Target Class Action Lawsuit Claims “Sugar-Free” Up & Up Hydration Powder Contains Sugar, Williams v. Target Corporation

Target Corporation is facing a putative class action alleging that its Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder is misleadingly labeled because its first ingredient is allulose, which the plaintiff says is a sugar under federal labeling rules.

Iesha Williams filed Williams v. Target Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-12870, on October 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She is represented by Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC. The case seeks damages and a change to Target’s labeling. No class has been certified, and there is no settlement, claim form or payment deadline.

The case lands in the Seventh Circuit, which on July 27, 2026 held in Franco v. Chobani, LLC that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation defining total sugars. That gives the complaint a strong legal backdrop, but it does not decide this case.

Two details matter most. First, the label shown in the complaint already has a footnote after allulose saying it “adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar,” so the plaintiff’s argument is not simply that a disclosure is missing. Second, the complaint does not state how many grams of allulose are in each packet. The federal “sugar-free” claim rule generally requires less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving, and having allulose as the first ingredient does not by itself prove a serving exceeds that limit.

Quick Facts: Williams v. Target Corporation

Detail	Information
Case	Williams v. Target Corporation
Case number	1:26-cv-12870
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Filed	October 20, 2026
Plaintiff	Iesha Williams (Rockford, Illinois)
Defendant	Target Corporation
Plaintiff’s attorney	Kevin Laukaitis, Laukaitis Law LLC
Judge	U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang; Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez designated
Product	Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder
Ingredient at issue	Allulose
Main allegation	“Sugar-Free” and “Zero Sugar” claims are misleading
Proposed classes	Illinois purchasers and purchasers in seven other states
Class certified	No
Settlement / claim form / deadline	None

Sources: the class action complaint and the federal docket.

What Is the Target Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Powder Lawsuit About?

According to the complaint, the front of the package says “Sugar-Free,” and allulose is listed first among the ingredients. Allulose is a monosaccharide, a simple sugar. Williams argues federal regulations count it within total sugars, so Target should not market the powder as sugar-free unless it meets the regulatory conditions.

The Nutrition Facts panel shown in the complaint reports:

Per serving (1 stick, 13g)	Amount
Calories	15
Total carbohydrate	6g
Total sugars	0g
Added sugars	0g

Williams argues the front label and the panel together tell shoppers the product has no sugar. These are allegations. Target has not been found liable.

Which Target hydration powder products are covered?

All flavors and package sizes of Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder: Lemon Lime, White Peach, Green Grape and Grapefruit, in a 2.8-ounce box of six packets, a 9.2-ounce box of 20 packets and a four-flavor variety pack. The complaint says the products are sold in Target stores and on Target.com. It does not cover every Up & Up drink mix.

Does the Target Label Disclose That Allulose Adds Sugar?

Partly. The package images in the complaint show a symbol after allulose in the ingredient list and a footnote stating it “adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar.”

That matters because 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(1) sets conditions for “sugar-free,” “zero sugar” and “no sugar” claims. Among them, a food generally must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars per reference amount and per labeled serving, and must not contain an ingredient that is a sugar unless the ingredient listing carries a qualifying disclosure that it adds a trivial, negligible or dietarily insignificant amount of sugar. The plaintiff argues these requirements apply together, so the footnote does not satisfy the separate 0.5-gram requirement.

The weakness to watch: the complaint gives no laboratory result and no grams of allulose per packet. That number could become a central factual issue.

Read 21 C.F.R. § 101.60.

Why Can a Label Show 0g Sugar if the Product Contains Allulose?

In October 2020, the FDA said it would exercise enforcement discretion for manufacturers that leave allulose out of the Total Sugars and Added Sugars lines on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. That policy explains how a label can list allulose yet show zero grams of sugars.

An enforcement policy is not a rewrite of the regulation. The written definition of total sugars in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(6)(ii) covers free mono- and disaccharides, and the Seventh Circuit later relied on that text.

Read the FDA’s October 2020 allulose guidance.

How Does the Seventh Circuit’s Chobani Decision Affect the Target Lawsuit?

In Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087, 184 F.4th 599 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026), consumers challenged Chobani’s “zero sugar” yogurt, which contained four grams of allulose per serving. The district court had dismissed on preemption grounds, deferring to the FDA’s 2020 guidance. The Seventh Circuit reversed. It held that:

• Allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation defining total sugars.
• The FDA’s guidance announced an enforcement policy and did not change the regulation, so the state-law claims were not preempted on that basis.
• The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that consumers could be deceived by a “sugar-free” claim on a product with that much allulose.

Franco is a pleading-stage ruling. It did not find Chobani liable.

Why does Chobani matter in an Illinois case?

The Seventh Circuit covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, and its interpretation of federal law binds federal district courts there, including the Northern District of Illinois. But Franco involved about four grams of allulose per serving. The Target complaint gives no figure. Target can still contest the amount per serving, whether shoppers were misled, whether the plaintiff and class lost money in a legally recoverable way, and whether a class can be certified.

Read the Seventh Circuit’s July 27, 2026 opinion.

What Does the Plaintiff Say Happened?

Williams says she bought the Lemon Lime powder at a Target in Rockford, Illinois on October 16, 2024, relied on the “Sugar-Free” and “Zero Sugar” claims, and paid a premium because of them. She alleges she would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose.

The alleged injury is economic: paying for a product that did not match its marketing, paying a price premium and losing the benefit of the bargain. The complaint cites research on possible gastrointestinal effects of allulose, such as nausea, bloating and diarrhea, but this is not a personal injury case, and the research does not show that Target’s product made anyone sick.

Who Is in the Proposed Target Class?

Williams proposes two groups of people who bought the product for personal use:

• An Illinois class.
• A multi-state consumer protection class covering Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

No judge has approved either group. The class definition could change, because the complaint reserves the right to amend the list of states after discovery. Buying the product does not make you a class member unless the court certifies a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and you fit its definition.

What Laws Does the Complaint Say Target Violated?

1. State consumer protection laws in the eight states above, which generally prohibit unfair or deceptive practices.
2. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The complaint also refers to Illinois food-labeling law and federal regulations as standards for whether the product is misbranded.
3. Unjust enrichment, arguing Target should not keep revenue from sales made under allegedly misleading claims.

The complaint seeks state-law remedies and does not bring a standalone claim under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

What Does the Target Lawsuit Ask For?

Williams requests a jury trial, compensatory and statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory relief and an injunction requiring Target to stop or correct the challenged claims.

The complaint alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. That is a jurisdictional allegation under the Class Action Fairness Act, not a settlement amount, and it does not mean any purchaser will receive money.

What Is the Current Status of the Target Lawsuit?

The docket snapshot reviewed shows the complaint, a civil cover sheet, a summons issued to Target and assignment to Judge Chang with Magistrate Judge Valdez designated. The snapshot was last retrieved October 20, 2026, so check PACER for later activity. No class certification, settlement or merits ruling has been identified. The next steps will likely be Target’s response and any motion challenging the complaint.

What Should Target Hydration Powder Buyers Do Now?

You do not need to file anything. There is no claim process or administrator. If you want records in case a notice program follows, keep Target receipts or Target Circle purchase history, order confirmations, photos of the package showing the ingredients and Nutrition Facts panel, the flavor and size and the approximate purchase date and place. Do not pay anyone who offers to register you for a Target settlement, because none has been announced. This lawsuit is not a recall and does not show the powder is unsafe.

Other Allulose and Sugar-Free Labeling Lawsuits

The Target case is part of a wave of putative class actions challenging “sugar-free” and “zero sugar” claims on products with allulose. Related AllAboutLawyer coverage:

• Kroger Zero Sugar Syrup Allulose Class Action Lawsuit, Newton v. The Kroger Co.
• Costco Allulose Class Action Lawsuit Targets Kirkland Signature Sugar-Free Drink Mix
• Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free Lawsuit, Were You Affected? Ulrich et al. v. The LIV Group, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-08349

Each involves a different defendant, label and class, and a ruling in one does not decide the others.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Target Sugar-Free Hydration Powder Lawsuit

What is the Target sugar-free hydration powder lawsuit about?

It alleges Target misleadingly markets its Up & Up Sugar-Free Hydration Supplement Powder as sugar-free even though allulose, which the plaintiff says is a sugar, is the first ingredient.

What is the case number?

Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870, in the Northern District of Illinois.

Who filed it?

Iesha Williams of Rockford, Illinois, represented by Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC.

Is allulose a sugar under federal law?

The Seventh Circuit held on July 27, 2026 in Franco v. Chobani that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation defining total sugars.

Why does the label show zero grams of sugar?

The FDA’s 2020 enforcement-discretion policy lets manufacturers omit allulose from the sugar lines. The Seventh Circuit said that policy did not change the regulation’s definition.

How much allulose is in one Target packet?

The complaint does not say. That is an open factual issue.

Does the package admit allulose adds sugar?

The package footnote says allulose “adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar.” The plaintiff argues that does not answer the separate 0.5-gram-per-serving requirement.

Can I get money from this lawsuit?

No. It is a new putative class action. No money has been awarded, and there is no claim form.

Which states are in the proposed class?

Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. The court has not certified any class.

Is the powder being recalled?

No. The lawsuit challenges labeling and does not allege or establish that the product is unsafe.

Primary Sources and Court Records

1. Complaint: Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12870, filed October 20, 2026.
2. Docket: Northern District of Illinois docket.
3. Appellate decision: Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. July 27, 2026).
4. FDA guidance: Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose, October 2020.
5. Regulations: 21 C.F.R. § 101.60 and 21 C.F.R. § 101.9.

Verification note: The complaint alleges the product fails the federal sugar-free requirements but gives no amount of allulose per packet. The package image includes a footnote about a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar. Franco supplies legal context but does not decide the allulose amount in Target’s product, whether it exceeds 0.5 grams per serving or whether Target is liable.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the complaint and docket in Williams v. Target Corporation, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Franco v. Chobani and the FDA’s October 2020 guidance, as of October 30, 2026. Last Updated: October 30, 2026.

AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent consumer information site, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. The claims discussed are allegations in a pending lawsuit.