What specific FTC or FDA actions have targeted diabetes supplement scams since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 federal regulators have repeatedly targeted dietary supplements marketed with unlawful diabetes treatment claims through a mix of administrative complaints, coordinated warning letters, and public consumer advisories; the most concrete actions include an FTC administrative complaint in November 2020 and joint FDA–FTC warning letters to multiple companies (announced in 2021 and again referenced in 2025 reporting) calling out 10 firms for promoting unapproved diabetes “treatments” [1] [2] [3]. These steps aim to strip unlawful “drug” claims from supplement marketing, but enforcement has mainly consisted of demands, letters and consumer warnings rather than large criminal prosecutions or mass seizures in the period covered by the reporting [4] [5].
1. Targeted enforcement: administrative complaints and cease‑and‑desist demands
The FTC used formal administrative tools against supplement sellers making disease claims: in November 2020 the Commission approved a Part 3 administrative complaint against Health Research Laboratories, LLC and affiliates for promoting products with unverified disease‑treatment claims including diabetic neuropathy, showing the agency’s willingness to bring formal law‑enforcement proceedings against supplement marketers [1]. Later public FTC materials describe cease‑and‑desist demands and similar orders sent to sellers it suspected of advertising unproven diabetes treatments, mandating corrective actions within short timeframes under threat of further legal steps [4] [5].
2. Coordinated FDA–FTC warning letters to supplement companies
The FDA and FTC have repeatedly coordinated on warning letters that frame supplements marketed with diabetes treatment claims as unapproved or misbranded drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; a widely reported joint action announced on or about September 9, 2021 warned 10 companies for marketing supplements that allegedly claimed to cure, treat, mitigate or prevent diabetes [2] [6] [7]. Multiple outlets and agency pages reiterate that these joint letters notify companies that such disease claims remove products from the “dietary supplement” label safe harbor and expose firms to regulatory enforcement [8] [3].
3. Public consumer alerts and education as enforcement tools
Beyond letters and complaints, the FTC and FDA have issued consumer advisories highlighting the risks of using unapproved “diabetes treatments” and urging people to consult health professionals, with the FTC public consumer advice explicitly naming the joint FDA–FTC effort to call out 10 companies and warn patients about substituting unproven supplements for prescribed medicines [5] [6]. The FDA’s consumer‑facing pages catalog prior warning letters to firms selling illegal diabetes treatments and encourage adverse‑event reporting, signaling enforcement is paired with public education [9].
4. Outcomes reported and enforcement limits
Reported outcomes in the sources are primarily warning letters, administrative complaints, refund programs in earlier cases, and requirements that companies explain corrective actions to regulators; for example, the FTC’s historic actions have included refunds to consumers in settlement contexts (the Nobetes refund was a prior FTC enforcement example), and the recent joint warnings ordered firms to notify the FTC of corrective steps or face legal action, but the published pieces do not show widespread criminal prosecutions or product seizures stemming from the 2021–2025 notices [10] [4] [11]. Sources note the agencies can escalate to injunctions, seizures, and other remedies if noncompliance continues, but the current reporting does not document blanket use of those remedies in the 2020–2025 window [12] [4].
5. Context, motives and gaps in reporting
Agencies frame these actions as consumer‑protection responses to vulnerable patients—especially amid high insulin prices—and emphasize clinical risk when buyers use unproven supplements instead of FDA‑approved treatments [3] [13]. Legal analysts have also observed a rising pattern of coordinated FDA–FTC “bulk” warning letters in recent years aimed at supplement makers [2]. The available reporting, however, leaves gaps: public items emphasize the warning letters and advisories but provide limited details about which companies ultimately complied, the follow‑up enforcement steps taken against non‑compliant firms, or any long‑term measurable decline in the marketplace for such products [3] [4] [11]. Where sources assert scientific evidentiary disputes from company founders, the articles report those claims but the dataset does not include agency adjudications resolving the scientific questions [3].