People who bought Kroger’s Simple Truth Zero Sugar Maple Flavored Syrup in Illinois and seven other states may be covered by a proposed class action alleging the “Zero Sugar” label is false because the syrup’s main ingredient is allulose, 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. Its statements are unproven allegations. Kroger has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Kroger sells a store-brand Simple Truth Zero Sugar Maple Flavored Syrup whose front label says “Zero Sugar.” A proposed class action filed October 14, 2026 alleges that claim is false because the syrup’s first and predominant ingredient is allulose, a sweetener the complaint says counts as a sugar under federal and Illinois food labeling rules. The case is Newton v. The Kroger Co., No. 1:26-cv-12573, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, assigned to Judge John F. Kness.The plaintiff, an Illinois shopper, says he bought the syrup on October 2, 2026 and relied on the “Zero Sugar” claim. Kroger has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to 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.
What the Complaint Alleges
The complaint says the syrup’s front label reads “Zero Sugar,” its Nutrition Facts panel shows 0 grams of sugar and 0 grams of added sugars, and Kroger’s website describes it the same way. It alleges the label also discloses 22 grams of allulose per serving, and that allulose is listed first among the ingredients.Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), a food may be called “sugar free,” “no sugar” or a similar term only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, measured using the definition of sugars in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii): “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides.” The complaint argues that allulose is a monosaccharide, so 22 grams of it puts the syrup far over that limit, making the product misbranded under federal law and under the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which adopts the federal rules. It also alleges that health-conscious buyers, including people limiting sugar for diabetes or other conditions, paid a premium for the claim.
These are allegations. Kroger had not filed a response as of the docket’s last update on October 15, 2026.
Why the Chicago Court Matters
The FDA said in 2020 guidance that it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines of the Nutrition Facts panel, because the body largely does not metabolize it. That guidance is the main reason many “zero sugar” products sweetened with allulose show 0 grams of sugar.On July 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087, that allulose is a sugar under the federal definition and that the FDA’s guidance announces an enforcement policy rather than changing the rule. The Northern District of Illinois is in the Seventh Circuit, so that holding binds the judge in this case. Kroger can still argue other defenses common in food-labeling cases, such as that a reasonable consumer would not be misled or that the buyers suffered no loss. OCA tracks the other suits filed since Franco on its allulose lawsuit tracker.
Who Would Be Covered
The complaint proposes two classes, each covering purchases for personal use during the longest period the law allows:- Illinois Class: everyone in Illinois who bought the syrup.
- Multi-State Consumer Protection Class: buyers in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint pleads three counts: violations of the consumer fraud laws of the eight states in the multi-state class, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. It asks for actual, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and interest, and a jury trial. Counsel for the plaintiff is Laukaitis Law LLC.What Happens Next?
Kroger must answer or move to dismiss once it is served. In other allulose cases, defendants have argued that federal law preempts the state-law claims and that the FDA’s guidance permits their labels; in the Seventh Circuit, Franco limits how far those arguments can go. If the case survives, it would move to discovery and then class certification, which typically takes a year or more. OCA will update this page when the docket changes.Questions
What is the Kroger Simple Truth syrup lawsuit about?
A proposed class action filed October 14, 2026 in federal court in Chicago, Newton v. The Kroger Co., alleges that Kroger’s Simple Truth Zero Sugar Maple Flavored Syrup is labeled “Zero Sugar” and “0g Added Sugar” even though its first and main ingredient is allulose, which the complaint says is a sugar under federal and Illinois labeling rules. Kroger has not responded in court, and the allegations are unproven.
How much allulose is in the Simple Truth syrup?
According to the complaint, the label lists 22 grams of allulose per serving. Federal rules allow a “sugar free” or “zero sugar” claim only when a food has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, which is why the complaint argues the claim is unlawful if allulose counts as a sugar.
Who would be covered by the Kroger allulose lawsuit?
The complaint proposes an Illinois class of people who bought the syrup for personal use, and a multi-state class of buyers in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington, each during the longest period the law allows. No class has been certified.
Why does it matter that the case was filed in Illinois?
Federal courts in Illinois sit in the Seventh Circuit, which held in Franco v. Chobani on July 27, 2026 that allulose is a sugar under the federal definition. That ruling binds the trial court in this case, though Kroger can still contest other issues, such as whether reasonable consumers were misled and whether the buyers were harmed.
Is there a Kroger Simple Truth syrup settlement?
No. The case was filed in October 2026, Kroger had not answered as of the docket’s last update, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.
The Complaint
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Newton v. The Kroger Co., No. 1:26-cv-12573 (N.D. Ill., filed October 14, 2026)• Court docket, Newton v. The Kroger Co. (N.D. Ill.)
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026)
• 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii), 101.13(b) and 101.60(c)(1)
