Target Up & Up sugar-free hydration powder lawsuit (Williams v. Target)

A new class action says Target's Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder is not sugar-free because its first ingredient is allulose, which the lawsuit calls a sugar under federal rules. Plaintiff Iesha Williams of Rockford, Illinois, filed the case on October 20, 2026, in federal court in Chicago.

The complaint covers all flavors and pack sizes, including Lemon Lime, White Peach, Green Grape and Grapefruit. It proposes an Illinois class and a class of buyers in eight states.

Target has not filed a response. There is no ruling, settlement or claim form. This page explains the claims, who may fit the proposed classes and what buyers can do now.

Iesha Williams is the named plaintiff. She says she bought the Lemon Lime flavor, labeled "Sugar-Free," on October 16, 2024, at a Target store in Rockford.

Target Corporation, based in Minneapolis, sells Up & Up as its store brand in Target stores and on Target.com. The complaint calls Target the manufacturer, distributor, marketer and seller of the products.

Laukaitis Law LLC, through attorney Kevin Laukaitis, represents the plaintiff.

The case is Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

According to the complaint:

• Target sells the powders in single-serving packets, in a 2.8-ounce box of six and 9.2-ounce boxes of 20, plus a variety pack.
• The front label says "Sugar Free," and Target's website describes a "Zero Sugar" formula.
• The ingredient list names allulose first, meaning it is the largest ingredient by weight.
• The Nutrition Facts panel lists 0 grams of total sugars and 0 grams of added sugars, and does not say how much allulose each packet contains.

The complaint argues that federal rules define total sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides. Allulose is a monosaccharide, so the plaintiff says it must count. A "sugar free" claim is allowed only when a food has less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, among other conditions.

The plaintiff says reasonable shoppers read "Sugar-Free" and "0g" as meaning no sugar at all, and paid a premium for that. She also cites research she says links large amounts of allulose to stomach symptoms. The complaint points to Franco v. Chobani, a July 27, 2026 decision in which the Seventh Circuit, the federal appeals court covering Illinois, said allulose is a sugar under federal labeling rules.

Target has not responded in court or publicly, as far as Class Action Pulse could find, so its defense is unknown. One likely issue is FDA guidance from 2020 that lets companies leave allulose out of total and added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel. The complaint says FDA never finished a rule making that exclusion official, and argues the guidance does not change what counts as a sugar for a "sugar free" claim.

One legal commentary that reviewed the label images says the ingredient list includes a note that allulose "adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar." Federal rules mention that kind of note, but the complaint argues the product still fails the separate 0.5-gram test.

The court has decided nothing about the merits. Nobody has ruled whether allulose makes the label false here, whether the classes can be certified or whether anyone is owed money.

The complaint proposes two groups:

• Illinois class: People in Illinois who bought the products for personal use during the longest period the law allows.
• Multi-state class: People in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington who did the same.

Target, its affiliates and officers, government entities and judges on the case are excluded. These definitions can change.

1. Save proof of purchase. Target Circle history, receipts or card statements showing Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration purchases can help later.
2. Keep or photograph the box, including the front label, ingredient list and Nutrition Facts.
3. Note where you bought it. The proposed classes depend on state.
4. Be wary of fake payout offers. There is no settlement.
5. Watch for class notice if the court certifies a class or approves a settlement.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for actual, statutory and punitive damages where allowed, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees and an order requiring Target to stop the "Sugar Free" claims and correct the public impression. Any money would require a win or a court-approved settlement.

• October 16, 2024: The plaintiff's purchase, per the complaint.
• July 27, 2026: Franco v. Chobani decision.
• October 20, 2026: Complaint filed.

You do not need to do anything to stay in a proposed class. If a class is certified, notice would explain any right to opt out.

• Allulose: A rare sugar found in small amounts in foods like figs and raisins, used as a low-calorie sweetener.
• Monosaccharide: A single sugar unit, like glucose or fructose.
• Nutrient content claim: A label statement describing a nutrient level, such as "sugar free."
• Price premium: The extra amount shoppers allegedly paid because of a label claim.

Target will likely respond with a motion to dismiss or an answer. Similar allulose cases are pending against Costco over Kirkland electrolyte packets and Dunkin' over its zero sugar energy drinks, so rulings there may shape this one. Class Action Pulse will update this page as the docket moves.

This page relies on the filed complaint and Top Class Actions coverage. Product images, the full label footnote and per-packet allulose amounts were not independently checked. Target's position is unknown until it files.

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.