Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Page 3

District Court Complaint Says Protein Bars Are Falsely Claimed to Be Sugar-Free

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A lawsuit was filed Friday against the manufacturer of David-brand protein bars based on the allegation that the claim of “0g sugar” in the products is false in light of “allulose” being an ingredient.

A putative class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California raises the question of whether a company is fudging in representing on packaging of its fudge-favored protein bars and other like products that there is, in the contents, an absence of sugar when one of the ingredients is a sweetener called “allulose.”

Allulose, a complaint filed Friday, asserts, is a sugar. That contention mirrors one in a lawsuit filed last Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the maker of products bearing the “Adkins” label, that word being associated with the popular “Adkins diet” which limits carbohydrates.

There has been a recent wave of such actions, promoted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration having filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals advising that “allulose is a sugar” under a federal regulation.

Friday’s action was filed by Beverly Hills attorney Daniel Srourian on behalf of named plaintiff Ryan McCarthy, a Los Angeles consumer, and those similarly situated. McCarthy is said to have purchased 12 David Gold protein bars in reliance on the representation that they contain “0g Sugar.”

The defendant is Linus Technology Mergersub, LLC, headquartered in New York.

‘Health Washing’

The complaint sets forth:

“For as long as consumable goods have been sold, ‘health-washing,’ which is the instigation of a sale of a consumer product by making it appear healthier than it is, has led consumers to buy products that either do not actually have any health benefits or are, in some cases, harmful. The instant case is a classic occurrence of health-washing.”

It continues:

“Here, Defendant uses false advertising and deceptive conduct which promises health-related benefits. To compound matters, the misrepresentations made on the Products are not only potentially harmful but command a price premium consistent with these misrepresentations that Plaintiff and Class members would not have paid had they known that Defendant’s representations are false and misleading. The Products also intentionally contain no warning whatsoever about potential risks and the tendency to cause health risks.”

Alleged Dangers

The complaint avers that “[a]s a monosaccharide, allulose falls squarely within the Food and Drug Administration…codified definition of sugar” and that sugar contributes to obesity and related health dangers. Beyond that, it says, allulose’s “use as an additive can cause gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.”

The pleading says that the Gold products violate federal standards and are “misbranded under California law.”

It cites the state’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law, and the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Addressing the “unfairness” component of the UCL, it says:

“Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous. The gravity of Defendant’s conduct outweighs any alleged benefits attributable to it. There is no utility in representing that a product sweetened predominantly with sugar contains no sugar. Furthermore, Defendant’s false and misleading representations are detrimental to competitors offering protein bars that either do not make similar claims or do not contradict those claims by sweetening their products with sugar. Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions therefore harm consumers and the market as a whole.”

McCarthy seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass.

Actual damages are sought along with statutory damages, restitution, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.

The case is McCarthy v. Linus Technology Mergersub, LLC, 2:26cv9958.