How do companies legally use celebrity names or images to market dietary supplements, and what protections exist for consumers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Companies can legally use celebrity names, likenesses and testimonials to market dietary supplements so long as endorsements are truthful, disclose any material connection, and the marketer has adequate evidence to support any performance claims; those rules are enforced primarily by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and constrained by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) labeling framework under DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act) [1] [2] [3]. Protections for consumers include disclosure requirements, prohibitions on false or misleading claims (and enforcement actions), the distinction between permissible structure/function claims and illegal disease claims, and avenues to report adverse events or deceptive ads — but gaps remain because supplements are regulated as foods, not drugs, and social‑media influencer practices often hide paid relationships [2] [3] [4].
1. How the law treats celebrity endorsements: truthfulness, material connections, and disclosure
U.S. rules require that celebrity endorsements “reflect the celebrity’s honest experience or opinion” and that any material connection — payment, free product, equity, or other tie that would affect credibility — be disclosed in a clear and conspicuous way so consumers can judge the recommendation’s weight [1] [2]. The FTC’s advertising guides give concrete examples and say it is not enough for an endorsement to merely appear sincere; the underlying advertising claims must also be substantiated with appropriate scientific evidence when they speak to product performance or health effects [5] [2].
2. What companies can and cannot claim about supplement benefits
Under DSHEA and FDA guidance, supplement marketers may make structure/function claims (how an ingredient supports normal body functions) but may not lawfully claim a product treats, cures, or prevents disease — such disease claims would reclassify the product as an unapproved drug [3] [6]. The FTC overlays this with a requirement that performance claims be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence; celebrity language that implies clinical benefit without substantiation can trigger enforcement [5] [2].
3. Practical mechanics: contracts, risk management, and the celebrity’s role
Brands commonly draft contracts to limit liabilities and require celebrities to make certain statements or to use particular language; savvy companies and talent counsel use indemnities, insurance and clear promotional scripts to reduce risk because agencies, distributors and ad producers can all be liable for deceptive promotions [7] [5]. Nonetheless celebrities and influencers who fail to disclose material connections or who promote unsubstantiated health claims can face legal exposure alongside the advertisers [5] [4].
4. Enforcement, fraud, and the limits of protection
The FTC has a long enforcement record against deceptive celebrity‑style promotions, including fake “news reports” that falsely attribute celebrity endorsements, and will seek cease‑and‑desist orders and penalties where ads are materially misleading [8] [5]. Academic and regulatory reviews find frequent violations in celebrity supplement endorsements and widespread problems with undisclosed paid partnerships on social media, which blunt the consumer‑protection framework because disclosures are often obscured or omitted [9] [4]. Fraudulent use of celebrity names in phishing or scam diets has also misled large numbers of consumers, illustrating enforcement limits and harms [10].
5. What consumers can do and where protections fall short
Consumers can check for disclosures on ads, report deceptive endorsements to the FTC, and report supplement adverse events to the FDA; they should critically evaluate whether claims are structure/function versus disease claims and seek medical advice for health conditions [1] [2] [3]. However, gaps remain: supplements are regulated as foods (not pre‑approved drugs), enforcement is reactive rather than preventative, and the fast pace of influencer marketing makes hidden material connections a persistent problem despite clear legal standards [3] [4].