Published
October 12, 2026
California buyers of Keto Pint ice cream and ice cream bars may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Upstar Nutrition, Inc. labels them “Zero Added Sugar” while sweetening them with 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. Upstar 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?
Upstar Nutrition, Inc., which does business as Keto Foods and sells the Keto Pint brand, faces a proposed class action over the “Zero Added Sugar” claim on Keto Pint ice cream and ice cream bars. The case, Savage v. Upstar Nutrition, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02684, was filed September 18, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. It is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement: there is no fund, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that every Keto Pint product in the case carries “Zero Added Sugar” on the front label even though the company adds allulose as a bulk sweetener, and that allulose is a sugar under federal labeling rules. The named plaintiff, a resident of Orange County, California, says she bought Keto Pint Mint Chip ice cream at a grocery store in Laguna Woods on or about August 17, 2026, after reading the “Zero Added Sugar” claim, and would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had she known otherwise. Upstar Nutrition has not been found liable, and none of the allegations have been proven.
The complaint does not claim the products are unsafe. It is a labeling case about what “Zero Added Sugar” may mean on a food package, and the proposed class is limited to buyers in California. The plaintiff is represented by Charles C. Weller, APC.
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 September 18, 2026 · C.D. Cal. · allegations only · no class certified
What’s Alleged
“Zero Added Sugar” Labels on Ice Cream Sweetened With Allulose
the complaint cites 7 grams of allulose per serving of Mint Chip and 3 grams per Vanilla Almond bar
Products and Who
9 Keto Pint Ice Creams · 8 Ice Cream Bars
proposed class limited to consumers in California who bought them in the four years before filing
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no claim form
What the Keto Pint Labels Say, According to the Complaint
The complaint covers nine Keto Pint ice cream flavors: Mint Chip, Strawberry, Triple Chocolate Brownie, Peanut Butter Caramel, Salted Caramel, Butter Pecan, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Vanilla Bean and Coffee. It also covers eight Keto Pint ice cream bars: Triple Chocolate Crunch, Mint Crunch, Vanilla Almond, Peanut Butter Caramel, Butter Pecan, Salted Caramel Almond, Strawberry and Coffee Almond. Every size and package configuration is included, along with any other Keto Pint product sweetened with allulose and labeled “Zero Added Sugar,” and the complaint reserves the right to add products later.According to the complaint, each of these products says “Zero Added Sugar” on the front label, and each lists allulose as its third or fourth most common ingredient by weight. The complaint alleges that the Nutrition Facts panels report zero grams of Added Sugars and leave the allulose out of Total Sugars. It gives two examples of the amounts disclosed on the packaging: 7 grams of allulose per serving of the Mint Chip ice cream the named plaintiff bought, and 3 grams in each Vanilla Almond bar.
The complaint describes allulose as a naturally occurring sugar found in foods such as figs, raisins, maple syrup and brown sugar, with about 70 percent of the sweetness of table sugar. Because it is less sweet than high-intensity sweeteners like sucralose or aspartame, the complaint says, it has to be used by the gram as a bulk sweetener. The products are sold online and through retailers including Walmart, Whole Foods, Safeway, Harris Teeter and Ralphs, according to the complaint.
Is Allulose a Sugar? The Question the Case Turns On
The complaint’s argument starts with the federal definition of sugars in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which counts all free mono- and disaccharides. Allulose is a monosaccharide, so the complaint contends it falls inside that definition. The labeling rule it relies on is 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2)(i), which allows “no added sugar” and similar wording only if no sugars as so defined, and no ingredient containing sugars that stand in for added sugars, are added during processing or packaging. On the complaint’s reading, the rule has no exception for small amounts, so adding several grams of allulose rules out a “Zero Added Sugar” claim. The complaint ties this to California law through the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which adopts the federal labeling rules.The likely response begins with the FDA’s October 2020 guidance on allulose, in which the agency said it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars figures on the Nutrition Facts panel. That guidance is consistent with the zero-gram figures the complaint says appear on the Keto Pint panels. The complaint anticipates the point. It says the guidance only announced enforcement discretion pending future rulemaking, did not change the definition of sugars, and did not address front-of-package claims. For that position it quotes an amicus brief the federal government filed in June 2026 in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, and the FDA’s 2016 Nutrition Facts rule, which said allulose had to be counted as a sugar pending any later rulemaking.
In Franco, decided in July 2026, the Seventh Circuit held that the federal definition of sugars includes allulose and that the 2020 guidance did not change it, reviving a suit over yogurt labeled “Zero Sugar.” The Keto Pint complaint cites that decision, including its holding that the state-law claims there were not preempted. The ruling does not bind the Central District of California, which sits in the Ninth Circuit, and it addressed a zero-sugar claim rather than a “no added sugar” claim, which has its own conditions under § 101.60(c)(2). Food-labeling suits of this kind are commonly contested on preemption and on whether a reasonable consumer would actually be misled. Upstar Nutrition has not yet stated a position in court. A related suit over N!CK’S light ice cream raises the same question; it and other allulose cases are collected on the allulose “zero sugar” lawsuit tracker, and the N!CK’S case is summarized in the N!CK’S light ice cream lawsuit overview.
What the Lawsuit Claims Upstar Nutrition Violated
The complaint pleads seven counts, all under California law. One is under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Three are under the Unfair Competition Law, one each for its “unfair,” “fraudulent” and “unlawful” prongs. The others are under the False Advertising Law, for breach of express warranty under the California Commercial Code, and for unjust enrichment.The “unlawful” count rests on the Sherman Law. The complaint alleges the labels violate its provisions adopting the federal labeling regulations, barring false or misleading labeling, limiting nutrient content claims to those the federal rules allow, and prohibiting misbranding. It also alleges that Upstar Nutrition was able to charge a price premium because of the “Zero Added Sugar” claim.
The Consumers Legal Remedies Act requires written notice to a company before a consumer can seek damages under it. The complaint says that notice would be sent at the same time the complaint was filed, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act count as filed asks for an injunction and attorneys’ fees rather than money damages.
Who Would Be Covered — California Buyers Only
The complaint proposes one class: all consumers in the state of California who bought the Keto Pint products within the four years before the original complaint was filed on September 18, 2026. There is no nationwide class and no subclass. Buyers in other states are not part of the proposed class.Upstar Nutrition and its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents and directors are excluded, as are the judicial officers assigned to the case, their immediate families and their staff. The complaint estimates the class includes thousands of people across California, and it reserves the right to change the class definition or add subclasses.
No class has been certified. Until a judge certifies one, the case proceeds only on behalf of the named plaintiff.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the class and to declare that Upstar Nutrition violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law, breached an express warranty and was unjustly enriched. It seeks restitution or disgorgement in an amount to be proven at trial, an order barring the challenged labeling, a corrective advertising campaign, attorneys’ fees and costs, and interest. It also demands a jury trial. These are requests, not awards: nothing has been ordered and no money is available.What Happens Next?
The case is at its earliest stage. On September 25, 2026, it was assigned to U.S. District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, the clerk issued a summons to Upstar Nutrition, and the court sent the parties notice of its court-directed alternative dispute resolution program. The court issued its initial order on September 29. As of October 12, 2026, the docket showed no proof of service and no response from Upstar Nutrition.In food-labeling cases, a defendant commonly responds with a motion to dismiss, often arguing that federal law preempts the state-law claims or that the label would not mislead a reasonable consumer. If claims survive, the parties exchange evidence in discovery before the court decides whether to certify a class. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed or settled without a payout, and there is no guarantee this one leads to a settlement or a recovery. Later filings appear on the court docket listed in the Sources below.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
Nothing is required at this stage. There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund, and no court has decided who, if anyone, belongs to a class. If the case settles or ends in a judgment for a certified class, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to take part.Questions
Which Keto Pint products are named in the lawsuit?
Nine Keto Pint ice cream flavors (Mint Chip, Strawberry, Triple Chocolate Brownie, Peanut Butter Caramel, Salted Caramel, Butter Pecan, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Vanilla Bean and Coffee) and eight Keto Pint ice cream bars (Triple Chocolate Crunch, Mint Crunch, Vanilla Almond, Peanut Butter Caramel, Butter Pecan, Salted Caramel Almond, Strawberry and Coffee Almond), in all sizes and package configurations. The complaint also reaches any other Keto Pint product sweetened with allulose and labeled “Zero Added Sugar.”
How much allulose does the complaint say Keto Pint products contain?
The complaint gives two examples taken from the labels: 7 grams of allulose per serving of Mint Chip ice cream and 3 grams per Vanilla Almond bar. It says allulose is the third or fourth most common ingredient by weight in every product, but it does not list an amount for each flavor.
Is allulose a sugar?
That is the disputed question in the case. Chemically, allulose is a monosaccharide, and the complaint argues that places it inside the federal labeling definition of sugars. FDA guidance from 2020 lets manufacturers leave allulose out of the sugar lines on the Nutrition Facts panel. In July 2026 the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani that allulose is a sugar under the regulation, but that ruling does not bind federal courts in California, which sit in the Ninth Circuit.
Who would be covered if a class is certified?
The complaint proposes a single class of consumers in California who bought the Keto Pint products within the four years before the complaint was filed on September 18, 2026. Buyers outside California are not part of the proposed class. No class has been certified, so no one is covered yet.
Is there a Keto Pint settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, administrator, claim form or deadline, and there is no guarantee the case produces any payment.
Do buyers need receipts or packaging at this stage?
Nothing is required at this stage because there is no claim process. If the case settles, a court-approved notice would explain what, if anything, class members would need to provide.
Sources
- Class Action Complaint, Savage v. Upstar Nutrition, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02684 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 18, 2026) — complaint PDF
- Public docket, Savage v. Upstar Nutrition, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02684 (C.D. Cal.) — docket on CourtListener
- 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii)–(iii), 101.13 and 101.60(c) (sugar declarations and nutrient content claims)
- 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” (October 2020)
- Franco v. Chobani, LLC, 184 F.4th 599 (7th Cir. 2026), as cited in the complaint
- California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 110100, 110660, 110670 and 110765
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Savage v. Upstar Nutrition, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02684 (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 Upstar 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 — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
Savage v. Upstar Nutrition, Inc.
Case Number
8:26-cv-02684
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Southern Division)
Date Filed
September 18, 2026
Defendant
Upstar Nutrition, Inc. dba Keto Foods (Keto Pint brand)
Products or Conduct
9 Keto Pint ice creams and 8 ice cream bars labeled “Zero Added Sugar” that the complaint says are sweetened with added allulose
Claims
Cal. CLRA · UCL (unfair, fraudulent, unlawful) · FAL · express warranty · unjust enrichment
Class Status
Not certified — proposed California-only class
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
