Who owns the Burn Peak supplement brand?

1. What people explicitly claim about who owns Burn Peak — the competing narratives that matter

The pool of supplied analyses makes two primary, direct claims about ownership. One analysis identifies IDEAL PERFORMANCE as the owner of Burn Peak with an associated customer-review page that assigns a 2.3-star rating and records buyer complaints about efficacy and refunds, suggesting a named operator visible in at least one commercial listing ^[1]. Other materials and the site copy emphasize that the product is made in FDA-registered, GMP-certified U.S. facilities and provide a customer-support email and phone number, but these elements stop short of naming a corporate parent or registrant on the face of promotional pages, leaving brand-level contact details rather than full corporate ownership data as the dominant disclosure ^{[2] [3]}. The result is a two-track public narrative: one explicit owner listing in a retailer review page and broader promotional materials that avoid naming a legal entity.

2. What the supplied documents do not say — gaps and what they imply about transparency

None of the provided source analyses offers statutory corporate details such as a registered business name, tax ID, manufacturer’s corporate owner, or FDA facility registration owner for Burn Peak; the privacy and policy texts referenced are generic and unrelated to ownership disclosure ^[4]. That absence is material: supplements sold online often list either a manufacturer or distributor as the responsible party; when that information is missing from marketing pages and independent databases, accountability and traceability are limited, making consumer recourse and regulatory follow-up harder. The supplied Health Fraud Product Database extract specifically does not list Burn Peak, which means there is no regulatory record in this dataset tying the brand to a specific firm or enforcement action ^[5]. The lack of a clear, consistent corporate identifier across sources is itself an important factual point.

3. Clues that point toward likely operators — customer support, manufacturing claims, and retail traces

While direct corporate registration details are absent from most promotional copy, the official site materials include a support email and a U.S. phone number, and the marketing asserts manufacture in FDA-registered, GMP-certified U.S. facilities — operational signals commonly used by third-party supplement marketers to convey legitimacy without disclosing ownership ^{[2] [3]}. Separately, a retailer-facing page and aggregated review entry explicitly list IDEAL PERFORMANCE as the brand owner, which provides the strongest candidate name in the dataset for corporate ownership ^[1]. An additional analysis references Walmart in passing as a possible distributor or affiliate, but that claim lacks corroborating detail in the supplied texts and should be treated as a speculative connection rather than a confirmed ownership link ^[6]. Taken together, the most concrete attribution in the supplied materials is to IDEAL PERFORMANCE, but the company’s role (manufacturer, marketer, or distributor) is not fully specified.

4. Contradictions, consumer reports, and why these matter for verifying ownership

Customer complaints documented in the dataset focus on alleged nonperformance, refund difficulties, and suspicious promotional tactics — including claims about fake endorsements — and these complaints are tied to the identity presented as IDEAL PERFORMANCE on at least one page, which harms the credibility of a sole-source ownership claim if it cannot be independently verified through corporate filings ^[1]. At the same time, the official product site’s emphasis on U.S. manufacturing and a refund policy with explicit support contacts suggests a structured commercial operation even if the legal owner’s name is withheld from advertising materials ^{[2] [3]}. The tension between consumer grievances linked to a named firm and broader marketing that avoids naming a legal entity underlines why reliable ownership verification requires cross-checking beyond promotional pages.

5. Conclusion and recommended next steps to settle ownership definitively

Based solely on the provided analyses, the best-supported factual conclusion is that IDEAL PERFORMANCE appears as the owner in at least one seller listing and therefore is the leading candidate for brand ownership, while official marketing materials emphasize manufacturing and support contacts without naming a corporate parent, leaving transparency gaps ^{[1] [2]}. To resolve ownership conclusively, consult formal public records: business registration databases, domain WHOIS records, product labeling required by FDA for dietary supplements, and transaction or merchant-processor filings; absent those checks, the ownership claim remains plausible but not fully substantiated from the supplied material. For consumers and investigators, the absence of consistent corporate disclosure combined with consumer complaints should be treated as a signal to demand clearer ownership documentation before accepting marketing claims at face value ^{[1] [5]}.