Costco Kirkland sugar-free drink mix allulose lawsuit (Maldonado v. Costco)

A Costco shopper filed a proposed class action on September 30, 2026, claiming a Kirkland Signature electrolyte drink mix is falsely labeled "SUGAR-FREE" because it contains allulose. The case is Maldonado v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-03702, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The product is the Kirkland Signature Hydration Electrolyte Drink Mix, sold as a 40-stick Sugar Free Variety Pack with Strawberry Watermelon and Lemon Lime flavors, Costco Item No. 2007032. The complaint seeks to represent buyers nationwide, plus an Illinois subclass.

The lawsuit follows a July 2026 federal appeals court ruling that allulose counts as a sugar under federal labeling rules. No court has decided whether the Kirkland label is misleading, and no class has been certified.

Costco Wholesale Corporation runs a chain of membership warehouses and sells products online at Costco.com. It also sells private-label products under the Kirkland Signature name. Costco is a Washington corporation with its home office in Issaquah, Washington, which is why the case was filed in Seattle federal court.

The plaintiff is Mason Maldonado of Brookfield, Illinois. According to the complaint, he bought the variety pack at a Costco warehouse in Chicago in September 2026 after seeing and relying on the "SUGAR-FREE" label.

He is represented by Emery Reddy, PC, with lawyers from Laukaitis Law LLC listed as seeking permission to appear.

According to the complaint, the front of the package says "SUGAR-FREE." The Nutrition Facts panel for each flavor lists zero grams of total sugars and zero grams of added sugars, and seven grams of total carbohydrate per 13-gram stick.

Allulose is the first ingredient in both flavors. An asterisk next to it reads "Adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar." The complaint says the label does not state how much allulose each stick contains. Based on allulose's place at the top of the ingredient list and the seven grams of carbohydrate, the plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each stick contains far more than half a gram of sugar.

Federal rules allow "sugar free" and similar claims only when a food has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving. Those rules define sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides. Allulose is a monosaccharide, a simple sugar found in small amounts in foods such as figs and raisins.

There is a regulatory wrinkle here. In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would not take enforcement action against companies that leave allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on Nutrition Facts labels, because allulose has very few calories and is processed differently from table sugar. But in an amicus brief filed this year, the FDA said that guidance did not cover "sugar free" claims and did not change the definition of sugars.

On July 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed. In Franco v. Chobani, LLC, a case about Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt, the court held that allulose is a sugar under the federal rule and let the consumers' claims go forward. The Maldonado complaint relies on that decision. The Seventh Circuit covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The Maldonado case is in the Ninth Circuit, which is not bound by that ruling.

The plaintiff says the "SUGAR-FREE" claim is false and misleading, and he calls the labeling "health-washing," which he describes as making a product seem healthier than it is. He alleges buyers paid a price premium for a sugar-free product, and that the asterisk note does not fix the front-label message. The complaint also cites studies linking larger amounts of allulose to stomach problems, though it does not claim the plaintiff was harmed this way.

The complaint brings three claims: violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for the Illinois subclass, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act for the nationwide class, and unjust enrichment.

Class Action Pulse found no public statement from Costco about the lawsuit, and the docket showed no response from Costco as of October 18, 2026. Defendants in similar cases have relied on the FDA's 2020 allulose guidance, as Chobani did. Costco has not yet made any argument in this case.

The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. On October 1, the clerk issued a notice about signature formatting on the complaint, and two of the plaintiff's lawyers, M. Anderson Berry and Brook Garberding, entered appearances on October 8.

The court has not ruled on whether the label is misleading, whether allulose counts toward the sugar-free limit in this case, or whether a class should be certified.

The complaint proposes two groups:

• Nationwide class: all persons in the United States who, during the maximum period of time permitted by law, purchased the products for personal use.
• Illinois subclass: all persons in Illinois who, during that period, purchased the products for personal use.

Costco, its affiliates, officers and directors, government entities, and judicial officers are excluded. "The products" means the 40-stick Kirkland Signature Hydration Electrolyte Drink Mix Sugar Free Variety Pack, Item No. 2007032. Other Kirkland drink mixes are not named.

There is no claim form and no deadline. Readers who bought the variety pack can:

• Check their Costco account purchase history for warehouse and online orders.
• Save receipts and a photo of the box showing Item No. 2007032.
• Watch for any class certification ruling or settlement notice.
• Contact Emery Reddy or their own lawyer with questions.

There is no money available. The complaint asks for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, an order requiring Costco to stop or correct the labeling, interest and attorneys' fees. Under the Washington law, it also asks the court to raise damages up to three times actual damages, subject to a $25,000 cap on the increase. These are requests, not awards.

• July 27, 2026: Seventh Circuit decides Franco v. Chobani.
• September 30, 2026: Maldonado complaint filed.
• October 8, 2026: additional plaintiff's counsel appear.

No claim, opt-out or objection deadlines exist. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice would explain members' options.

• Allulose: A low-calorie simple sugar used as a sweetener.
• Monosaccharide: A single-unit sugar, such as glucose or fructose.
• Nutrient content claim: A label statement describing how much of a nutrient a food contains, such as "sugar free."
• Enforcement discretion: An agency's decision not to act against certain practices, without changing the underlying rule.
• Price premium: The extra amount a buyer allegedly paid because of a label claim.

Costco is likely to respond with a motion to dismiss. Whether courts outside the Seventh Circuit follow the Franco reasoning is an open question.

A practical note: a membership purchase record may help if a paper receipt is gone, so a quick screenshot now can save effort later.

This article relies on the complaint, the court docket, the Seventh Circuit's Franco v. Chobani opinion, the FDA's amicus brief, Costco's company profile, and Top Class Actions.

The allulose amount per stick, the price premium and the deception claims are allegations. Sales volume and class size are unknown.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.