Estimated reading time: 7 minutes.
Key facts
- Case: Winter v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12448, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed October 23, 2026.
- Plaintiff: Lee Ann Winter of Rohnert Park, California, represented by Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Kamberlaw.
- Products: Great Value No Calorie Stevia Packets and Great Value No Calorie Stevia Sweetener Sugar Substitute, in all sizes and formats.
- What is alleged: Labels that say "made with Stevia Extract" mislead shoppers because lab testing commissioned by the plaintiff's lawyers found the products are mostly erythritol.
- Proposed class: California citizens who bought the products in California in the four years before the complaint was filed.
- Status: A newly filed proposed class action. No court has ruled, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.
In this article
- What the lawsuit claims
- What the lab testing found
- Why the plaintiff says the label misleads
- The erythritol health claims
- Who could be included
- The legal claims and what the plaintiff wants
- What remains unproven
- What shoppers can do now
- Frequently asked questions
A California shopper has sued Walmart, claiming its Great Value stevia sweeteners are sold as stevia products even though they are mostly a different sweetener called erythritol. The proposed class action, filed October 23, 2026, in federal court in San Francisco, says lab tests found one product was 94.44% erythritol.
The case could matter to anyone in California who has bought Great Value stevia packets or the jar of stevia sweetener in recent years. Every description of Walmart's products and conduct below is an allegation from the complaint, which Class Action Pulse reviewed. The test results were commissioned by the plaintiff's lawyers and have not been tested in court.
What the lawsuit claims
According to the complaint, the front label of each product shows the word "Stevia" in large green letters, the words "made with Stevia Extract" just below it and "No Calorie" just above it. The complaint calls these statements the "Representations."
The plaintiff says those statements lead shoppers to believe the products get their sweetness from stevia extract. Instead, she claims, the products are "primarily sweetened with erythritol, not stevia extract."
Lee Ann Winter says she bought the products about every month or two for the past three years at Walmart stores in Rohnert Park, most often the 200-count box of packets for about $11. Her most recent purchase was in spring 2026. She says she relied on the stevia statements and would not have bought the products, or would not have paid as much, if she had known the truth.
What the lab testing found
The complaint says the plaintiff's lawyers hired an independent laboratory accredited under ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and the FDA's Laboratory Accreditation for Analysis of Foods program. In April 2026, the lab tested for sugar alcohols using liquid chromatography and three official sugar testing methods.
According to the complaint, the results were:
- Great Value No Calorie Stevia Packets (80 count): 94.44% erythritol, with only a trace of rebiana, which is stevia leaf extract, plus natural flavors.
- Great Value No Calorie Stevia Sweetener Sugar Substitute (9.8 oz): 59.12% erythritol, with the rest mostly dextrose and maltodextrin and only a trace of rebiana.
The complaint says the products contain the same ingredients across all units sold, so the results apply to every product at issue.
No payout is available This is a newly filed lawsuit. There is no settlement, no claim form and no money available to Great Value stevia buyers at this stage.
Why the plaintiff says the label misleads
The complaint acknowledges that erythritol is listed on the labels. On the packets, erythritol is listed first, followed by rebiana and natural flavors. On the jar, erythritol comes first, then dextrose with maltodextrin, then rebiana and natural flavors.
The plaintiff argues that this does not fix the problem, for two reasons:
- The labels do not disclose how much erythritol or stevia extract the products contain.
- Under a federal appeals court decision cited in the complaint, Williams v. Gerber Products Co., reasonable consumers are not expected to look beyond misleading statements on the front of a package to find the truth in the ingredient list.
The complaint also says the stevia statements are voluntary marketing claims and are not required by the FDA or any government rule.
The erythritol health claims
The complaint argues that the difference matters to shoppers because stevia extract and erythritol are not equivalent. It describes stevia extract as a zero-calorie sweetener from the leaves of the stevia plant that is "considered safe to consume and without adverse effects."
By contrast, the complaint says there are "known, documented health risks" tied to eating substantial amounts of erythritol. It quotes a Cleveland Clinic article about a study funded by the National Institutes of Health, which said "people who have high blood levels of erythritol are more prone to heart attacks, stroke and even death." The complaint also says erythritol can cause stomach and digestive upset.
These health statements are part of the plaintiff's argument about why the label matters. The lawsuit does not seek damages for any illness. The proposed class excludes people who claim personal injury from using the products.
What the case is really about The claims are economic. The plaintiff says buyers paid for a stevia sweetener and got a mostly erythritol product, and wants money back for that price difference.
Who could be included
The proposed class is: "All citizens of California who, within four years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint, purchased Defendant's Products in the State of California and who do not claim any personal injury from using the Products."
Walmart, its affiliates and legal representatives, government entities, people in bankruptcy and the judge and court staff are excluded. The complaint estimates the class includes hundreds of thousands of purchasers. Buyers outside California are not part of the proposed class.
A judge has not certified the class. Until that happens, no one is formally a class member, and there is nothing to sign up for.
The legal claims and what the plaintiff wants
The complaint brings five claims:
- Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
- Violation of California's False Advertising Law.
- Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
- Breach of express warranty.
- Quasi-contract, a claim that Walmart was unfairly enriched.
The complaint says the plaintiff's lawyers sent Walmart a notice letter on May 19, 2026, describing the alleged violations, and that Walmart did not respond or offer relief within 30 days.
The plaintiff asks the court to certify the class, declare that Walmart's conduct broke the law, and award compensatory, statutory and monetary damages, restitution or disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. The complaint also seeks an order to stop the alleged practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, and it demands a jury trial. These are requests, not amounts anyone has been awarded.
What remains unproven
The lab results, the claim that shoppers were misled and the health statements are the plaintiff's allegations. Walmart has not yet responded in court, and Class Action Pulse did not find a public statement from the company in the coverage reviewed as of November 6, 2026.
Key questions include whether a reasonable shopper would read "made with Stevia Extract" as a promise about the main sweetener, how much weight the ingredient list carries, and whether the testing holds up.
Allegations, not findings The claims that the products are mostly erythritol and that the labels are misleading have not been decided by a court.
What shoppers can do now
California shoppers who bought these products do not need to do anything now. Keeping receipts or Walmart purchase history could help later if the case settles or a class is certified, since proof of purchase is sometimes requested.
For other cases open to consumers now, see our list of class action cases you can join. This article is for information only and is not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Walmart stevia lawsuit about?
A California shopper claims Walmart labels its Great Value stevia sweeteners as "made with Stevia Extract" even though lab testing found they are mostly erythritol. The case is Winter v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12448.
Which Great Value products are involved?
Great Value No Calorie Stevia Packets and Great Value No Calorie Stevia Sweetener Sugar Substitute, in all sizes and formats, according to the complaint.
How much erythritol did the testing find?
According to the complaint, the 80-count packets tested at 94.44% erythritol and the 9.8-ounce jar at 59.12% erythritol, each with only a trace of stevia leaf extract.
Who could be part of the class?
California citizens who bought the products in California in the four years before October 23, 2026, and who do not claim personal injury. No class has been certified.
Can I file a claim for a refund?
Not now. There is no settlement or claim form. If the case settles or a class is certified, eligible buyers would typically be notified.
Is erythritol listed on the label?
Yes. Erythritol is listed first on both products. The lawsuit argues the labels still mislead because they do not disclose how much erythritol or stevia extract the products contain.
