Are there credible complaints, lawsuits, or FDA/FTC actions related to Apex Force or Dr. Mehmet Oz supplements?

1. Apex: an FTC enforcement campaign, but not necessarily the “Apex Force” supplement

The FTC’s public materials document a multi‑year enforcement matter against Apex Capital Group and related entities alleging deceptive “free trial” offers and unauthorized continuity billing for personal care products and dietary supplements; the agency secured stipulated orders, asset turnover, and in 2024–2025 returned more than $2.8 million in refunds to roughly 153,940 consumers ^[4][1]. Court and appellate filings for FTC v. Apex Capital Group are on public dockets and the agency’s legal pages ^[5][6]. Available sources link these actions to Apex Capital Group — a marketing/processing network — not to the small commercial brand “Apex Force” whose online reviews and critiques focus on marketing claims and customer service complaints ^[7][8]. Current reporting does not say that the FTC action involves the specific “Apex Force” product pages seen on consumer review sites; available sources do not mention a direct regulatory action against the small Apex Force supplement brand ^[9][8].

2. Consumer complaints about “Apex Force” products: reviews, billing and efficacy grievances

Independent reviews and consumer‑review pages show mixed to critical user feedback for products labeled Apex Force or ApexForce: common complaints include lack of results, billing and refund difficulties, and opaque ingredient or clinical‑claim sourcing ^[8][10]. Several Trustpilot pages and niche review posts exist but are limited in volume and sometimes inconsistent across domains ^[9][11][12]. These items document consumer dissatisfaction and skepticism about marketing claims, but available reporting does not show a federal enforcement action or a settled lawsuit specifically naming the Apex Force supplement itself ^[8][7].

3. Dr. Mehmet Oz: documented lawsuits, settlements and congressional scrutiny

Dr. Oz has a documented legal history tied to supplements he promoted on television. He was named in class actions alleging false advertising tied to green coffee and garcinia cambogia products; reporting and legal analysis note a roughly $5.25 million settlement he reached in the Woodard/Labrada litigation related to claims about green coffee extract and related promotions ^[2][3]. Additional reporting connects other settlements and FTC action against marketers who used appearances on The Dr. Oz Show to drive sales and deceptive claims ^[13]. News outlets covering his Senate/CMS confirmation repeatedly referenced these lawsuits and congressional questioning about his promotion of unproven supplements ^[14][15].

4. Who enforces: FTC vs. FDA, and how that shapes outcomes

Regulation of supplements and advertising involves both FDA and FTC responsibilities: FDA handles product safety and adulteration under the FD&C Act, while the FTC focuses on advertising and deceptive marketing claims — and recent guidance and cases show the FTC increasingly policing health‑product advertising ^[16][17]. For example, FTC press releases and settlements tied to supplement marketers have centered on deceptive efficacy claims and “free trial” billing practices rather than pre‑market FDA approvals ^[1][13]. The sources show the enforcement landscape matters: a deceptive ad case can lead to consumer refunds and marketing bans even when the FDA does not “approve” a supplement ^[1][17].

5. Competing perspectives and limitations in the record

Advocates and review sites accuse Apex Force marketers of exaggerated clinical claims and poor transparency; independent watchdog posts say marketing assertions like “doctor approved” lack verifiable backing ^[7][10]. Proponents of Dr. Oz stress his celebrity platform and claim he popularized consumer interest in supplements; critics and plaintiffs argue his on‑air endorsements led to deceptive marketing and consumer harm, a view reinforced by settlement documents and congressional scrutiny ^[3][15]. Importantly, available sources do not directly tie the FTC’s Apex Capital Group enforcement to the branded Apex Force supplement pages frequently seen in online ads, and they do not document a federal lawsuit naming the small Apex Force product itself ^[4][8].

6. What consumers should watch for next

Consumers should distinguish between similarly named entities: Apex Capital Group (the marketing/processing defendants in FTC litigation) is a documented enforcement target ^[4][1]; smaller brands named “Apex Force” appear in review and critique coverage but are not shown in current reporting to be defendants in the FTC matter ^[8][5]. For individuals worried about Dr. Oz‑promoted supplements, the historical record of class actions and settlements tied to products featured on his show is clear and reported repeatedly in mainstream and legal outlets ^[2][3]. If you plan to buy a supplement, check for independent lab testing, clear ingredient lists, and whether marketers cite peer‑reviewed clinical evidence — and be alert to subscription “free trial” billing practices flagged by the FTC ^[7][1].

Limitations: this summary uses only the provided documents; if you want court filings or FTC settlement orders themselves, the FTC legal pages and the Ninth Circuit opinions cited in these sources are the primary documents to consult ^[6][18].