Key Takeaways
- An Illinois woman sued Dunkin’ and parent company Inspire Brands, alleging that drinks marketed as “Zero Sugar” contain allulose, a sweetener chemically classified as a simple sugar.
- The case tests whether Dunkin’ can make zero-sugar claims even though FDA guidance allows companies to exclude allulose from total and added sugar counts on nutrition labels.
- The complaint follows a similar lawsuit against Starbucks and adds to Dunkin’s recent legal disputes over non-dairy milk surcharges, Refresher ingredients, and undisclosed fees.
Dunkin' is the latest coffee giant facing legal trouble over its sugar-free claims. An Illinois woman has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the chain of selling drinks advertised as "Zero Sugar" despite using an ingredient she argues is technically sugar. The complaint comes amid a separate lawsuit against Starbucks over similar allegations involving its protein beverages.
According to WCVB Channel 5, Phyllis Wells is suing Dunkin' and its parent company, Inspire Brands, over the use of allulose, a sweetener found in certain beverages marketed as zero-sugar. Wells alleges that the company's advertising misrepresents what's actually in the drinks, potentially misleading customers who believe they're avoiding sugar altogether.
But the case hinges on a distinction that isn't immediately obvious from the menu.
Allulose is a monosaccharide, meaning it's chemically classified as a simple sugar. However, unlike traditional table sugar, it has significantly fewer calories and affects blood glucose levels differently. The Food and Drug Administration allows companies to exclude allulose from the total and added sugar amounts listed on nutrition labels.
That regulatory distinction is central to Wells' complaint. The lawsuit challenges whether Dunkin' can advertise beverages as "Zero Sugar" when they contain an ingredient that is chemically a sugar, even if federal labeling guidance treats it differently.
And Dunkin' isn't the only major coffee chain defending its beverage descriptions.
The Starbucks complaint, filed on behalf of three consumers in California, New York, and Washington, specifically targets protein lattes and matcha beverages sold in vanilla and caramel flavors.
"This case is about false and misleading product names. It is not about missing nutritional information," the Starbucks lawsuit states.
Starbucks denied misleading customers, maintaining that it has "consistently and clearly provided information" about its beverages, including their nutritional content and customization options. The company also said it intends to "vigorously defend ourselves in this matter."
For Dunkin', the latest complaint adds to a history of legal disputes over its menu and pricing practices.
In 2024, the company faced a $5 million proposed class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against customers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies because of additional charges for non-dairy milk alternatives.
Other lawsuits have challenged whether its fruit-flavored Refreshers contain the ingredients suggested by their names and accused the chain of imposing undisclosed fees on certain purchases.
