Published
September 15, 2026
California shoppers who bought Monin “Sugar Free” syrups may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Monin, Inc. markets 17 products as free of sugar while sweetening them with allulose, 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. Monin, 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?
Monin, Inc., the Florida company behind the flavoring syrups sold to coffee shops, bars and home kitchens, is facing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the “Sugar Free” labeling on 17 of its products. The case, De La Paz v. Monin, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10024, was filed September 8, 2026. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that Monin prints “Sugar Free” in three separate places on the front label of each product, and that the syrups are nonetheless sweetened with allulose. The named plaintiff alleges that allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar under the federal labeling definition, so a bottle sweetened with it cannot honestly be called free of sugar. Monin has not yet responded in court, and none of this has been proven.
The complaint does not allege that the syrups are unsafe or contaminated, and it does not dispute that allulose behaves differently in the body than table sugar. It raises a labeling claim: that a front-panel promise of no sugar is false where the product is sweetened with an ingredient 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 September 8, 2026 in the C.D. Cal. · allegations only · no settlement
What’s Alleged
“Sugar Free” Labels on Syrups Sweetened With Allulose
the complaint says allulose is a monosaccharide, and that federal rules count monosaccharides as sugars
Products
17 Monin Sugar Free Syrups and Sweetener
Vanilla · French Vanilla · Caramel · Chocolate · White Chocolate · fruit flavors · Sugar Free Sweetener
Who It Covers
California Purchasers Only
the complaint proposes a California class and a California consumer subclass, not a nationwide class
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
The 17 Products the Complaint Names
The case covers Monin’s Sugar Free line rather than the brand as a whole. Sixteen are syrups and one is a sweetener:- Sugar Free Vanilla Syrup
- Sugar Free French Vanilla Syrup
- Sugar Free Caramel Syrup
- Sugar Free Chocolate Syrup
- Sugar Free White Chocolate Syrup
- Sugar Free Raspberry Syrup
- Sugar Free Blue Raspberry Syrup
- Sugar Free Blackberry Syrup
- Sugar Free Strawberry Syrup
- Sugar Free Peach Syrup
- Sugar Free Mango Syrup
- Sugar Free Pomegranate Syrup
- Sugar Free Coconut Syrup
- Sugar Free Lavender Syrup
- Sugar Free Almond (Orgeat) Syrup
- Sugar Free Triple Sec Syrup
- Sugar Free Sweetener
Monin products that do not carry a Sugar Free label are outside the case. The named plaintiff bought one of them — the French Vanilla syrup — online in or around July 2024 while living in California, which is the purchase the complaint uses to establish venue in that district.
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 and differs only 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 (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose),” and argues that a free monosaccharide added as a sweetener falls squarely inside that definition. It also cites the FDA’s 2016 Nutrition Facts rulemaking, in which the agency declined to exclude allulose and stated that allulose, as a monosaccharide, had to be included in the carbohydrate and sugars declarations pending any later rulemaking.
The complaint adds a second argument alongside the chemistry: that allulose also functions as a sugar, supplying bulk, mouthfeel, solubility and browning the way conventional sugars do, and that food makers use it as a partial replacement for sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. That is the plaintiff’s characterization, not a finding.
What the Federal “Sugar Free” Rule Actually Requires
This case turns on a narrower rule than the “no added sugar” cases that have been filed against breakfast cereals and other packaged foods. A claim that a food is “sugar free” is a nutrient content claim under 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b), and § 101.60(c)(1) sets two conditions that both have to be met.The first is quantitative: the food has to contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars, as sugars are defined in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), per serving. The complaint alleges on information and belief that Monin did not count allulose when measuring against that threshold, and that the syrups exceed it once the allulose is counted.
The second is a disclosure condition: if the food contains an ingredient that is a sugar, or one consumers generally understand to contain sugar, the ingredient statement has to carry an asterisk pointing to a line saying it “adds a trivial amount of sugar,” or a negligible or dietarily insignificant amount. The complaint alleges allulose is listed as an ingredient in each product with no such asterisk or footnote. It also argues that the disclosure route would not rescue the labels anyway, because the two conditions are conjunctive — the footnote is only available to a product that already clears the 0.5-gram line.
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 October 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.The complaint meets that head-on rather than ignoring it. It argues the guidance announced only that the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion over the Nutrition Facts declaration, that a statement of enforcement policy is not an interpretation of the underlying definition, and that the agency never carried out the rulemaking it said the change would require — so the 2016 definition still stands. It also stresses that § 101.13(c) treats the Nutrition Facts panel and a nutrient content claim elsewhere on the package as two different things, which is how the case aims at the front label while conceding what the panel may lawfully say.
Whether an ingredient a manufacturer may lawfully leave out of the Total Sugars line can still defeat a front-panel “sugar free” claim is an open question, and it is the question this case is likely to turn on. No court has resolved it, 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 Monin Violated
The complaint pleads seven counts, all under California law. Three are consumer protection statutes: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law. The other four are breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code § 2313, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under § 2314, unjust enrichment pleaded as quasi-contract and restitution, and common law fraud.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. Under that borrowed standard the complaint calls the products misbranded and their sale unlawful — again, as an allegation, not a ruling.
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 on or around September 8, 2026, the day the case was filed, and that the plaintiff will amend to add CLRA damages if Monin does not resolve the issues within that window.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed classes are limited to California, which sets this case apart from several other food label suits filed this year. The complaint proposes a California class of state residents who bought the products within the limitations period, and a California consumer subclass of those who bought them for personal, family or household purposes. It estimates there are likely tens of thousands of class members 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 or add subclasses.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the proposed classes, to declare the labeling unlawful, and to order Monin to stop making the “Sugar Free” representations. On the money side it seeks restitution and disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, nominal, punitive and statutory damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, with a jury demanded on every issue triable to one. 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. The public docket shows the complaint, a civil cover sheet, a request for the clerk to issue a summons and a notice of interested parties, all filed September 8, 2026, along with the declaration of venue the CLRA requires. Monin had not appeared or responded as of publication, and no response deadline had been set on the public docket.The likely next step is service on Monin followed by a response, 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.
Monin is the second company sued over allulose in less than a month. In August a similar complaint was filed in the same courthouse over the Special K “zero added sugar” cereals, and the two cases raise the same underlying question about what the FDA’s allulose guidance does and does not permit. They sit inside a broader wave of food and beverage suits challenging nutrition and label claims, alongside actions like the Chobani “20G Protein” serving-size lawsuits 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 bottles, 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 Monin 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 Monin lawsuit allege?
That Monin, Inc. labels 17 products “Sugar Free” while sweetening them with allulose, which the complaint describes as a monosaccharide and therefore a sugar. It also alleges the labels do not meet the two conditions the federal sugar free rule imposes. These are unproven allegations, and Monin has not been found liable.
Which Monin products are named in the lawsuit?
Seventeen: the Sugar Free Vanilla, Caramel, French Vanilla, White Chocolate, Chocolate, Raspberry, Blackberry, Peach, Mango, Strawberry, Triple Sec, Almond (Orgeat), Pomegranate, Blue Raspberry, Lavender and Coconut syrups, plus Monin Sugar Free Sweetener. Monin products that do not carry a Sugar Free label 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?
Only California purchasers. The complaint proposes a California class of residents who bought the products, and a California consumer subclass of those who bought them for personal, family or household use. Unlike some other label cases, it does not propose a nationwide class. No class has been certified, so no one is covered yet.
Do I need to save my Monin bottles 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.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, De La Paz v. Monin, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10024 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 8, 2026)• Public docket, De La Paz v. Monin, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10024 (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 De La Paz v. Monin, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10024 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm, the plaintiff’s counsel, Monin, Inc., 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
De La Paz v. Monin, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-10024
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
September 8, 2026
Defendant
Monin, Inc.
Products
17 Monin Sugar Free products — 16 syrups plus Sugar Free Sweetener
Claims
Cal. CLRA · FAL · UCL · express warranty · implied warranty · unjust enrichment · common law fraud
Proposed Class
California residents who bought the products, plus a California consumer subclass
Class Status
Not yet certified — early stage
