Franco v. Chobani, LLC, 1:23-cv-03047

Plaintiffs purchased Chobani's "Zero Sugar" yogurt, believing it contained no sugar, but later discovered it contains 4 grams of allulose per serving.
Plaintiffs asserted that allulose is a sugar and that labeling the product as "Zero Sugar" is misleading and violates federal and state laws.
Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action, asserting violations of consumer protection laws in 37 states, unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory and equitable relief.
Chobani moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption based on FDA regulations and guidance regarding allulose and food labeling.
The FDA has issued guidance stating it does not consider allulose a sugar for labeling purposes and will not enforce labeling rules requiring its disclosure as sugar pending further rulemaking.
The district court addressed both jurisdictional arguments (standing, personal jurisdiction) and preemption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preemption (federal law)	State claims not preempted because Chobani's label violates both state and federal labeling laws	FDA guidance is controlling; state laws imposing labeling standards contrary to FDA rules are preempted	Claims are preempted: FDA guidance on allulose controls; labeling is not misleading under federal standards, preempting state claims
Interpretation of "sugar"	Allulose (a monosaccharide) is a sugar, so labeling product "Zero Sugar" is deceptive	FDA guidance excludes allulose from "sugar" for labeling purposes, regardless of chemistry	Under FDA guidance, allulose is not a sugar as defined in relevant regs; "Zero Sugar" label is permissible
Personal jurisdiction	Court has general or specific jurisdiction due to Chobani's registration and nationwide conduct	Only specific jurisdiction exists for Illinois claims; no jurisdiction for claims unrelated to Illinois	No general jurisdiction; only specific jurisdiction over Illinois plaintiffs; dismissed out-of-state individuals' claims without prejudice
Enforcement guidance	Non-binding FDA guidance cannot preempt state law; guidance is limited to Nutrition Facts panel	Guidance represents official FDA interpretation and is controlling for both Nutrition Facts and external labeling	FDA guidance is controlling; applies to all labeling incorporating referenced definition; state law cannot impose stricter standards

Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020) (state law challenge not preempted unless label authorized by FDA regulation)
Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) (state law preempted if it seeks to impose labeling requirements different from FDA regs within express preemption provision)
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (general and specific personal jurisdiction distinctions)
Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 953 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2020) (in class actions, only named plaintiffs' jurisdiction matters)
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) (agency guidance controls unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (Auer deference applies to agency’s interpretation of its own regulations)