Have there been class‑action lawsuits against other celebrity supplement brands and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Class-action litigation has repeatedly hit the dietary-supplement sector — including brands tied to public figures — producing a patchwork of outcomes from multi‑million‑dollar settlements and default judgments to quick dismissals or voluntary withdrawals [1] [2] [3]. Recent cases involving celebrity-linked products fit the broader pattern: plaintiffs press false‑advertising and mislabeling theories, while defendants sometimes prevail on standing or scientific‑evidence grounds or resolve quietly out of court [4] [5] [6].
1. Notable celebrity‑linked suits: headlines and results
Public‑facing founders and celebrity co‑founders have been targeted: a putative class action sued Lemme, co‑founded by Kourtney Kardashian Barker, over claims that its GLP‑1 Daily supplement was ineffective and merely “extracts of lemon, orange and saffron,” with litigation publicly reported in mid‑2025 [7]. Brian “Liver King” Johnson faced a high‑profile New York class action seeking over $25 million alleging deceptive marketing of organ‑based supplements, but court records show the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case with prejudice, suggesting the claim is finished in that forum [8] [3]. Those celebrity matters mirror numerous other actions against non‑celebrity brands that have produced large monetary outcomes or defendant wins [1] [2].
2. Settlement wins, default judgments and tosses — a mixed ledger
Class actions in the supplement arena have produced a wide range of legal outcomes: Dannon’s Activia litigation led to a $35 million settlement that spawned copycat suits and set a precedent for large resolutions [1]. In contrast, some defendants were ordered to pay substantial sums after losing or defaulting — for example, makers of BlackOxygen supplements were ordered to pay customers more than $7.5 million after a default judgment [2]. Conversely, courts have dismissed or stayed cases where plaintiffs could not show concrete injury or where regulatory uncertainty prevailed, as when a proposed class action against Germ‑X maker Vi‑Jon was tossed and other cases were stayed pending FDA rulemaking on CBD products [9] [5].
3. Why some class actions succeed and others fail: law, science and forum dynamics
Plaintiffs often rely on state consumer‑protection statutes and advertising theories that are lucrative in plaintiff‑friendly forums like California, but winning a class requires more than headlines: courts increasingly demand scientific support that an advertised benefit is false and clear proof of injury, and defendants frequently succeed by attacking standing or the adequacy of the proof [9] [4]. Regulatory ambiguity compounds the picture: judges have granted stays where FDA rulemaking on novel product categories (e.g., CBD) is pending, effectively freezing private suits until federal clarity arrives [5]. Plaintiffs’ lawyers also watch regulatory enforcement closely and bring copycat claims after high‑profile agency actions [9].
4. Industry trends: volume, concentration and strategic responses
The flow of litigation ebbs and flows — Perkins Coie and trade reporting show filings spiked around 2022 and then moderated, with dozens of new supplement class actions filed annually and a large share (roughly half to 70% in some years) alleging false‑fact or mislabeling claims [6] [10] [11]. Manufacturers respond by tightening labels, removing products from retailers under pressure, and settling or litigating; retailers like Walgreens and Target have previously pulled disputed products after mislabeling fights [12]. Many matters resolve outside public view through demand‑letter negotiations and confidential settlements, which obscures the full tally of celebrity‑brand exposures [6].
5. Bottom line: celebrity branding does not immunize supplements from class actions
Celebrity association may magnify publicity and plaintiff interest but does not change the legal dynamics: suits against celebrity‑linked brands follow the same playbook as other supplement class actions and can end in settlement, dismissal, default judgment, or voluntary withdrawal depending on proof, jurisdiction, and regulatory context [7] [8] [3] [1] [2]. Reporting and industry law analyses emphasize that outcomes hinge on concrete injury evidence, admissible science, and the strategic interplay between private plaintiffs and government regulatory signals — factors that have produced both costly losses for defendants and notable defensive wins [9] [4] [5].