kellogg has not yet responded in court, and none of this has been proven.
The complaint does not allege that the cereals are unsafe or contaminated. It raises a labeling claim: that a front-panel promise of no added sugar is false where the manufacturer adds a gram-scale sweetener that the complaint says meets the federal definition of a sugar.
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 August 24, 2026 in the C.D. Cal. · allegations only · no settlement
What’s Alleged
“Zero Added Sugar” Labels on Cereals Sweetened With Allulose Syrup
the boxes disclose 4g of allulose per serving on the Strawberry Crème cereals and 3g on the Cinnamon cereal
Products
Three Special K Cereals
Plus Strawberry Crème High Protein 6.6 oz and 8.1 oz · Zero Cinnamon 7.7 oz
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
What the Labels Say, and What the Complaint Says Is in the Box
Three products are named. Two are Special K Plus Strawberry Crème High Protein Zero Added Sugar Cereal, sold in 6.6-ounce and 8.1-ounce boxes. The third is Special K Zero Cinnamon Breakfast Cereal in a 7.7-ounce box. Other Special K varieties are not part of the case.According to the complaint, the Strawberry Crème boxes repeat “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” on the front panel, while the Cinnamon box carries “ZERO” directly above “0g ADDED SUGAR.” The complaint alleges the same boxes elsewhere quantify the allulose they contain: 4 grams per labeled serving on the Strawberry Crème cereals and 3 grams on the Cinnamon cereal, figures the complaint says appear in the side-panel net-carbohydrate math. Measured against the labeled serving sizes, the complaint puts that at roughly 9.5 percent of a 42-gram Strawberry Crème serving and 7.7 percent of a 39-gram Cinnamon serving.
The complaint also alleges that the information panel reinforces rather than corrects the impression. The Nutrition Facts panels declare 0 grams of Total Sugars and 0 grams of Added Sugars, and the ingredient list flags several ingredients with a footnote saying they add “a trivial amount of sugar” — a marker the complaint says allulose syrup does not carry. The named plaintiff alleges that selective treatment shows Kellogg understood allulose to be a sugar. That is the plaintiff’s characterization, not a finding.
Is Allulose a Sugar? The Question at the Center of the Case
Allulose is a monosaccharide — chemically, the C-3 epimer of fructose, meaning it shares fructose’s molecular formula but differs in how one hydroxyl group is oriented. It is roughly 70 percent as sweet as table sugar, which is why it is used in gram-scale amounts as a bulk sweetener rather than in the trace amounts typical of high-intensity sweeteners like sucralose or aspartame. The body absorbs it but largely does not metabolize it, so it contributes very few calories.The complaint builds its case on that chemistry. It points to 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which defines Total Sugars as “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides,” and argues that a monosaccharide added during processing falls inside that definition. It also cites the FDA’s 2016 Nutrition Facts rulemaking, in which the agency stated that allulose, as a monosaccharide, had to be included in the Total Sugars declaration pending any later rulemaking.
The FDA Guidance That Complicates the Claim
The 2016 statement the complaint relies on is not the agency’s last word. In 2019 the FDA issued draft guidance, finalized in 2020, telling manufacturers they may exclude allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines of the Nutrition Facts panel, while still counting it toward total carbohydrate and using a lower calorie factor. The agency’s stated reason was that allulose does not behave in the body the way other sugars do.That guidance is the likely core of Kellogg’s defense, and it explains a detail the complaint itself notes: the Nutrition Facts panels on these boxes declare 0 grams of Added Sugars, which is what the guidance permits. The complaint’s theory is aimed at the front of the box rather than the panel. It argues that statements placed outside the Nutrition Facts panel are nutrient content claims governed by a different rule, 21 C.F.R. § 101.13, and that a “no added sugar” claim is permitted only when the conditions in § 101.60(c)(2) are met — the first of which is that no sugars as defined in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) were added during processing.
Whether an ingredient a manufacturer may lawfully leave out of the Added Sugars line can still defeat a front-panel “zero added sugar” claim is an open question, and it is the question this case is likely to turn on. No court has resolved it here, and FDA guidance documents are not binding law. Food-labeling cases of this kind are also routinely contested on preemption — whether federal labeling rules displace the state-law claims — and on whether a reasonable consumer would actually be misled.
What the Lawsuit Claims Kellogg Violated
The complaint pleads six counts. Three are California statutes: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. The remaining three are a count under materially similar consumer protection statutes in other states, a breach of express warranty count, and unjust enrichment.The complaint also invokes California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which adopts the federal food-labeling regulations as state law. That is the mechanism the case uses to reach the FDA rules at all: the complaint states expressly that the plaintiff does not seek to enforce the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act directly, because private parties generally cannot, and instead pleads state claims that borrow the federal labeling standards.
One procedural detail is worth noting. Under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, a consumer must send the defendant a notice letter and wait 30 days before seeking damages. The complaint says that letter was mailed August 22, 2026, and that the plaintiff is presently seeking only injunctive relief under the CLRA, reserving the right to add damages later.
Who Would Be Covered
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought the named cereals for personal use, along with a multi-state consumer protection subclass, a multi-state warranty subclass, and a California subclass. It estimates the class numbers at least in the thousands and asserts more than $5 million in aggregate claims, the threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.No class has been certified, which means no court has decided whether the case can proceed on behalf of anyone other than the named plaintiff. Proposed class definitions also frequently change as a case develops, and the complaint reserves the right to amend them.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the proposed classes, to declare the labeling unlawful, and to order Kellogg to stop using the “zero added sugar” representations and to make disclosures correcting them. On the money side it seeks damages under the counts that allow them, restitution, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. As with any newly filed complaint, these are requests rather than awards — nothing has been ordered and no money is available.What Happens Next?
The case is at its earliest stage. Kellogg waived formal service in late August, which under the docket set its response deadline at October 26, 2026. The case has been assigned to a district judge and a magistrate judge, and the court entered its standing order for civil cases on September 10, 2026.The likely next step is a response from Kellogg, which in food-labeling cases is commonly a motion to dismiss rather than an answer. If the case survives that stage, the parties would exchange evidence in discovery before any class-certification decision. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed, or settled before any payout, and there is no guarantee this one results in a settlement or a recovery.
The case sits inside a broader wave of food and beverage suits challenging nutrition and label claims, alongside actions like the Chobani “20G Protein” serving-size lawsuits, the Knorr “no artificial flavors” lawsuit, and the Royo keto bread calorie-labeling lawsuit.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
No. There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund. Consumers do not need to save receipts, keep boxes, or contact the court. If the case ever advances to a settlement or judgment, class members would be notified about how to participate.Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Special K settlement or claim form?No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline, and there is no guarantee the case ever produces a payment.
What does the Special K lawsuit allege?
That WK Kellogg Co markets certain Special K cereals as containing zero added sugar while adding allulose syrup, which the complaint describes as a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar. The labels disclose 4 grams of allulose per serving on the Strawberry Crème cereals and 3 grams on the Cinnamon cereal. These are unproven allegations, and Kellogg has not been found liable.
Which Special K cereals are named in the lawsuit?
Three: Special K Plus Strawberry Crème High Protein Zero Added Sugar Cereal in 6.6-ounce and 8.1-ounce boxes, and Special K Zero Cinnamon Breakfast Cereal in a 7.7-ounce box. Other Special K varieties are not part of the case.
Is allulose a sugar?
It is disputed, and that dispute is the center of the case. Allulose is chemically a monosaccharide, and the complaint argues that makes it a sugar under the federal labeling definition. Separately, FDA guidance issued in 2019 and finalized in 2020 tells manufacturers they may exclude allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines of the Nutrition Facts panel. No court has resolved how those two points fit together.
Who would be covered if a class is certified?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people who bought the named cereals for personal use, plus multi-state consumer protection and warranty subclasses and a California subclass. No class has been certified, so no one is covered yet.
Do I need to save my Special K boxes or receipts?
Nothing is required right now because there is no claim process. If the case ever reaches a settlement or judgment, a court-approved notice would explain what, if anything, class members need to provide.
Class Action Complaint (PDF)
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Bender-Long v. WK Kellogg Co, No. 2:26-cv-09438 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 24, 2026) — complaint PDF• Public docket, Ari Bender-Long v. WK Kellogg Co, No. 2:26-cv-09438 (C.D. Cal.) — docket on CourtListener
• FDA, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels,” 81 Fed. Reg. 33,742 (May 27, 2016)
• FDA, “The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (Guidance for Industry, final, October 2020)
• 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9, 101.13 and 101.60 (nutrient content claims and sugar declarations)
• California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 109875 et seq.
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Bender-Long v. WK Kellogg Co, No. 2:26-cv-09438 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm, the plaintiff’s counsel, WK Kellogg Co, or a party to this case. The allegations in the complaint have not been proven in court. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
Bender-Long v. WK Kellogg Co
Case Number
2:26-cv-09438-CV-E
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
August 24, 2026
Defendant
WK Kellogg Co
Products
Special K Plus Strawberry Crème High Protein 6.6 oz & 8.1 oz · Special K Zero Cinnamon 7.7 oz
Claims
Cal. CLRA · UCL · FAL · multi-state consumer protection statutes · express warranty · unjust enrichment
Response Due
October 26, 2026 (service waived)
Class Status
Not yet certified — early stage
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
