What are the FDA and FTC rules on celebrity endorsements of dietary supplements and how are they enforced?
Executive summary
Celebrities who promote dietary supplements fall squarely under the FTC’s truth-in-advertising rules for endorsements and under FDA rules when their statements cross into product labeling or disease claims; both agencies share oversight under a longstanding liaison agreement but wield different tools—FTC focuses on substantiation and deceptive advertising enforcement while FDA enforces labeling, safety, and drug‑vs‑supplement distinctions [1] [2] [3]. In practice the FTC requires competent and reliable scientific evidence for health claims, treats endorsements and testimonials as subject to that standard, can hold endorsers personally liable, and has pursued celebrity endorsers in past enforcement [2] [4] [5].
1. Who does what: the FDA/FTC split and how it affects celebrity claims
The FDA has primary jurisdiction over the safety and labeling of dietary supplements, including regulation of what may appear on packaging and whether a product is effectively being marketed as a drug, while the FTC has primary jurisdiction over advertising and promotions—including celebrity endorsements—so marketers must satisfy both regimes when an endorsement appears online, on packaging, or in media appearances [2] [1] [6]. The agencies operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that allocates labeling to FDA and advertising to FTC but recognizes significant overlap: the same website or social post can be both labeling and advertising and therefore fall under both agencies’ rules [1] [6].
2. The legal standard for endorsements: substantiation and “competent and reliable scientific evidence”
FTC’s current Health Products Compliance Guidance applies a uniform substantiation standard—“competent and reliable scientific evidence”—for health and safety claims regardless of whether FDA would classify them as structure/function claims, health claims, or drug claims; celebrity endorsements that assert health benefits must be supported by that level of evidence, not merely testimonials or consumer surveys [1] [2] [4]. FDA guidance likewise tells manufacturers to ensure labeling claims are scientifically sound and adequate in the context of the evidence; when endorsements accompany or imply labeling claims, FDA will scrutinize whether the claim effectively makes the product an unapproved drug [2] [3].
3. Disclosure and deception: what endorsers must reveal and what won’t excuse a misleading claim
The FTC requires clear, conspicuous disclosure of material connections (payments, free product, equity, or participation in marketing) between endorsers and marketers, and warns that standard FDA disclaimers—like the DSHEA statement that the FDA has not evaluated the claim—do not cure an otherwise deceptive or unsubstantiated health‑benefit claim [4] [7]. The guidance also flags that references to third‑party literature, books, or studies in an ad can create implied efficacy claims that the advertiser and endorser must substantiate [6].
4. Enforcement tools and real-world consequences for celebrities and brands
The FTC can bring deception or unfairness enforcement actions under its Act, seeking injunctions, refunds, and civil penalties; its updated guidance explicitly notes that individual endorsers, ad agencies, and corporate officers can be held liable for deceptive marketing, and it has previously filed complaints naming celebrity endorsers—most famously alleging that Steve Garvey helped develop deceptive supplement claims in an infomercial—illustrating that public figures are not insulated from enforcement [5] [4]. FDA enforcement complements FTC action by removing adulterated or misbranded products from the market and by warning or pursuing firms that make disease claims that would render a supplement a drug [8] [2].
5. Practical implications and conflicts of interest: industry self‑regulation and gray zones
Industry groups emphasize compliance and voluntary codes of ethics, noting the complex regulatory web and state laws that also apply, but critics argue self‑regulation can be a pretext for softer oversight; the agencies’ joint guidance and recent FTC focus on influencer and social media marketing reflect pressure to close gray zones where celebrity posts skirt substantiation and disclosure requirements [8] [9] [10]. Where source material is silent, reporting cannot determine how often celebrities are individually sanctioned beyond public FTC actions, but agency guidance makes clear that both celebrities and brands must be ready to substantiate claims and to disclose financial ties if audited or sued [1] [4].