That is 0 articles you have read today.
The Aporia is free and carries no advertising, so readers are the only
thing paying for it. If you are getting this much out of it, a small
donation is what keeps it independent.
Daily limit reached
You have read 0 articles today.
That is more than the 15 a day The Aporia gives away,
and well past what it can carry on nothing. Your allowance resets at
midnight.
There is no advertising here and nothing about you is sold, so readers
are the only thing paying for it. If the site is worth this much of
your day, it is worth a few dollars.
Everything else stays open: the
maps, the
directory and
search do
not count against this, and neither does re-opening something you have
already read today.
Trader Joe’s and Welch’s are being sued for allegedly misleading consumers with products labeled “sugar-free” despite containing allulose, which plaintiffs claim is legally and chemically a form of sugar. A lawsuit in Illinois targets Trader Joe’s dark chocolate chips sweetened with allulose, while four separate suits filed across California, Illinois, and New York focus on Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites. The complaints argue that these products are falsely marketed as having no sugar to attract health-conscious shoppers, seeking damages for consumers who relied on the misleading labels when making purchases.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-30,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
Trader Joe’s and Welch’s are facing federal class-action lawsuits over their “sugar-free” products containing allulose, which plaintiffs argue is essentially sugar. The suits claim these companies misled consumers with labels like "no sugar added" on items such as Trader Joe’s Dark Chocolate Chips and Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites, despite using allulose as a sweetener. Lawsuits were filed in multiple states including Illinois, California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, and Washington. Plaintiffs argue they would not have purchased the products or paid less if they knew about the presence of allulose.
Written for “Sugar Free Food Lawsuits” on 2026-10-05,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Grocery giant Trader Joe’s and fruit-snack titan Welch’s are facing a barrage of federal class action lawsuits claiming their “sugar-free” and “no sugar added” treats are sweet little lies.
asserted
treats → face → lawsuits
The legal onslaught centers on a trendy low-calorie sweetenerallulose — which plaintiffs argue is, legally and chemically speaking, pure sugar.
asserted
plaintiffs → center → sweetenerallulose
Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter
The biggest news, opinion and culture shaping California right now.
Thanks for signing up!
asserted
Sign → sign → California
A proposedclass-action lawsuit filed against Trader Joe’s in Illinois federal court claims the cult-favorite grocer misled shoppers with its “no sugar added” dark chocolate chips because the product is sweetened with allulose.
uncertain
product → file → allulose
Meanwhile, four separate lawsuits filed in California, Illinois, and New York this month takes aim at Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites, including its Mixed Fruit, Berries ‘N Cherries and Island Fruits varieties.
asserted
lawsuits → file → varieties
Those lawsuits similarly allege the snacks are marketed as sugar-free even though allulose is used as a sweetener — luring shoppers in to buy the product based on the promise of zero sugar.
asserted
allulose → allege → sugar
Filed on Sept. 16, the complaint against Trader Joe’s argues that allulose is a monosaccharide, or simple sugar, and therefore falls within the regulatory definition of sugar.
asserted
allulose → file → sugar
The claims state that it’s hardly a trace ingredient, either, and it’s actually listed second in the chocolate chips fine print — behind unsweetened chocolate and ahead of cocoa butter.
The Illinois consumers who filed the complaint, Erin Alexander and Hailey Worthy, accuse the California-based grocery chain of “health washing” to cash in on health-conscious shoppers looking to trim their waistlines.
uncertain
who → state → waistlines
“Defendant made its Representations about ‘No Sugar Added’ to its Product in order to induce health-conscious consumers, like Plaintiffs, to purchase the Product,” the complain reads.
asserted
complain → make → Product
The consumers maintain that they relied on the “no sugar added” representation, and if they had known it contained allulose, they either would not have purchased the chocolate chips or would have paid substantially less.
asserted
they → maintain → less
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters
The proposed suit seeks to represent consumers who bought the product in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
asserted
who → download → Illinois
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as restitution and attorney’s fees.
asserted
plaintiffs → ask → damages
The lawsuits don’t necessarily claim that allulose has the same nutritional or metabolic effects as ordinary sugar.
uncertain
allulose → claim → sugar
Rather, they argue that companies cannot advertise foods as containing no sugar or no sugar added while using an ingredient that meets the regulatory definition of one.
asserted
that → argue → one
The Aporia
