Liquid Death Lawsuit Alleges ‘0g Sugar’ Sparkling Energy Drinks Are Falsely Advertised

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the maker of Liquid Death has misleadingly marketed its ‘0g Sugar’ Sparkling Energy drinks by claiming that the products contain no sugar, when in fact the beverages are sweetened predominantly with allulose.

The 45-page lawsuit against manufacturer Supplying Demand Inc. says that although the Liquid Death drinks at issue are prominently labeled as containing “0g sugar” and “Zero Sugar,” they contain allulose, a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal law and California food-labeling guidelines.

The case conveys that allulose, a naturally occurring sugar found in figs, raisins, wheat, maple syrup and molasses, is the second-listed—and thus second-most predominant—ingredient in the Liquid Death sparkling energy drinks.

The complaint charges that even though allulose is “undisputedly” a sugar, Supplying Demand attempts to capitalize on consumers’ interest in sugar-free products by deceptively advertising on “every marketing channel,” including on the beverages’ packaging, the Liquid Death website, and social media pages, that Liquid Death Sparkling Energy drinks contain zero sugar.

The lawsuit claims that consumers have paid a substantial price premium for the “misbranded” beverages—a 12-pack of which reportedly retails for $21.99—based on the defendant’s misrepresentations that they did not contain sugar.

“There is no such thing as ‘0g Sugar’ allulose; it does not exist,” the lawsuit states. “To peddle this contradiction in terms, [Supplying Demand] deceives the public through misleading packaging statements and labels.”

Products must have less than half a gram of sugar to be lawfully labeled as sugar-free, complaint says

Monosaccharide allulose falls “squarely” within the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) definition of sugar, which outlines that the “Total Sugars” declared on a product label must include “the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose),” the lawsuit says. Moreover, allulose is subject to the FDA’s 2016 Nutrition Facts guidelines instructing that allulose must be included in the “Total Sugars” declaration on Nutrition Facts panels, pending any new regulations that would exclude it, the case states.

Further, the complaint relays that for a food product to be lawfully described as “sugar free,” it must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.

According to the lawsuit, because allulose is the second-most predominant ingredient in Liquid Death Sparkling Energy beverages, an absolute and unqualified statement that the drinks are free from sugar is deceptive and misleading.

The case notes that most consumers are unable to discern that allulose is even a sugar. Cited in the suit is a 2021 marketing survey that found that only 15 percent of consumers had heard of allulose, "let alone knew it was a sugar." Additionally, most consumers lack a specialized knowledge of chemistry and thus reasonably rely on a product’s label to truthfully disclose ingredients and nutritional content, the lawsuit says.

Seventh Circuit holds that allulose is a sugar, must be included in “Total Sugars,” case says

The lawsuit references a July 2026 Seventh Circuit decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, which allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with consumer protection claims that challenged Chobani’s representations that its “Zero Sugar” yogurts, which contain four grams of allulose per serving, were sugar-free.

In Franco, the suit says, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose, as a monosaccharide, is a sugar under applicable federal guidelines, stating that it must be included in the “Total Sugars” declaration on a product. Notably, the filing says that in Franco, the FDA took the position that its definition of sugar is “unambiguous,” and that the parenthetical examples provided in the definition are merely examples, not an exhaustive list, to which the Seventh Circuit agreed.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims were not preempted, stating that “[t]he federal requirements at issue are plain—food products cannot be labeled sugar free unless they have less than half a gram of sugar and sugars include every monosaccharide, including allulose.”

Who is covered by the Liquid Death class action lawsuit?

The Liquid Death class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals or entities who, within the past four years, purchased the Liquid Death Sparkling Energy beverages at issue in the United States.

How do I sign up for the Liquid Death energy drink lawsuit?

Typically, you don’t need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights.

Keep in mind that some class action lawsuits can take years to settle.

If you’ve purchased Liquid Death Sparkling Energy, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for the latest open class action lawsuits and investigations.