People who bought Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free drink mixes may be covered by a proposed class action alleging The LIV Group labels them “Sugar Free” and “Zero Sugar” even though each serving contains 4 or 5 grams of allulose, which the suit 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. The LIV Group, 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?
Two shoppers, one in California and one in New York, filed a proposed class action against The LIV Group, Inc., the company behind Liquid I.V., on August 12, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is Ulrich v. The LIV Group, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-08349.The complaint says Liquid I.V.’s sugar-free electrolyte drink mixes are labeled “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar” and “0 Sugar,” yet are sweetened mainly with allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is the first ingredient listed, and the products’ own labels disclose 4 or 5 grams of it per serving depending on the variant. The complaint argues that allulose is a sugar under federal and California labeling rules, so each serving holds at least eight times the 0.5-gram limit for a “sugar free” claim. The LIV Group has not responded to the claims in court, and none of them have been proven.
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.
Which Products Are Named?
The complaint covers every flavor and pack size of Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free Electrolyte Drink Mix. It lists:- Green Grape, Lemon Lime, Lychee Splash, Mandarin Orange and Mango Passion Fruit
- Rainbow Sherbet, Raspberry, Raspberry Melon, Ring Pop, Strawberry and White Peach
- Licensed and co-branded editions, such as Spider-Man Raspberry
- The Sugar-Free Energy Multiplier, plus variety packs
The Labeling Rules the Case Turns On
Under FDA rules, a food can be called “sugar free” or “zero sugar” only if it has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving. The rule defines sugars as “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides.” The complaint says allulose is a monosaccharide and notes that in 2016 the FDA said it had to be counted in the Total Sugars line.The other side of the argument comes from the FDA itself. In guidance finalized in October 2020, the agency said it would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on the Nutrition Facts panel, citing evidence that allulose is not metabolized the way other sugars are. The complaint argues that guidance covers only the panel, not a front-label “Sugar Free” claim, which has its own requirements.
The complaint also targets a statement on the label that allulose “Adds A Dietarily Insignificant Amount Of Sugar.” FDA rules allow that kind of footnote only when the food is already under the 0.5-gram limit, and the complaint says 4 grams or more per serving cannot be called insignificant.
The theory gained ground on July 27, 2026, when the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose counts as a sugar under the federal definition. That ruling binds courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. This case is in California, so it can be cited as persuasive but does not control.
Part of a Larger Wave
Liquid I.V. joins a string of brands sued in 2026 over allulose in products sold as sugar-free or without added sugar. A closely matching case targets BodyArmor Flash I.V. “Zero Sugar”, and another names CVS’s Well Market drink mix. OCA’s allulose lawsuit tracker lists every case, with courts and case numbers.Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought the products for personal use during the period allowed by law. It also proposes California and New York subclasses and two multi-state subclasses for states with similar consumer protection and warranty laws.The claims include California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, other states’ consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages, restitution and an order requiring the labels to change. It says total class claims exceed $5 million.
What Happens Next?
The LIV Group has not yet answered the complaint, and the court has not ruled on whether the claims can go forward. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form.Questions
Which Liquid I.V. products are in the lawsuit?
The complaint covers every flavor and pack size of Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free Electrolyte Drink Mix, including Green Grape, Lemon Lime, Lychee Splash, Mandarin Orange, Mango Passion Fruit, Rainbow Sherbet, Raspberry, Raspberry Melon, Ring Pop, Strawberry and White Peach, co-branded editions such as Spider-Man Raspberry, variety packs, and the Sugar-Free Energy Multiplier.
Why does the lawsuit say allulose is a sugar?
The complaint says allulose is a monosaccharide, and the federal labeling rule defines total sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides. It notes that the FDA said in 2016 that allulose had to be counted as a sugar. Separately, FDA guidance finalized in 2020 lets manufacturers leave allulose out of the sugar lines on the Nutrition Facts panel; the complaint argues a front-label “Sugar Free” claim is governed by a different rule with a 0.5-gram limit.
Who is covered by the Liquid I.V. lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people who bought the products for personal use, plus California and New York subclasses and two multi-state subclasses. No class has been certified.
Is there any money to claim from the Liquid I.V. lawsuit?
No. There is no settlement, certified class or claim form. If the case settles or a class is certified, class members would be notified of any way to take part.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint — Ulrich v. The LIV Group, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-08349 (filed August 12, 2026), via CourtListener: Complaint (PDF)• FDA, “The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (Guidance for Industry, October 2020): FDA Guidance
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60, nutrient content claims for the calorie and sugar content of foods: eCFR
