Published
July 9, 2026
The label says "Sweetened with Splenda." A new lawsuit says the fine print tells a different story — and that the sweetener doing most of the work is a sugar alcohol, not Splenda.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The J.M. Smucker Company 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?
The J.M. Smucker Company is facing a proposed class action over how it markets its Sugar Free Hot Fudge topping. The suit, Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 1:26-cv-04012, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 14, 2026. At issue is the front-of-jar claim "Sweetened with Splenda." According to the complaint, that label is misleading because the product is actually sweetened primarily with sugar alcohols — maltitol syrup, glycerin, and sorbitol — while sucralose, the sweetener sold as Splenda, is listed last on the ingredient panel, meaning it is present in the smallest amount.The case is at its earliest stage. The allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement and nothing to claim. Smucker has not responded to the complaint on the merits.
Status
Complaint Filed
Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co. · E.D.N.Y. · filed May 14, 2026
Product
Smucker's Sugar Free Hot Fudge Topping
Front label: "Sweetened with Splenda"
The Allegation
Mostly sweetened with maltitol, glycerin & sorbitol
Sucralose (Splenda) is reportedly the last-listed ingredient
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form
The "Sweetened With Splenda" Claim
The complaint's theory is about what a front label implies versus what the ingredient list shows. "Sweetened with Splenda," the plaintiff alleges, signals to shoppers that sucralose — a zero-calorie sweetener that does not raise blood sugar — is what makes the topping sweet. But the ingredient panel reportedly lists maltitol syrup, glycerin, and sorbitol as the first sweetening ingredients, with sucralose last. The complaint alleges those sugar alcohols are less desirable than the label implies: that maltitol and sorbitol are not calorie-free, that maltitol can raise blood sugar, and that sugar alcohols can cause digestive effects such as bloating or discomfort, with glycerin flagged as a concern in larger amounts. Those characterizations are the plaintiff's allegations drawn from the complaint, not established facts or medical advice.The alleged injury is economic: the plaintiff says he paid a premium for a product he understood to be Splenda-sweetened and would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had the label reflected the sugar-alcohol formulation. That "price premium" theory is the standard engine of food-labeling class actions.
The Claims
The suit brings claims under New York's consumer-protection statutes — General Business Law sections 349 (deceptive acts and practices) and 350 (false advertising) — along with breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. It seeks class certification, damages measured as the purchase price or the difference in value between the product as labeled and as sold, restitution, and attorneys' fees. Whether "Sweetened with Splenda" is misleading to a reasonable consumer, given the full ingredient list, is exactly the question a court will have to weigh; nothing has been decided.Part of a Bigger Wave
Food and beverage labeling suits like this are a steady feature of consumer litigation, usually turning on a gap between a prominent front-label claim and the details on the back. For other examples OCA has covered, see the Hawaiian Host macadamia nut labeling case and the "hypoallergenic" personal-care suits like the Dove Sensitive body wash class action. Each rises or falls on its own label and its own facts.Is There Anything to Claim?
No. A recently filed complaint is the beginning of a case. There is no certified class, no settlement, no fund, and no claim form, and no deadline to worry about. If the case were to settle later, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to file. For now, there is nothing to claim.This page is informational and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Smucker's hot fudge lawsuit about?
Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 1:26-cv-04012 (E.D.N.Y.), alleges Smucker's Sugar Free Hot Fudge is labeled "Sweetened with Splenda" but is actually sweetened mainly with sugar alcohols (maltitol, glycerin, sorbitol), with sucralose listed last. The allegations are unproven.What does the complaint say is misleading?
That the "Sweetened with Splenda" front label leads shoppers to think the product is sweetened mainly with sucralose, when the ingredient list reportedly shows sugar alcohols first and sucralose last. It alleges the sugar alcohols are less desirable and seeks a refund or price difference. These are allegations.Is there a settlement or money to claim?
No. The case was filed in May 2026 and is at the complaint stage. There is no certified class, settlement, fund, claim form, or deadline. Nothing to claim.Who is the defendant?
The J.M. Smucker Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.Sources
• Law360 — "Smucker's Misleads About Splenda In Fudge, Consumer Says"• Mealey's / LexisNexis — Consumer Sues Smucker Over Sugar Free Hot Fudge Ingredients
• Simpson Thacher, The Ad Standard (June 2026) — docket cite for Mercado v. Smucker
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.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint filed — no class certified, no settlement
Case Title
Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co.
Case Number
1:26-cv-04012
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Date Filed
May 14, 2026
Product
Smucker's Sugar Free Hot Fudge Topping ("Sweetened with Splenda")
Official Website
Law360 — Case Coverage
