Published
October 12, 2026
Buyers of N!CK’S light ice cream may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc. labels 16 flavors “no added sugar” while adding 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. Luthman Backlund Foods USA 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?
Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc., the company behind the N!CK’S brand, faces a proposed class action over the “no added sugar” label on N!CK’S light ice cream. The case, Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03137, was filed September 11, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. It is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement: there is no fund, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that 16 flavors of N!CK’S light ice cream say “no added sugar” on the front of the pint even though allulose is added to each one during processing, and that allulose is a sugar both chemically and under federal labeling rules. The named plaintiff, a San Joaquin County, California resident, says he bought N!CK’S Triple Chocolate Brownie light ice cream in or around January 2026 and would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained added sugar. The company has not been found liable, and none of the allegations have been proven.
The complaint does not claim the ice cream is unsafe. It is a labeling case about what “no added sugar” may mean on a food package. The plaintiff is represented by Shamis & Gentile, P.A. and Edelsberg Law, P.A.
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 11, 2026 · E.D. Cal. · allegations only · no class certified
What’s Alleged
“No Added Sugar” Pints Made With Added Allulose
the complaint puts allulose at 6.3 to 7.7 grams per serving, or 19 to 23 grams per pint, depending on flavor
Products
16 N!CK’S Light Ice Cream Flavors
proposed nationwide and California classes · N!CK’S protein, nut and candy bars are not named
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no claim form
What the N!CK’S Pints Say, According to the Complaint
The complaint names 16 flavors: Strawberry Swirl, Vanilla Bean, Brownie Cookie Dough, Mint Chocolate Chip, Peanut Butter Cup, Coffee Chocolate Chip, Cherry Chocolate, Peanut Caramel Crunch, Cookies & Cream, Birthday Cake, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Chocolate, Sea Salt Caramel, Mango Strawberry, Cheesecake Brownie and Triple Chocolate Brownie. According to the complaint, the N!CK’S brand also sells protein bars, nut bars and candy bars, but only the light ice cream flavors are part of this case.Each pint, the complaint alleges, carries “no added sugar” on the front label. The example pictured in the complaint, Triple Chocolate Brownie, pairs the phrase with “100% pleasure” and a calories-per-pint figure. The complaint then points to the back panel, which it says states how many grams of allulose the pint contains. On the pictured label, net carbohydrates per pint are worked out by subtracting 22 grams of allulose, along with fiber and sugar alcohol, from total carbohydrates.
By the complaint’s count, the allulose ranges from 6.3 to 7.7 grams per serving, or 19 to 23 grams per pint, depending on the flavor. Brownie Cookie Dough is listed at the top of that range, and Mint Chocolate Chip, Coffee Chocolate Chip, Birthday Cake and Mango Strawberry at the bottom. The complaint describes allulose as a bulk sweetener that the company adds during processing in place of conventional sugar.
Is Allulose a Sugar? The Question the Case Turns On
Allulose is a monosaccharide. It has the same molecular formula as fructose and differs from it only in the position of one hydroxyl group. The complaint argues that this chemistry places allulose inside the federal definition of sugars in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which counts all free mono- and disaccharides, and adds that allulose also behaves like sugar in food by supplying bulk, mouthfeel, solubility and browning.The labeling rule at the center of the complaint is 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2). It permits “no added sugar” and similar wording only when, among other conditions, no sugars as defined in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) are added during processing or packaging. The complaint’s argument follows from there: if allulose is a sugar under that definition and is added to every flavor, the phrase is not allowed on these pints. It also argues that a “no added sugar” statement placed outside the Nutrition Facts panel is a nutrient content claim with its own requirements under 21 C.F.R. § 101.13.
The other side of the question is the FDA’s October 2020 guidance on allulose. In it, 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, reasoning that allulose is not metabolized the way other sugars are. That guidance is the likely starting point for any defense. The complaint addresses it directly: it says the guidance announced only an enforcement policy rather than a new reading of the sugar definition, that the FDA has not since undertaken the rulemaking the guidance referred to, and that the agency’s 2016 Nutrition Facts rule said allulose, as a monosaccharide, had to be counted as a sugar pending any future rulemaking.
One appeals court has addressed the definition. On July 27, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation and that the FDA guidance does not override the regulation’s text. The N!CK’S complaint does not cite that ruling, and it would not bind the Eastern District of California, which sits in the Ninth Circuit. Franco also involved 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 also commonly contested on preemption and on whether a reasonable consumer would actually be misled. The complaint does not state Luthman Backlund Foods’ position, and other allulose suits filed since Franco are collected on the allulose “zero sugar” lawsuit tracker.
What the Lawsuit Claims Luthman Backlund Foods Violated
The complaint pleads seven counts. Three arise under California consumer protection statutes: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. Two are warranty counts under the California Commercial Code, one for breach of express warranty and one for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The last two are quasi-contract or unjust enrichment and common law fraud.The complaint ties these counts to California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which adopts the federal food-labeling regulations as state law. It states that the named plaintiff is not trying to enforce the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act directly and relies instead on state law that mirrors the federal rules. On that theory, the complaint alleges the pints are misbranded under California law, and that alleged violation supplies the “unlawful” prong of the Unfair Competition Law count.
The Consumers Legal Remedies Act requires written notice to a company before a consumer can seek damages under it. The complaint says that letter was mailed on or around September 9, 2026, and that the plaintiff will amend the complaint to seek damages under the statute if the company does not agree to correct the alleged problems within 30 days of receiving it. A separate warranty notice letter was sent on or around September 11, 2026, according to the complaint.
Who Would Be Covered
The complaint proposes three groups, each limited to purchases within the applicable statute of limitations period:- a nationwide class of everyone who bought any of the 16 flavors in the United States;
- a California class of California residents who bought them; and
- a California consumer subclass of California residents who bought them for personal, family or household use.
The Consumers Legal Remedies Act count is brought for the nationwide class or, in the alternative, the California consumer subclass. The False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment counts are brought for the nationwide class or, in the alternative, the California class. The warranty and fraud counts are limited to the California class. The company and its affiliates, officers, directors and employees, people who opt out, and the judges assigned to the case are excluded. The complaint estimates the classes include at least tens of thousands of people.
No class has been certified. Until a judge certifies one, the case proceeds only on behalf of the named plaintiff, and the complaint reserves the right to change the class definitions.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the proposed classes, appoint the named plaintiff and his lawyers to represent them, and declare the labeling unlawful. It seeks an order barring the challenged labeling practices, restitution and disgorgement of profits, actual and compensatory damages, nominal, punitive and statutory damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. 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. In food-labeling cases, a defendant commonly responds with a motion to dismiss rather than an answer, often arguing that federal law preempts the state-law claims or that the label would not mislead a reasonable consumer. If claims survive that stage, 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.This summary is based on the complaint as filed. Later activity in the case, including any response from Luthman Backlund Foods, is recorded 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 N!CK’S products are named in the lawsuit?
Sixteen flavors of N!CK’S light ice cream: Strawberry Swirl, Vanilla Bean, Brownie Cookie Dough, Mint Chocolate Chip, Peanut Butter Cup, Coffee Chocolate Chip, Cherry Chocolate, Peanut Caramel Crunch, Cookies & Cream, Birthday Cake, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Chocolate, Sea Salt Caramel, Mango Strawberry, Cheesecake Brownie and Triple Chocolate Brownie. The complaint says the N!CK’S brand also sells protein, nut and candy bars, but those are not part of this case.
How much allulose does the complaint say N!CK’S light ice cream contains?
Between 6.3 and 7.7 grams per serving, or 19 to 23 grams per pint, depending on the flavor. The complaint says the per-pint amount is stated on each pint’s back label. Triple Chocolate Brownie, for example, is listed at 7.3 grams per serving and 22 grams per pint.
Is allulose a sugar?
That is disputed, and it is the center of the case. Chemically, allulose is a monosaccharide, and the complaint argues that makes it a sugar under the federal labeling definition. FDA guidance from 2020 lets manufacturers leave it 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.
Is there a N!CK’S 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.
Who would be covered if a class is certified?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people who bought any of the 16 flavors in the United States, a California class of California residents who bought them, and a California subclass limited to purchases for personal, family or household use, all within the applicable statute of limitations period. No class has been certified, so no one is covered yet.
Do buyers need to keep receipts or pints?
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, Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03137 (E.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2026) — complaint PDF
- Public docket, Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03137 (E.D. Cal.) — docket on CourtListener
- 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.9(c)(6)(ii), 101.13 and 101.60(c)(2) (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, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026)
- 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 Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03137 (E.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel or Luthman Backlund Foods USA 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
Avalos v. Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-03137-JAM-CSK
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division)
Date Filed
September 11, 2026
Defendant
Luthman Backlund Foods USA Inc. (N!CK’S brand)
Products or Conduct
16 N!CK’S light ice cream flavors labeled “no added sugar” that the complaint says contain added allulose
Claims
Cal. CLRA · FAL · UCL · express warranty · implied warranty · unjust enrichment · common law fraud
Class Status
Not certified — proposed nationwide and California classes
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
