Have any settlements, judgments, or disciplinary actions been recorded against Dr Eric Berg or his staff?
Executive summary
Public records and reporting show at least one formal disciplinary action against Dr. Eric Berg: a 2008 consent order from a Virginia licensing board that resulted in a reprimand and a monetary penalty for making unsupported therapeutic claims (Quackwatch summary of the board action) [1]. Additional legal and consumer actions involving Berg or his businesses include lawsuits (copyright and employment/Scientology-related suits), a 2021 California settlement and notice involving Berg Nutritionals under Proposition 65, and recent consumer class-action and complaint activity against his supplement company (court dockets, OAG settlement documents, class-action reporting) [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The 2008 Virginia board reprimand: the central disciplinary record
The clearest, documented disciplinary action traces to a Virginia consent order summarized by Quackwatch: the licensing board issued Dr. Eric Berg a formal reprimand and imposed a monetary penalty after concluding he made multiple therapeutic claims on his website and promotional materials that were not supported by reasonable scientific evidence [1]. Quackwatch’s summary quotes the order language — “issued a REPRIMAND” and “a MONETARY PENALTY” — and notes the board found Berg’s characterizations of his materials and techniques were misleading [1]. Available sources do not publish the full original board document here, but Quackwatch cites the consent agreement and its key findings [1].
2. Corporate settlements and product-related enforcement: California Prop 65 action
State enforcement and settlement papers show Berg’s business operations attracted regulatory attention beyond professional licensing. California’s Office of the Attorney General posted a 60-day notice and related judgment involving The Health & Wellness Center, Inc. dba Dr. Berg Nutritionals; the documents describe injunctive relief and civil penalties tied to lead exposure and product warnings under Prop 65 [6] [3]. The judgment language in the public filing states Berg Nutritionals “shall be permanently enjoined” from distributing certain products in California without proper warnings and that a non‑contingent civil penalty must be paid [6] [3].
3. Consumer and class-action litigation against Berg Nutritionals
Commercial litigation has targeted product marketing. Reporting from ClassAction.org describes a proposed class action filed in 2023 alleging that Dr. Berg Nutritionals marketed an electrolyte powder as “naturally flavored” despite containing DL malic acid, an ingredient the complaint says is artificial [4]. That filing is presented as a proposed class action rather than a final judgment; available sources do not report the ultimate court ruling on that suit here [4].
4. Civil lawsuits involving Dr. Berg personally or his enterprises
Court dockets reveal civil litigation in which Dr. Berg or his entities were parties: a 2017 federal copyright suit filed by Dr. Berg (Western District of Texas docket and CourtListener entries) and appellate litigation from other disputes (Justia and CourtListener records) [2] [7] [8]. Reporting also documents a 2022 lawsuit by a former employee alleging pressure to take Scientology courses — an employment suit covered by The Underground Bunker — which indicates personnel and religious‑practice claims surfaced in litigation [5]. Available sources show these suits existed and were reported, but do not in every case state final verdicts or settlements in the materials provided here [2] [5].
5. Consumer complaints and reputation material: BBB, Trustpilot and review sites
Business review platforms and complaint portals show numerous consumer grievances tied to Dr. Berg and his companies, from product complaints and dissatisfaction with advice to allegations about staff conduct; the Better Business Bureau lists complaints and notes the business is BBB-accredited, while Trustpilot and other review aggregators carry both critical and supportive reviews [9] [10] [11]. These entries document consumer disputes but are not equivalent to regulatory disciplinary orders or court judgments [9] [10] [11].
6. What the available records do not show
Available sources here do not provide a comprehensive, up-to‑date registry of every settlement, judgment, or discipline against every named staff member of Dr. Berg’s operations. They do not, in the provided material, include final dispositions for all lawsuits referenced (for example, the class action and some civil suits) nor a current, consolidated licensing-board database entry detailing every sanction or its present license‑status implications [4] [2] [12]. For full legal closure on each matter, primary court records, state licensing boards and the full California judgment document should be consulted directly [3] [12].
Summary judgment for readers: There is at least one public disciplinary order — a 2008 Virginia reprimand with a monetary penalty — and multiple civil and regulatory matters involving Dr. Berg or his companies, including a California Prop 65 judgment and product‑marketing litigation. The sources provided document allegations, filings and at least one formal licensing sanction, but do not supply final outcomes for every case referenced here [1] [3] [4] [2] [5].