Dunkin’ is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts over allegations that its Zero Energy Drinks are misleadingly advertised as containing no sugar. The complaint, filed in federal court on September 30, 2026, claims the popular coffee chain markets certain beverages as having “zero sugar” despite using allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener chemically classified as a sugar.
The lawsuit was brought by Illinois resident Phyllis C. Wells against Dunkin’ Brands and its parent company, Inspire Brands. Wells alleges that consumers purchasing these drinks expect them to contain no sugar and may pay more for that promise.
The legal dispute centers on an important distinction in federal food labeling rules. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits manufacturers to exclude allulose from certain sugar totals on Nutrition Facts labels, a recent federal appeals court decision has raised questions about whether products containing allulose can legally be advertised as sugar-free.
What Is the Dunkin Allulose Labeling Lawsuit About?
The lawsuit challenges Dunkin’s advertising of its Zero Energy Drinks, which were introduced in March 2026. The beverages are marketed as low-calorie energy drinks without sugar, appealing to customers seeking alternatives to traditional sweetened beverages.
According to the complaint, however, the drinks contain substantial quantities of allulose. The plaintiff alleges that a medium-sized drink contains approximately 8 to 10 grams of allulose, while larger beverages contain roughly 11 to 13 grams.
Wells argues that the company’s advertising gives consumers the impression that the drinks contain no sugar of any kind.
The complaint also refers to Dunkin’s ingredient information, which identifies allulose in the flavored syrups used to prepare the beverages.
The dispute concerns the wording of the advertising, not an allegation that allulose is inherently dangerous or that the drinks are unsafe for consumption.
Who Filed the Lawsuit Against Dunkin?
Phyllis C. Wells, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, filed the proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The case is officially identified as Wells v. Dunkin Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-14463.
Wells states that she regularly purchased Dunkin Zero beverages, sometimes two or three times a week, because she wanted to reduce her sugar intake.
She alleges that she relied on Dunkin’s advertising when deciding to purchase the drinks. Had she known they contained allulose, she claims she would either have avoided buying them or paid less.
Although Wells lives in Illinois, the complaint was filed in Massachusetts, where Dunkin has longstanding corporate operations. The lawsuit names Dunkin’ Brands and Inspire Brands as defendants.
Wells seeks to represent consumers throughout the United States who purchased the challenged drinks beginning March 4, 2026, along with a separate group of Illinois purchasers.
Which Dunkin Drinks Are Named in the Lawsuit?
The complaint covers the Dunkin Zero Energy Drinks range rather than every beverage sold by the chain. The named varieties include Blackberry Tangerine, Tropical Mango, Juicy Peach, Watermelon Lime, Splashberry, Heatwave and Melon Paradise. It also identifies blended flavors such as Glamberry, Sunzest and Blushpop.
The proposed class definition focuses on customers who bought one or more of these drinks from a Dunkin restaurant for personal, family or household use during the period identified in the complaint. The court has not yet decided whether that group can proceed as a certified class.
What Is Allulose, and Why Does FDA Labeling Matter?
Allulose is a monosaccharide, meaning it is a simple sugar by chemical structure. It occurs naturally in small amounts in certain foods and is also manufactured for use as a sweetener. Unlike ordinary table sugar, it provides relatively few calories and generally has a much smaller effect on blood glucose.
In 2020 guidance, the FDA said it would exercise enforcement discretion by allowing manufacturers to exclude allulose from the “Total Sugars” and “Added Sugars” amounts shown on Nutrition Facts labels. The agency still expects allulose to be included in total carbohydrates and permits a lower calorie calculation of approximately 0.4 calories per gram.
That policy does not necessarily answer whether a company can prominently advertise a product as “zero sugar.” Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1), such claims are tied to a threshold of less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving and other conditions. Wells argues that allulose counts toward that threshold under the regulation’s definition of sugar.
Why a 2026 Chobani Court Ruling Could Matter
The complaint draws support from Franco v. Chobani, LLC, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 27, 2026. In that dispute, consumers challenged “sugar free” claims on yogurt containing allulose.
The appeals court ruled that allulose falls within the existing regulatory definition of sugar and that the FDA’s decision not to enforce certain Nutrition Facts requirements did not change the regulation itself. The court allowed the consumers’ deception allegations to proceed; it did not decide that damages were owed.
That ruling may influence the legal arguments in Dunkin’s case, but it is not binding on the federal court in Massachusetts, which sits within the First Circuit. Dunkin’s liability will depend on the allegations, evidence and legal rulings in this separate lawsuit.
What Legal Claims and Compensation Are Being Sought?
Wells alleges that the marketing violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint also raises claims involving breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
The proposed lawsuit seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. It also asks for an order addressing the disputed marketing, potentially requiring the companies to stop making the challenged claims or provide corrective disclosures.
No consumer payment amount has been established. Filing a proposed class action does not automatically make every purchaser eligible for a refund, and a court must first decide whether the lawsuit may proceed as a class action.
Has Dunkin Responded, and What Is the Current Case Status?
As of October 10, 2026, the lawsuit remains at an early stage. Publicly available docket information confirms that Wells filed the complaint on September 30, and subsequent administrative docket entries have appeared. No judgment, class certification or approved settlement has been identified in the available records.
News outlets have requested comment from Dunkin, but their published reports did not include a substantive response from the company. The allegations remain contested and have not been established as facts by a court.
Consumers who purchased the drinks do not currently have an announced settlement claim form or a guaranteed right to compensation. Any potential claims process would depend on future court developments or a settlement.
Why This Lawsuit Matters to U.S. Consumers
The Massachusetts case highlights a growing tension between technical nutrition labeling rules and the everyday meaning of advertising phrases such as “zero sugar.” A product may legally report zero grams of total sugars in its Nutrition Facts information under an FDA enforcement policy yet still face questions about broader marketing claims.
For consumers, the dispute underscores the difference between a drink’s chemical ingredients and their nutritional effects. For food and beverage companies, it may test whether prominent front-of-menu claims require more explanation when a product uses allulose.
Whether Dunkin’s advertising crosses the legal line remains for the court to decide. For now, Wells v. Dunkin is a pending proposed class action, not a finding of false advertising or an established settlement.
