Have courts certified any class-action lawsuits against Dr. Gundry or his companies?

1. What the records delivered to me actually show — lawsuits and complaints, not a certified class

Reporting in Bloomberg Law documents a private civil suit from October 2023 in which Epitracker Inc. and Seraphina Therapeutics allege that Steven R. Gundry and partners conceived of a competing product and infringing conduct tied to a specific Fatty15 product and a U.S. patent ^[1]. The Better Business Bureau profile and complaint pages show a stream of consumer grievances against Gundry MD products and customer-service issues, but those are complaints and dispute resolutions — not court-certified class actions ^{[2] [3]}.

2. No source here says a court has certified a class against Gundry or GundryMD

None of the supplied search results report that a federal or state court has granted class certification in any lawsuit against Dr. Gundry or his companies. The class-action resources and aggregators in the dataset (TopClassActions, Consumer Fraud Reporting, and similar lists) mention class actions generally or list settlements unrelated to Gundry, but they do not identify any certified class involving GundryMD in the documents provided ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. Beware name collisions — “Casey A. v. Gundry” is unrelated to the supplement entrepreneur

One result is an ACLU case titled Casey A. v. Gundry; that case is a class action, but it is directed at Los Angeles County Office of Education and probation-related defendants, not Dr. Steven Gundry or his companies. Treating that case as evidence of litigation against the supplement entrepreneur would be a mistaken conflation ^[4].

4. What the Bloomberg Law story signals about legal exposure — patent fight, not consumer class certification

The Bloomberg Law piece documents an intellectual-property dispute alleging product copying and patent infringement tied to Gundry’s actions with suppliers — a type of high-stakes commercial litigation that can lead to injunctions or damages but is distinct from consumer class action certification ^[1]. Available sources do not mention any consumer class certification order, settlement requiring notice to a class, or claims-administration process tied to GundryMD in the provided material ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Consumer complaints are plentiful but are not the same as a class-action judgment

The BBB profile and complaint pages show consumer reports about refunds, product performance, and advertising practices; those can be evidence for consumer-plaintiff counsel considering class claims but do not, by themselves, indicate a court has found the matter appropriate for class treatment ^{[2] [3]}. The consumer‑fraud aggregator site lists Dr. Gundry among entries on alleged “bogus claims,” but it does not document court orders certifying a class ^[5].

6. Where this reporting is limited — what I cannot confirm from these sources

Available sources do not mention: (a) any filed class-action complaints against GundryMD that proceeded to a certification motion; (b) any court orders granting class certification; (c) any class settlements or notices to a class of consumers tied to Gundry or GundryMD (not found in current reporting) ^{[2] [1] [3]}. I cannot confirm lawsuits that may exist outside these documents or that emerged after the included items.

7. Why this distinction matters for readers and potential claimants

Class certification is a specific judicial finding that changes how litigation proceeds and who can recover; consumer complaints and single-plaintiff commercial suits create reputational and legal pressure, but they do not automatically create classwide remedies. The sources here document complaints and at least one commercial IP lawsuit ^{[2] [1]} but do not demonstrate that a court has certified a class against Dr. Gundry or his companies.

If you want, I can expand this search to additional legal databases or news outlets to check for any class-certification orders or settlements beyond the items you supplied.