Dunkin' falsely marketed some drinks as having zero sugar, a new class action alleges.

Rachael Bondi filed a class action lawsuit against Dunkin' Brands Inc. and parent company Inspire Brands Inc. on Oct. 19, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges Dunkin' markets its Dunkin' Zero energy drinks as having zero sugar even though they contain allulose, which federal labeling rules count as a sugar.

The alleged allulose content

Dunkin' launched the line on March 4, 2026, with a press release calling it "a zero-sugar energy drink" with zero grams of sugar in a medium size. Its menu boards, website and social media repeat that message, the lawsuit claims.

Dunkin's ingredient guide lists allulose right after water in the flavored syrups used in the drinks. Based on the drinks' carbohydrate counts, the proposed class action estimates a medium contains about 8 to 10 grams of allulose and a large contains about 11 to 13 grams.

The complaint alleges allulose counts as sugar under federal labeling rules, which reportedly allow a product to advertise as sugar-free only if a serving holds less than half a gram of sugar. A federal appeals court interpreted the rules the same way in a July 2026 ruling, the lawsuit says.

The Food and Drug Administration has let companies leave allulose out of the sugar totals on nutrition facts panels since 2020. However' that policy doesn't cover zero-sugar claims on menus or in ads, the complaint contends.

Bondi's reported purchases

Bondi claims she bought several Dunkin' Zero flavors after seeing the zero-sugar claims on menu boards, signs and ads. She says she would have paid less or not purchased the drinks had she known they contained sugar.

The legal claims

The lawsuit brings five claims:


  • State consumer fraud laws in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington, which bar deceptive marketing

  • Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which protects Illinois buyers from deceptive sales practices

  • Breach of express warranty under Massachusetts law, which covers products that fail to match the seller's promises

  • Negligent misrepresentation, which covers false statements made without reasonable care

  • Unjust enrichment, which seeks the money the companies earned from the alleged mislabeling

Bondi seeks compensation for class members, extra damages meant to punish the companies, the profits from the drinks and an order barring the zero-sugar marketing. She also plans to add a Massachusetts consumer protection claim once a required notice period ends, according to the lawsuit.

What the lawsuit means for Dunkin' customers

The proposed nationwide class covers anyone in the United States who bought a Dunkin' Zero drink at a Dunkin' restaurant for personal consumption since March 4, 2026, with separate groups for buyers in the 10 states listed above.

There is no settlement, no claims process and no money available at this time.