Has Dr. Oz ever officially endorsed or licensed a dietary supplement brand?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Mehmet (Dr.) Oz has repeatedly promoted and endorsed dietary supplements—on his TV show, in magazine columns, and via social media—and has had paid advisory or promotional relationships with supplement companies, but the reporting does not document a single, consistently branded "Dr. Oz" supplement line that he both owned and licensed in the way a celebrity might license their name to a product family; instead the record shows endorsements, paid promotions, advisory roles and at least one high‑value promotional arrangement with a supplement maker [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Endorsements on air and in print: a long track record
Dr. Oz used his platform to recommend specific supplements and weight‑loss products—highlighting items such as green coffee bean extract, garcinia cambogia, forskolin, raspberry ketones and others—on The Dr. Oz Show and in other media, and those segments were later used by sellers to market products [5] [6] [1] [7].
2. Paid promotional arrangements and advisory roles: concrete ties to supplement firms
Reporting documents paid relationships: Oz had an arrangement with Usana Health Sciences—described as a five‑year, multi‑million‑dollar promotional relationship—and has been identified as a paid adviser or global advisor for brands such as iHerb, with watchdogs complaining he didn’t always disclose the financial ties in social posts [4] [3] [8].
3. Lawsuits, hearings and settlements that followed his endorsements
Oz’s enthusiastic promotion of certain supplements drew regulatory and congressional scrutiny: he testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing on supplement marketing after pushing green coffee extract and other products, and he reached a $5.25 million settlement in a false‑advertising class action over overstated weight‑loss claims tied to specific supplements [1] [7] [5].
4. Promotional use by sellers and watchdog criticism: blurred lines between endorsement and commercial licensing
Segments from Oz’s show were repurposed by marketers to sell products—an indicator of commercial value to his on‑air endorsements—and consumer watchdogs (e.g., Public Citizen, Truth in Advertising) flagged failures to disclose paid ties and donations that may have influenced what he promoted, raising questions about whether those promotions functioned like de facto licensing or paid endorsement deals even when not presented as formal “Dr. Oz” branded products [2] [3] [1].
5. The "Dr. Oz" brand and his own disclaimers: a contested boundary
The official Dr. Oz Show/doctoroz.com content frames "trusted partners" and states that unauthorized use of his name to sell supplements is "reckless and dangerous," but that messaging sits alongside years in which Oz personally recommended and publicly benefited from relationships with supplement firms—an inconsistency critics point to when distinguishing simple recommendation from formal endorsement or licensing [9] [2] [3].
6. What the reporting does and does not prove about a formal license
The available sources establish repeated endorsements, paid promotional arrangements (including large payments and advisory roles), and legal pushback over claims tied to products Oz promoted, but they stop short of documenting a single, clear legal license of a proprietary "Dr. Oz" supplement brand line that he created, owned, and licensed in his name; instead the documented pattern is endorsements, sponsorships and advisory agreements with supplement companies that used his credibility to market products [4] [3] [7] [1].
7. Competing interpretations and implicit incentives
Supporters argue that Oz was discussing emerging science and offering consumer options, while critics and regulators contend his promotions amplified weak evidence and benefited companies financially—an ambiguity compounded by donations, advisor fees and repackaging of his segments by sellers, which create implicit incentives similar to licensing without always following the transparency rules the FTC expects for endorsements [2] [3] [1].