CVS Zero Sugar Lawsuit Over Allulose in Well Market Replenish Mix

A newly filed lawsuit accuses CVS of misleading customers through its store-brand Well Market "Sugar Free" Drink Mix Replenish line, which is marketed as "ZERO SUGAR" despite allegedly containing allulose, a substance the plaintiff identifies as a simple sugar (monosaccharide). Anyone who bought the product specifically to avoid sugar may want to pay attention.

According to the complaint, CVS brands the product "ZERO SUGAR" on its packaging, markets it on CVS.com with phrases like "Sugar Free" and "Zero sugar formula," and lists "0g" total sugars on the Supplement Facts panel. Yet the lawsuit points out that CVS's own ingredient disclosures name allulose as the very first inactive ingredient. The plaintiff contends that because allulose is a sugar, the "Sugar Free" and "Zero Sugar" claims can't be true. CVS has not responded to these allegations, and no court has ruled on the matter.

The complaint anticipates a likely counterargument: in 2020, the FDA stated it wouldn't object to manufacturers excluding allulose from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars counts on nutrition labels, which is why the label can legally show "0g" sugar. But the plaintiff argues that this FDA leniency applies only to the numeric values on the nutrition panel, not to separate marketing claims like "Sugar Free" or "Zero Sugar" found on the front of the package or in ads.

The case proposes two groups of affected consumers: a nationwide class of U.S. buyers who purchased the Well Market Replenish products for personal use, and a narrower California-only subclass. The named plaintiff says she bought the Watermelon-flavored version at a CVS store in June 2025. It's worth noting that these are only proposed classes, a judge still needs to certify them before anyone officially becomes part of the lawsuit, and the scope could change.

The lawsuit raises four legal claims: unjust enrichment on behalf of the nationwide class, along with violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law on behalf of the California subclass. The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, though these remain requests, not amounts that have been awarded.