Published
September 20, 2026
Shoppers who bought Trader Joe's No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips may be covered by a proposed class action alleging the front label is false because the chips are sweetened with allulose, which federal regulations and a July 2026 Seventh Circuit ruling treat as a sugar. No class has been certified and there is nothing to claim yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Trader Joe's has not been found liable, has not responded to the complaint, 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?
On September 16, 2026, a proposed class action was filed against Trader Joe's Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, docketed as Alexander v. Trader Joe's Company, No. 1:26-cv-11329. Two Illinois shoppers allege that the front of the company's No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips promises something the bag does not deliver, because the chips are sweetened with allulose — a monosaccharide that federal labeling regulations count as a sugar.The complaint calls this "health-washing": charging a premium for a product made to look healthier than it is. The named plaintiffs say they read and relied on the "No Sugar Added" claim, would not have bought the chips or would have paid less had they known, and that the label is what made the sale.
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 16, 2026 · Trader Joe's has not responded
Product
No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips
Sold in 8 ounce bags
Money for Class Members
None yet
Damages and restitution are sought · no fund, no claim form
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to file yet
What the Label Says, and What the Complaint Says Is in the Bag
The claim at issue sits directly under the product name on the front of the package: "No Sugar Added." The Nutrition Facts panel reinforces it, declaring zero grams of Total Sugars and zero grams of Added Sugars per 30-gram serving. According to the complaint, Trader Joe's website has gone further, describing the chips as made with "sugar-free allulose" and recommending them to bakers "looking to limit their sugar intake."The ingredient statement, meanwhile, lists allulose second. Trader Joe's does not publish how much is in the bag, so the complaint estimates it: from 16 grams of total carbohydrate and 2 grams of fiber per serving, subtracting the carbohydrate attributable to the unsweetened chocolate and cocoa butter, it arrives at roughly 10 to 12 grams of allulose per serving — about a third of the product by weight. That figure is pleaded on information and belief and has not been tested in court.
The complaint also alleges that allulose can cause gastrointestinal effects including nausea, bloating, diarrhea and abdominal pain, citing a 2018 tolerance study and a Center for Science in the Public Interest submission to the FDA. Those are allegations about the ingredient rather than findings about this product.
Why the Court This Was Filed In Matters
Two months before this complaint, the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (July 27, 2026), and it is the reason this filing is more than routine. The Francos had sued over Chobani Zero Sugar Yogurt containing four grams of allulose per serving. A district judge deferred to FDA guidance that lets manufacturers leave allulose out of the Nutrition Facts panel, held the state-law claims preempted, and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed.The panel held that 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) is not ambiguous: total sugars are the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides, allulose is a monosaccharide, so allulose is a sugar. The FDA's October 2020 Allulose Guidance got no deference because it is not an interpretation of the regulation at all — it is an announcement of a change in enforcement policy, and the agency never followed it with rulemaking, so the original definition remains in force. The FDA itself filed an amicus brief agreeing the regulation's text covers allulose. Because the state claims tracked the federal standard rather than adding to it, they were not preempted.
Illinois sits in the Seventh Circuit, so that ruling is binding law in this case. The comparable allulose suits OCA is tracking against Kellogg's Special K and Monin syrups were both filed in California, inside the Ninth Circuit, where no appeals court has ruled and Franco is only persuasive. Choosing Chicago put this complaint in front of judges already bound by the decision it leans on.
The Wrinkle: "No Sugar Added" Is Not the Same Rule as "Sugar Free"
Franco concerned a "sugar free" claim, which 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) permits only when a food has less than half a gram of sugars per serving. "No sugar added" is governed by a different subsection, § 101.60(c)(2), which turns on whether sugars were added during processing and carries its own conditions. The Trader Joe's complaint cites both, and at the point where it sets out the governing standard it quotes the "sugar free" provision rather than the "no added sugar" one.The distinction may not change the outcome, because both provisions borrow the same definition of sugars from § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) — the definition Franco construed. But it is the sort of gap a motion to dismiss is built to exploit, and it is worth watching rather than assuming away.
What the Lawsuit Claims Was Violated
The complaint pleads three counts and rests them on state law rather than the federal food statute, which private plaintiffs cannot enforce directly. The federal regulations appear because Illinois has adopted them:- State consumer fraud acts for a multi-state class — Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington.
- The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., for an Illinois subclass.
- Unjust enrichment, pleaded in the alternative, seeking restitution of the revenue from the sales.
Running through all three is a misbranding theory: the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 410 ILCS 620, makes a food misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, and it automatically adopts federal food-labeling regulations as they take effect. On that route, a label that fails the federal nutrient-content rule is misbranded under Illinois law, and a misbranded food cannot lawfully be sold.
Who Would Be Covered
As pleaded, there are two proposed classes: an Illinois subclass of everyone in the state who bought the product for personal use during the period the law allows, and a multi-state class covering purchasers in the eight states listed above. Company insiders, government entities and the assigned judges are excluded, as is anyone who opts out.No class has been certified, and the plaintiffs reserve the right to redraw those definitions. A court could narrow them, split them by state, or never reach the question.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
Actual, statutory and punitive damages, restitution and other equitable relief, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and an injunction requiring Trader Joe's to stop using the "No Sugar Added" claim on the product and to correct the impression the complaint says it created. The plaintiffs have demanded a jury. The amount in controversy is pleaded as exceeding $5 million, which is what puts the case in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.A price-premium theory like this one usually produces a modest per-purchaser recovery if it produces anything — the measure is the difference between what shoppers paid and what the product was worth as sold, not the full purchase price.
Trader Joe's Has Settled a Class Action Before
This is not the company's first consumer class action, and the last one is a useful reference point for what resolution can look like. Trader Joe's paid $7.4 million to settle claims that its card receipts printed too many payment-card digits in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which worked out to an estimated $102 per class member. OCA's page on the Trader Joe's FACTA receipt settlement has the details; that claim window has closed.The comparison has limits. FACTA carries statutory damages per violation, which is why the per-person figure was as high as it was. A mislabeling case is valued on the price premium instead, so a settlement here would almost certainly pay less per buyer even if the class is far larger.
What Happens Next
Trader Joe's has not responded. The expected next step is an answer or a motion to dismiss, and in food-labeling cases that motion usually argues some combination of preemption, that no reasonable consumer would be misled, and that the Nutrition Facts panel cures any confusion. Franco has made the first of those much harder inside the Seventh Circuit and left the second squarely open — the panel there said whether reasonable consumers are actually deceived is a question of fact that cannot be answered before discovery.Nothing is required of purchasers now. There is no register to join, no claim form and no deadline. Food-labeling settlements frequently pay a small amount without proof of purchase and more with a receipt, so holding on to one costs nothing, but no one should expect a payout on any particular timeline — these cases routinely take years, and many end with no money at all.
Questions
Is there a Trader Joe's chocolate chips settlement to claim?
No. This is a complaint filed on September 16, 2026, not a settlement. There is no fund, no settlement administrator, no claim form and no deadline. If the case is ever resolved with money for purchasers, a claim process would be set up then and OCA would cover it.
Is allulose a sugar?
Under federal labeling regulations, yes. Allulose is a monosaccharide, and 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines total sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides. In July 2026 the Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani that the regulation's plain text covers allulose, and that FDA guidance letting manufacturers leave it out of the Nutrition Facts panel is an enforcement-policy statement rather than an interpretation of the rule.
Why does it matter that this case was filed in Illinois?
Illinois is in the Seventh Circuit, so Franco v. Chobani is binding law there. Similar allulose suits filed in California sit in the Ninth Circuit, where no appeals court has ruled and Franco is only persuasive. Filing in Chicago puts this complaint in front of courts already bound by the ruling it relies on.
How much allulose does the product contain?
Trader Joe's does not disclose the amount. The complaint estimates it, on information and belief, at roughly 10 to 12 grams per 30-gram serving by working backward from the declared carbohydrate, fiber and fat, which would make allulose about a third of the product by weight. That estimate has not been tested in court.
Do I need to keep my receipt or do anything now?
Nothing is required, and no claim exists to file. Food-labeling settlements often pay small amounts without proof of purchase, but many also pay more with a receipt, so keeping one costs nothing. There is no register to join and no deadline to miss at this stage.
Class Action Complaint (PDF)
Sources
- Class action complaint, Alexander v. Trader Joe's Company (PDF)
- Docket, No. 1:26-cv-11329 (N.D. Ill., filed Sept. 16, 2026)
- Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026)
- 21 C.F.R. § 101.9 — Nutrition labeling of food
- 21 C.F.R. § 101.60 — Nutrient content claims for calorie and sugar content
- FDA guidance on declaring allulose in Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint filed — allegations unproven, nothing to claim
Case Title
Alexander v. Trader Joe's Company
Case Number
1:26-cv-11329
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed
September 16, 2026
Defendant
Trader Joe's Company (Monrovia, California)
Product
No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips, 8 oz
Claims
State consumer fraud acts · Illinois ICFA, 815 ILCS 505/1 · unjust enrichment
Relief Sought
Damages, restitution, injunction, attorney's fees · jury demanded
Official Website
Case Docket
