A California consumer sued the company behind Liquid Death on August 24, 2026, alleging that its Sparkling Energy cans carry a "0g Sugar" claim on the front panel while allulose, a monosaccharide, sits second on the ingredient list. The complaint arrives four weeks after a federal appeals court held that allulose is a sugar under the governing regulation.

The 45-page class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and docketed as case 3:26-cv-08839-AGT. Plaintiff James Williamson, a California citizen, is represented by Malk & Pogo Law Group, LLP, of Valley Village, California, with Valter Malkhasyan and Erik Pogosyan named as counsel for the plaintiff and the proposed class. The defendant is Supplying Demand, Inc., the California corporation that trades as Liquid Death and is headquartered in Los Angeles.

Five counts follow: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law under Business and Professions Code section 17200, false and misleading advertising under section 17500, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act under Civil Code section 1750, breach of express warranty, and restitution based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment. A jury trial is demanded. Jurisdiction is pleaded under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, on the basis that there are 100 or more class members, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and that minimal diversity exists.

The claim and the ingredient list

The products at issue are the Liquid Death Sparkling Energy line, sold in single-serving 12 ounce cans and in 12-packs of 12 ounce cans. The complaint names four flavors: Murder Mystery, Scary Strawberry, Orange Horror and Tropical Terror, together with variety packs, and states that the list is not exhaustive.

According to the complaint, the front of every product package and every individual can carries the nutrient content claim "0g Sugar," and the back panel repeats it. The filing groups the front-of-pack "0g Sugar" wording and the "Zero Sugar" wording used elsewhere under a single defined term, the Challenged Representations.

The ingredient statement reproduced in the complaint reads: carbonated water, allulose, magnesium lactate, citric acid, L-theanine, stevia leaf extract (Reb A), caffeine from coffee beans, ascorbic acid, natural flavor and cyanocobalamin. Under 21 C.F.R. section 101.4(a)(1), ingredients are listed in descending order of predominance by weight. Allulose therefore sits second by weight in each product.

That ordering is the whole of the case. The complaint puts it bluntly: "There is no such thing as '0g Sugar' allulose; it does not exist." Elsewhere it states that a product sweetened predominantly with allulose is an energy drink sweetened with sugar, and that "its very name is a lie."

Where the wording appears

The filing traces the same claim across owned, earned and marketplace surfaces, and reproduces screenshots of each.

On the company website, the Scary Strawberry product page lists five calories, unextreme caffeine of 100 milligrams described as equivalent to one coffee, zero sugar, essential vitamins with L-theanine, no corn syrup and no aspartame, no artificial colors or dyes, co-formulation by a board-certified surgeon, and kosher certification. The same page carries a note that packaging and formula may vary.

On the official Instagram account, a post captured in the complaint promotes the line as available on Amazon and lists zero sugar among three bullet points beside caffeine and metabolism. The screenshot records 4,265 likes, 261 comments, 102 reposts and 2,700 shares.

On Amazon.com, the brand content describes the line as "the one energy drink for days when you want more than one energy drink," repeats the zero sugar wording, and, in a collapsible section headed Ingredients, discloses allulose and stevia leaf extract. The complaint treats that combination as an admission: the same page that advertises the absence of sugar names the sugar.

Retail distribution described in the filing spans Albertsons, Vons, Pavillions, Ralphs, Target, Walmart, CVS and grocery stores across California and the United States, alongside third-party marketplaces. A 12-pack is priced on Amazon at $21.99, a figure the complaint uses to frame its price premium theory.

The regulation the case turns on

Two provisions carry the argument. The first, 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(c)(6)(ii), defines total sugars as "the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides," with glucose, fructose, lactose and sucrose given as examples. The second, 21 C.F.R. section 101.60(c)(1), governs when terms such as sugar free, no sugar and zero sugar may appear on a label.

Section 101.60(c)(1) sets two conditions, and the complaint stresses that they are conjunctive. The food must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving. Separately, the food must contain no ingredient that is a sugar, or that consumers generally understand to contain sugars, unless the ingredient statement carries an asterisk pointing to a statement that the ingredient adds a trivial, negligible or dietarily insignificant amount of sugar.

The complaint argues the products fail the first condition outright, because allulose is a monosaccharide epimer of fructose and therefore falls inside the total sugars definition that section 101.60 cross-references. On the second condition, the filing argues that an ingredient occupying second position by weight cannot honestly be described as trivial, negligible or dietarily insignificant.

Nutrient content claims are the specific target. The complaint states explicitly that none of its claims relate to any declaration inside the nutrition panel, and confines itself to the separate statements placed on packaging and in advertising outside that panel. That distinction matters for the preemption argument that follows.

A Seventh Circuit ruling from July

The complaint leans heavily on a decision handed down 28 days before filing. On July 27, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087, reversing the dismissal of state consumer protection claims over a zero sugar yogurt sweetened with four grams of allulose per serving.

According to the complaint, the appeals court held that "[a]llulose is a sugar under the relevant federal regulation," reasoning that the definition covers every monosaccharide and that the parenthetical list of examples is illustrative rather than limiting. The court rejected the argument that the examples confine the definition to substances sharing their physiological characteristics, holding instead that the agency defined a class by chemistry.

The Food and Drug Administration appeared as amicus curiae at the court's invitation and, according to the complaint, took the position that the regulatory text is unambiguous and that total sugars include all monosaccharides, allulose among them.

Preemption was resolved against the manufacturer. The complaint quotes the holding that products cannot be labeled sugar free unless they contain less than half a gram of sugar, and that claims seeking to enforce identical state standards are therefore not preempted. On the deception question, the court found the allegation plausible given what it called an absolute promise on the packaging, and treated consumer perception as a question of fact unsuitable for resolution on the pleadings.

One passage in that ruling reads as a warning to advertisers. According to the complaint, the court observed that a decision by one sovereign not to enforce its own labeling requirements did not entitle the manufacturer to assume the states would follow, and described the company as "a sophisticated actor."

What the 2020 guidance does and does not cover

An anticipated defence gets pre-emptive treatment across two sections of the filing. In October 2020, the FDA issued guidance announcing its intent to exercise enforcement discretion over the exclusion of allulose from Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations.

The complaint makes three arguments against reading that document as a shield. It notes the guidance carries a disclaimer stating that it "represents the current thinking of the [FDA]" and is "not binding on the FDA or the public." It argues the guidance is limited to declarations inside the nutrition panel and says nothing about the separate nutrient content claim regulations. And it points to the Seventh Circuit's characterisation that the guidance "isn't an interpretation" of the regulation but an announcement of a change in enforcement policy, a distinction the court used to deny it deference under Kisor v. Wilkie.

The filing also documents what has not happened since. A Federal Register notice dated October 19, 2020 opened a docket for comment on sugar labeling within the nutrition panel; according to the complaint, the agency confirmed it was not then considering changes to the nutrient content claim regulations and would revisit the question when time and resources permit. On May 19, 2022, the agency refused a petition to amend the regulatory definition of sugar in connection with tagatose, reiterating that the existing definition remains in effect.

Third-party classifications are marshalled alongside the regulatory record. The complaint cites filings by Tate & Lyle, which it identifies as the manufacturer of most commercial-grade allulose, stating that "Allulose is a monosaccharide and is classified as a sugar." It also cites the sweetener industry site allulose.org, which describes allulose as "a low-calorie sugar."

The consumer evidence

For marketers, the most transferable part of the document is the block of survey and observational research assembled to support materiality and reliance.

The complaint cites a 2022 industry survey finding that over 70 percent of Americans are trying to limit or avoid sugars. It cites a 2021 survey finding that only 15 percent of respondents had even heard of allulose. It cites three label-reading studies: an in-store observational study in which 11.6 percent of shoppers were seen checking side or back panels before adding an item to a cart, a six-country study in which 62.6 percent looked at front packaging and 7.7 percent looked elsewhere, and an online eye-tracking study in which 3.30 percent fixated on ingredient information. It cites a 1990 supermarket study putting the average in-store selection decision at roughly 12 to 13 seconds.

Those numbers do a specific job. They convert a packaging design decision into a legal argument about what a reasonable consumer perceives, and they anticipate the standard defence that the ingredient panel disclosed everything.

The filing also invokes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, arguing the company was obliged to evaluate its marketing claims from the perspective of the reasonable consumer, and that it either knew the wording was misleading or would have known had it met that obligation.

Discrepancies in the document

Three inconsistencies sit on the face of the filing.

The caption on page one types the case number as 4:26-cv-8839, while the court's own stamp across all 45 pages reads 3:26-cv-08839-AGT. The divisional prefix differs.

The venue paragraph states that the defendant maintains its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, and describes that location as within the Northern District of California. Los Angeles sits in the Central District. The paragraph separately grounds venue on the plaintiff's residence and place of purchase, which the filing locates in Alameda County, within the Northern District.

The Amazon screenshot reproduced in the complaint displays six purchasable options, including a variety pack at $17.97 and a flavour named Blood Zero, while the footnote defining the products names four flavours. The footnote's own wording, that the list is not limited to those named, absorbs the gap, but the exhibit and the definition do not match on their face.

Relief sought and procedural posture

Two classes are proposed, each reaching back four years from the filing date: a nationwide class of purchasers who bought for purposes other than resale, and a California subclass on the same terms. Numerosity is pleaded as hundreds of thousands of purchasers nationwide and tens of thousands in California.

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act count is currently limited. According to the complaint, counsel mailed a prelitigation demand letter by certified mail on or about August 6, 2026, addressed to the company's Los Angeles headquarters and its registered agent. If more than 30 days elapse without adequate corrective relief, the plaintiff states he will amend to seek damages under that statute; otherwise the count seeks injunctive relief only.

Requested remedies include class certification, declaratory relief, an injunction, damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. The injunctive relief described runs beyond a label change. It contemplates an order requiring an affirmative advertising campaign to dispel what the complaint calls a public misperception created by the marketing, alongside prominent qualifications or disclaimers on front labels.

The company had not entered an appearance at the time of filing, and no response to the allegations is contained in the document.

Why this matters for marketers

The theory here is not novel, and that is the point. A run of California filings this month has applied the same structure to different categories, and the shape is now recognisable: a prominent front-of-pack or top-of-page claim, a correction buried in secondary text, and a body of research arguing the correction never reaches the shopper.

Mars was sued on August 12 over a Seeds of Change pouch whose front panel names quinoa first while the reverse places it behind a "less than 2%" qualifier. A day later, a Delaware wellness brand was sued over transdermal patches named for a hormone the product does not contain. On August 20, a complaint over a 95 percent sleep staging accuracy claim was filed against Oura in the same district, built from advertising copy and public ad library records. In November 2025, the same prominence argument was applied to flag imagery on coffee packaging.

What separates the Liquid Death filing from that group is the regulatory anchor. The other complaints argue about impression and perception. This one argues that a specific federal regulation was breached, that an appeals court said so four weeks ago with the FDA agreeing in an amicus brief, and that California's Sherman Law adopts the federal labeling regulations wholesale, closing the preemption exit.

There is a second structural feature worth noting. Every artefact in the complaint was published by the advertiser: the can, the website, the Instagram post, the marketplace brand content. None required discovery. That evidentiary pattern has become standard in this category, and it means the compliance surface is not the media plan but the permanent, indexed, screenshot-able record of owned channels.

Enforcement context adds weight. The Federal Trade Commission has distributed refunds to buyers of weight-loss supplements marketed with unsupported clinical claims, and has written to marketplace sellers over unqualified origin claims in advertising and promotional materials as well as on labels. Its 2026-2030 strategic plan keeps consumer protection enforcement among its stated priorities. Private class actions and regulatory attention are operating on the same claims from different directions.

The wider industry has moved in the same direction on authorship. The IAB's AI transparency and disclosure framework, republished on August 18, 2026, is explicit that advertisers remain responsible for accuracy and substantiation regardless of how creative was produced. A nutrient content claim printed on a can, syndicated to a marketplace listing and repeated in a social caption is one claim replicated across three surfaces, and the complaint treats it that way.

For anyone running paid media behind a better-for-you positioning, the operative question raised by this filing is narrow and answerable: whether a claim that reads as absolute on the front of a pack is permitted by the regulation that governs that specific wording, rather than by the enforcement posture of the agency that wrote it.

Timeline

Summary

Who: James Williamson, a California citizen represented by Malk & Pogo Law Group, LLP, suing Supplying Demand, Inc., the Los Angeles corporation trading as Liquid Death, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and California subclass.

What: A 45-page class action complaint alleging that "0g Sugar" and "Zero Sugar" nutrient content claims on Liquid Death Sparkling Energy cans are false because allulose, a monosaccharide, is the second-listed ingredient by weight. Five counts are pleaded under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment, with an amount in controversy pleaded above $5,000,000.

When: Filed August 24, 2026, four weeks after the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC on July 27, 2026, and eighteen days after a prelitigation demand letter was mailed on or about August 6, 2026.

Where: The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case 3:26-cv-08839-AGT, concerning products sold through Albertsons, Vons, Pavillions, Ralphs, Target, Walmart, CVS, grocery stores and Amazon.com.

Why: The complaint argues that 21 C.F.R. section 101.60(c)(1) bars sugar free and zero sugar claims on any food containing 0.5 grams or more of sugars, that 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(c)(6)(ii) defines sugars to include every monosaccharide, and that California's Sherman Law adopts those federal labeling regulations, leaving no preemption defence. The case tests whether a front-of-pack absolute claim can stand when the ingredient panel names the disputed substance in second position.