Which high‑profile court cases or FTC actions have targeted supplement marketers in the last five years?
Executive summary
In the last five years the FTC has intensified enforcement against supplement marketers through high‑profile consent orders, consumer refunds, and broad compliance guidance — notable actions include its wins related to Prevagen, refund programs for several deceptive supplement schemes, and a first‑of‑its‑kind “review hijacking” consent order against a major vitamin seller (FTC press materials and reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Industry groups and some lawyers say the agency’s evolving remedies — including requirements that future health claims be backed by multiple randomized controlled trials — risk chilling lawful commercial speech, while the FTC argues the measures protect consumers from unsubstantiated health claims [4] [5] [6].
1. FTC victory over Prevagen and similar court wins that set evidentiary expectations
The FTC publicly celebrated a court victory in litigation over Prevagen, a dietary supplement, signaling the agency’s willingness to pursue high‑stakes litigation to challenge unsubstantiated cognitive‑benefit claims (FTC statement on Prevagen, December 2024) [1]. Legal commentary and FTC guidance show a pattern: courts and agency orders increasingly require rigorous scientific support calibrated to the claim, and recent actions have reinforced an expectation that substantial clinical evidence is needed for health claims [6] [7].
2. Refunds and settlements: Kushly, Pure Green Coffee, Teami, Sobrenix and others
The FTC in recent years has returned money to consumers in multiple supplement cases: refunds to buyers of Pure Green Coffee, Teami tea, Kushly CBD products, and payments tied to Sobrenix enforcement actions illustrate the agency’s use of monetary redress to remediate deceptive marketing (FTC weight‑loss page and press releases referencing refunds and Kushly; Sobrenix refund notices) [8] [9] [3]. These programs were publicized as concrete outcomes the agency can achieve despite statutory limits on some remedies following the AMG Capital decision discussed by legal observers [5] [3].
3. Novel enforcement tools: the first “review hijacking” consent order
In April 2023 the FTC approved a consent order against The Bountiful Company for “review hijacking” on Amazon — the agency’s first enforcement action specifically addressing a marketer’s misuse of merged product reviews to deceive consumers about supplement quality and popularity, resulting in a $600,000 penalty and a prohibition on deceptive review practices (TechCrunch reporting and FTC action summary) [2]. The case marks a shift toward policing marketplace manipulation as well as claim substantiation.
4. Broad notices and guidance aimed at hundreds of firms, and the debate over penalties
In 2024 the FTC issued wide notices about health‑claim substantiation to nearly 700 companies in supplements, OTCs, and related categories, framing future violations as potential penalty offenses and signaling the agency’s intent to rely on notice‑based remedies post‑AMG (coverage of the notices and expert commentary) [5]. Some industry lawyers argue these notices and the agency’s new consent‑order standards — including requirements that certain marketers commit to two randomized, double‑blind placebo‑controlled trials for future claims — overreach and chill legitimate marketing (NewHope and Nutraceuticals World coverage) [4] [5].
5. Coordinated actions with DOJ/FDA and high‑profile COVID‑era cases
The FTC has worked jointly with the DOJ and FDA in cases alleging COVID‑related deceptive claims for herbal products, such as actions against marketers of teas that claimed to treat or prevent COVID‑19, reflecting cross‑agency enforcement against pandemic‑era false health claims (FTC press materials and reporting) [9] [3]. Separately, the agency’s Health Products Compliance Guidance consolidates lessons from recent cases and clarifies that endorsements, social‑media posts, and marketplace listings fall within FTC scope [6] [10].
6. The push‑and‑pull: consumer protection vs. industry free‑speech concerns
Enforcers frame these cases as protecting consumers from health‑related deception and dangerous misimpressions in a sprawling supplement market, while industry and some legal commentators warn that heightened evidentiary demands and penalty‑notice strategies could suppress legitimate health‑and‑wellness marketing and raise First Amendment questions (FTC guidance and industry/legal pushback) [6] [4] [5]. The AMG Supreme Court decision constraining monetary relief under Section 13(b) remains a structural constraint that partly explains the FTC’s pivot to notices, consent orders, and partnerships with other agencies [5].