What official actions have attorneys general or the BBB taken against weight‑loss ad funnels that misuse celebrity doctors?

Checked on January 3, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.

Executive summary

State attorneys general have mounted a coordinated push targeting platforms that host misleading weight‑loss ad funnels—most visibly through a bipartisan coalition pressing Meta to enforce its advertising rules against AI‑generated images and false medical claims [1] [2]. Federal regulators have also acted historically against networks using fake celebrity endorsements, but there is no clear documentation in the supplied reporting of current BBB enforcement actions specific to celebrity‑doctor misuse in weight‑loss funnels [3] [4] [5].

1. What the attorneys general have done: coordinated letters and requests to Meta

More than three dozen state attorneys general, led publicly by Pennsylvania’s AG and joined by officials including Connecticut’s William Tong and Arizona’s Attorney General Mayes, sent a bipartisan letter urging Meta to strengthen enforcement of its pharmaceutical and wellness advertising policies to stop AI‑generated before/after photos, fake testimonials and overstated GLP‑1 claims that appear across Facebook and Instagram [1] [6] [7]. The coalition explicitly asked Meta to better police deceptive affiliate funnels and protect consumers making medical decisions based on social‑media ads, framing the push as both a consumer‑protection and public‑health concern given GLP‑1 drugs’ rise in popularity [8] [2].

2. Federal precedent and tools: the FTC’s enforcement history against fake celebrity endorsements

Federal enforcement offers a direct precedent: the FTC has pursued and settled multi‑million‑dollar cases against internet marketers who trafficked in fake celebrity endorsements and phony “news” sites to sell weight‑loss and other products, and its guidance on endorsements and testimonials sets the legal baseline for truthful advertising [3] [4] [5]. The FTC’s endorsement guides and subsequent updates clarify that false celebrity endorsements, fabricated testimonials, or deceptive native advertising can trigger regulatory actions under unfair or deceptive practices authorities [9] [5].

3. How these official actions map to “ad funnels” that misuse celebrity doctors

The attorneys general campaigns target the platforms that host ad funnels rather than individual small sellers, asking Meta to stop the proliferation of ads that use AI to manufacture authoritative spokespeople or manipulated imagery—tactics common to funnels that imply celebrity or doctor endorsement without authorization [1] [2]. While state AGs have leaned on platform enforcement and public letters, the supplied reporting does not show a contemporaneous wave of state‑level lawsuits specifically naming celebrity doctors as misused endorsers; instead, it mirrors the FTC’s past strategy of going after networks and marketers that create faux editorial sites and fake endorsements [3] [4].

4. Limits of the record and role of other actors (including the BBB)

The sources document state AG letters and federal FTC precedent but do not provide evidence that the Better Business Bureau has launched formal, public enforcement actions against weight‑loss funnels for misusing celebrity doctors; the supplied material also lacks reports of new AG civil enforcement cases or injunctions in the current campaign beyond the Meta letters [1] [3]. Independent reporting and consumer alerts underscore real harms—victims fooled by convincing AI‑generated celebrity ads—adding urgency to regulators’ requests, but the present documentation points to policy pressure and precedent rather than a flurry of new court orders or BBB sanctions [10] [11].

5. Stakes, motivations and next steps to watch

Attorneys general frame their letters as consumer‑protection moves aimed at preventing medical misinformation and commercial deception as GLP‑1 hype spreads, a message that can both protect public health and draw regulatory scrutiny to major platforms; meanwhile, the FTC’s established enforcement playbook shows that regulators can and will pursue networks that create fake celebrity or doctor endorsements, but those actions take investigative work and sometimes years to resolve [8] [3] [5]. Watch for formal investigations, civil investigative demands, or coordinated actions that couple state AG pressure with FTC enforcement—or for platform policy changes from Meta in response to the multi‑state letter—which would represent the next tangible enforcement steps [2] [6].

Want to dive deeper?
What specific FTC settlements have targeted fake celebrity endorsements in weight‑loss marketing and what remedies were imposed?
How do Meta’s current ad‑policy enforcement mechanisms work for preventing AI‑generated medical claims on Facebook and Instagram?
Have any state attorneys general filed lawsuits (not just letters) against telehealth marketers promoting GLP‑1 drugs with deceptive celebrity or doctor endorsements?