What specific regulatory complaints have been filed against dr. eric berg and by which agencies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
State and consumer-enforcement actions and public complaints linked to Eric Berg fall into three main categories: a 2007–08 Virginia chiropractic board consent order that led to a reprimand and monetary penalty for recordkeeping, unsubstantiated claims and use of pseudoscientific techniques (documented in Quackwatch and related summaries) [1] [2]; consumer complaints and BBB filings about product sales, refunds and customer service tied to Dr. Berg Nutritionals [3] [4] [5]; and a 2021 California Proposition 65 notice and related California Attorney General filing about lead exposure in certain products sold by Dr. Berg Nutritionals [6] [7]. Available sources do not mention other specific regulatory complaints or enforcement actions beyond these items.
1. The formal chiropractic disciplinary action: a state board reprimand
The Virginia chiropractic board entered a consent order in which Eric Berg, D.C., was reprimanded and assessed a monetary penalty after findings that he failed to maintain adequate, legible, and complete patient records, did not obtain signed consent forms for many patients, and made unsubstantiated therapeutic claims tied to techniques such as Body Response Technique and others; Quackwatch reproduces the disciplinary findings and the order [1] [2].
2. Consumer-facing complaints on BBB and review sites: refunds, product effects and service disputes
The Better Business Bureau’s business profile shows multiple consumer complaints against “Dr. Eric Berg DC” or Dr. Berg Nutritionals that concern product purchases, refund requests, and customer-service responses; individual complaint texts include health complaints after supplements and disputes over refunds or unresolved issues [3] [4] [5]. Complaint-aggregation sites and consumer-review platforms also document numerous negative reviews and allegations of poor grievance handling, though these are consumer reports rather than formal regulator findings [8] [9] [10].
3. California Proposition 65 notice and AG involvement over lead in supplements
A 60‑day notice and subsequent California Attorney General materials name The Health & Wellness Center, Inc., dba Dr. Berg Nutritionals, in a Proposition 65 action alleging that covered products expose consumers to lead above the allowable daily level; court or enforcement documents related to case number 2021-01904 appear in California AG files and the judgment repository [6] [7]. These are state-level product-safety and consumer-protection proceedings rather than professional-license discipline.
4. Class action and advertising/labeling challenges about product claims
A proposed class action reported in January 2023 accuses Dr. Berg Nutritionals of false advertising for marketing “No Artificial Anything!” electrolyte powders that allegedly contain DL-malic acid (an artificial flavoring) while labeling ingredients simply as “malic acid,” claiming the packaging misleads consumers about natural flavoring [11]. That filing is a private civil action alleging misleading labeling rather than a regulator-initiated disciplinary sanction [11].
5. Broader credibility and fact‑checking context cited by independent watchdogs
Media-bias and fact-check sites and science-focused organizations catalogue broader concerns about Eric Berg’s public claims: Media Bias/Fact Check rates his site/channel as low in factual reporting for promoting pseudoscientific remedies and medically inaccurate claims [12], and other fact-checking outlets and aggregators note repeated factual disputes and “mostly false” ratings on some health claims [13]. These sources document reputational and informational complaints, distinct from regulatory filings [12] [13].
6. What the available sources do not show
Available sources do not mention any U.S. federal criminal indictments, medical board suspensions beyond the Virginia chiropractic consent order, FDA warning letters directly naming Eric Berg by the provided search results, or final federal enforcement judgments other than the California Proposition 65 materials referenced above; for any such actions, current reporting would need to be consulted (not found in current reporting).
7. How to read these filings together: competing perspectives and hidden agendas
Taken together, state professional-board discipline (Virginia), state consumer‑protection action (California Prop 65 notice), private civil suits (class action over labeling), and many consumer complaints (BBB, Trustpilot, review sites) present a consistent pattern of regulatory and market challenges focused on recordkeeping and practice claims, product labeling/safety, and customer-service conduct [1] [6] [11] [3]. Proponents of Berg point to large audiences and reported customer benefits on review platforms [10] [9], while critics and watchdogs frame his output as pseudoscientific and misleading [12] [13]. Some consumer complaints and online accusations introduce additional allegations (e.g., organizational or personal misconduct) but those specific claims are not substantiated by the regulatory documents cited here (available sources do not mention [other specific allegations]).
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the supplied search results; it cites only items present there and does not substitute for a full legal-record search or regulatory database inquiry for actions after the documents cited (limitation noted) [1] [6] [11] [3].