Shoppers in Illinois and seven other states who bought Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Target labels the powder “Sugar Free” even though its first ingredient is allulose, which the suit says is 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. The statements below are unproven allegations. Target Corporation 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?
Target Corporation is facing a proposed class action over Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder, an electrolyte drink mix sold under Target’s store brand. The suit alleges the “Sugar Free” claim on the box is false because the first ingredient is allulose, a low-calorie sweetener that the complaint says is a sugar under federal food labeling rules.The case is Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870, filed October 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago and assigned to U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang. Laukaitis Law LLC filed it on behalf of a Rockford, Illinois resident who says she bought the Lemon Lime flavor at a Rockford Target store in October 2024. It is unrelated to an earlier suit with a similar caption over Target’s Up & Up ashwagandha gummies.
The case joins a wave of suits over allulose in foods and drinks sold as “zero sugar” or “sugar free.” Target has not responded in court, and the allegations are unproven.
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
According to the complaint, “Sugar Free” sits directly below the product name on the front of every box, and Target’s product page markets the powder as “Sugar Free” with a “Zero Sugar” formula while listing allulose as the first ingredient. The powder comes in single-serve packets, sold in a 2.8-ounce box of six and 9.2-ounce boxes of twenty, including a variety pack of all four flavors.The Nutrition Facts panel declares 0 grams of total sugars and 0 grams of added sugars. The complaint alleges that the label never says allulose is a sugar or how much of it a serving contains, so a shopper who checks the panel is reassured rather than warned. It does not give a per-serving allulose figure of its own.
The complaint calls the labeling “health-washing” and cites research linking allulose to gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, bloating, diarrhea and abdominal pain. The plaintiff says she relied on the “Sugar Free” claim, that the powder costs more than other hydration powders, and that she would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose.
Why a Chicago Filing Matters
Federal regulations define sugars as the sum of all free monosaccharides and disaccharides, and allulose is a monosaccharide. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), a food may be called “sugar free” only if a serving has less than 0.5 grams of sugars and contains no ingredient that is a sugar unless it is flagged with an asterisk saying it adds a trivial, negligible or dietarily insignificant amount of sugar.Allulose products can show 0 grams of sugar because of 2020 FDA guidance saying the agency would not object if manufacturers left allulose out of the sugar lines on the Nutrition Facts panel. On July 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose is nonetheless a sugar under the regulation. That ruling binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, so the judge in this case is bound by it on that question, unlike the court hearing the similar Costco Kirkland hydration mix suit in Washington state.
Franco does not decide the rest of the case. Target can still contest whether a serving contains enough allulose to break the 0.5-gram threshold, whether shoppers were misled, and whether federal law preempts the state claims. OCA’s tracker of allulose “zero sugar” lawsuits lists the other cases filed since the ruling.
Claims and Proposed Classes
The complaint pleads three claims:• violation of the consumer fraud statutes of eight states, on behalf of a multi-state class;
• violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on behalf of Illinois buyers; and
• unjust enrichment, on behalf of Illinois buyers.
It proposes an Illinois class of everyone in Illinois who bought the powder for personal use, and a multi-state class of buyers in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. A list printed beside those definitions also cites California and Florida consumer statutes, but the multi-state count itself names only the eight states, and the complaint reserves the right to change the list. It alleges more than $5 million is at stake, the threshold for a class action in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. No class has been certified.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a court order requiring Target to stop labeling, marketing and selling the powder with the “Sugar Free” claim and to make corrective disclosures. The $5 million figure is the pleaded amount in controversy, not a settlement fund or a sum anyone has been awarded.What Happens Next
The docket so far shows the complaint and civil cover sheet. Target has not yet answered or moved to dismiss. In other allulose cases, defendants have generally argued that the FDA guidance permits their labels, that federal law preempts the state-law claims, and that a shopper who sees 0 grams of sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel is not misled.There is no class, settlement, claim form or deadline. If the case is certified or settles, OCA will update this page.
Questions
Which Up & Up products are named in the Target allulose lawsuit?
The complaint covers every flavor and pack size of Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder, including Lemon Lime, White Peach, Green Grape and Grapefruit. It describes single-serve packets sold in a 2.8-ounce box of six and 9.2-ounce boxes of twenty, including a variety pack, at Target stores and on Target.com.
Is there money available from the Target Up & Up hydration lawsuit?
There is no money available at this stage. Williams v. Target Corporation is a newly filed complaint with no certified class, settlement or judgment, so there is no claim form or deadline. The complaint asks for damages and restitution for buyers, but any payment would depend on a settlement or a win at trial.
Who is included in the proposed Target hydration powder class?
The complaint proposes an Illinois class of people who bought the powder for personal use, and a multi-state class of buyers in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. Buyers in other states are not in either class as filed. No class has been certified, and the definitions can change.
Is this the same case as the Target ashwagandha gummies lawsuit?
They are separate cases with similar captions. Williams et al. v. Target Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-02534, filed April 21, 2026 in the Southern District of California, concerns the dose on Up & Up ashwagandha gummies. Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870, filed October 20, 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois, concerns allulose in Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder.
Sources
• Complaint, Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870 (N.D. Ill.) (October 20, 2026)• Williams v. Target Corporation, docket via CourtListener
• Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026), as cited in the complaint
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) (“sugar free” claims) and § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) (definition of sugars)
