What actions has the FTC taken against sellers of diabetes supplements making unproven claims since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 the Federal Trade Commission has pursued a mix of administrative and enforcement measures against sellers of diabetes supplements that make unproven treatment claims: the agency issued cease-and-desist demands and joined FDA warning letters to at least ten companies in 2021, filed administrative complaints that led to proposed and final orders against specific supplement marketers beginning from an action filed in November 2020, and has relied on its penalty-offense authority and court remedies in related cases to seek injunctive relief and monetary sanctions [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Cease-and-desist and joint warning letters: a coordinated sweep aimed at ten sellers
In September 2021 the FTC sent cease-and-desist letters to 10 companies it suspected of advertising unproven diabetes treatments, demanding that they stop claiming their products could prevent, treat, or cure diabetes without competent and reliable scientific evidence and giving recipients 15 days to respond or face possible legal action; those FTC demands were issued jointly with FDA warning letters that characterized the products as unapproved and misbranded drugs under the FD&C Act [2] [1] [5].
2. Administrative enforcement: complaints leading to proposed and final orders
The agency’s longer-term enforcement against supplement sellers began with administrative complaints such as the November 2020 filing against Health Research Laboratories, LLC, Whole Body Supplements, LLC, and owner Kramer Duhon, alleging unsubstantiated claims that products—including a supplement marketed for diabetic neuropathy—treated or cured disease; that matter produced a proposed order in March 2022 and a finalized order barring deceptive marketing practices in later FTC announcements [3] [4].
3. Litigation, settlements and monetary remedies: precedent and follow-through
The FTC’s toolkit has included litigation and negotiated settlements in diabetes-related supplement cases predating 2020 and informing the present effort: for example, the agency secured bans and monetary judgments in past cases such as the Nobetes settlement and other court actions that barred defendants from selling diabetes products and required payments—outcomes the FTC cites as part of its broader enforcement history against bogus diabetes cures [6] [7] [8].
4. Enforcement authorities the FTC invokes: evidence standards and penalties
In its actions the FTC has reiterated that disease-treatment claims for supplements must be supported by “competent and reliable scientific evidence,” typically well-controlled human clinical studies, and warned companies that violations may lead to federal court injunctions, administrative cease-and-desist orders, and civil penalties under the agency’s penalty-offense authority (15 U.S.C. §45(m)(B)), as spelled out in the cease-and-desist demands and related business guidance [1] [5].
5. Joint public-health posture with FDA and consumer outreach
The FTC has consistently coordinated with the Food and Drug Administration in these diabetes-related actions, combining the FTC’s deception authority with the FDA’s drug and misbranding statutes to both disrupt marketing and warn consumers that these products are unapproved new drugs when marketed as treatments for diabetes; the agencies have also used public consumer alerts to caution vulnerable patients against replacing prescribed therapies with unproven supplements [2] [5] [9].
6. Limits, counterarguments and industry pushback
Industry and some legal advocates have pushed back against stringent substantiation standards, and recent litigation (for example the Xlear-filed challenge reported in coverage) seeks to loosen longstanding FTC requirements that health claims be backed by substantial evidence—an active legal front that could reshape future enforcement even as the FTC continues to press cases using current standards [10]. The reporting assembled here does not provide outcomes for every 2021 recipient or the full universe of follow-on enforcement after the joint letters, so the public record in these sources is incomplete on case-by-case dispositions beyond the named administrative matters [2] [3].
Bottom line
Since 2020 the FTC has relied on coordinated warning letters, administrative complaints leading to orders, historic litigation precedents, and the threat of civil penalties to curtail diabetes supplement marketing that lacks credible clinical support, while partnering with the FDA to amplify consumer warnings; ongoing legal challenges from industry could, however, alter the agency’s evidentiary posture and future reach [2] [3] [1] [10].