Check out our new BigMac Zero. At least zero calories.
As for the "minimum calories," I've searched and either I'm out of date or was never correct: it seems like the FDA used to have a "80/120 rule": "beneficial nutrients" (vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, etc.) must be at least 80% of the label value and "nutrients to limit" (calories, sugars, fats, etc.) must no greater than 120% of the label value. So calories could theoretically be lower than advertised, but not significantly higher.
The FDA seems to no longer have this rule, but calories is still on the "nutrients to limit" side, so the FDA would be mandating maximums, not minimums. My mistake.
I don't recall ever seeing Tic Tacs actually claim "sugar free," though. "Zero grams" is allowed and most people read it the same way, while "sugar free" actually has some more requirements to be able to use.
Ps I thought the US used imperial measures, why are grams getting used?
In the UK if you buy a 'pint' of milk it will still be labelled 0.568 litres.
Presumably there are some rules in the US also, or labels could just use some obscure measures that hide what a product contains.
Labeling definitely isn't always imperial in the US, and it isn't always metric in many European countries. Regulations tend to do a good job of avoiding units that are obscure in that they're rarely used for the specific purpose in question or would have clumsy numbers like the pint to liters conversion you noted.
e.g. A common PET bottle size in the US and elsewhere is 0.5L, which in the US is labeled as "0.5L"/"500mL" usually along with the, in my opinion, somewhat pointless "16.9 fl oz". Meanwhile, a 2L PET bottle is also common in the US and is labeled (and known by virtually everyone) as "2L".
I hope that you mean it's labeled as 0.5L or 500mL and not both of them with a slash.