Are there class-action or enforcement actions against supplement companies for refund or false claims issues in 2025?
Executive summary
Yes — both private class actions and government enforcement actions targeting supplement makers for false claims, mislabeling and refund obligations have continued into 2025. Federal enforcement produced concrete refund programs (for example the FTC distributed $409,000 to 7,481 Roca Labs customers and issued refund rounds for The Bountiful Company), while a steady stream of new class actions and revived appeals-level mislabeling suits show private litigation remained active in 2025 (e.g., 58 new supplement class actions in 2024 per Perkins Coie data; a Ninth Circuit revival of a mislabeling class claim) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Private litigation: steady pressure, many targets
Class actions over labeling, protein or efficacy claims kept appearing in 2025: industry trackers and legal outlets report dozens of suits and continuing new filings — Perkins Coie tallied 58 new dietary supplement class actions in 2024 and the sector has seen hundreds over recent years, with plaintiffs focusing on labeling, testing and compliance claims [3] [5]. Trade reporting and legal press highlighted fresh protein-content suits against brands including Pescience, Huel and OWYN that allege FDA-labeling noncompliance and front-of-pack misstatements [6]. High-profile consumer complaints also target efficacy claims — for example a Prevagen class complaint surfaced in early 2025 alleging the product does not deliver promised memory benefits [7].
2. Courts are shaping pleading standards and venue dynamics
Federal appellate decisions in 2025 affected plaintiffs’ ability to proceed. The Ninth Circuit revived a proposed class action against ProSupps over alleged mislabeling after holding that a single test showing a product’s nutrition label was misleading was enough to survive dismissal — a decision that may lower the evidentiary threshold for mislabeling suits in that circuit [4]. At the same time, courts still apply the “reasonable consumer” standard and sometimes credit qualifiers/disclaimers to dismiss claims, so outcomes vary by forum and by judge [5] [8].
3. Government enforcement: refunds, bans and warning letters
Regulators stayed active and tangible. The Federal Trade Commission ran refund programs and won judgments that produced payments: the FTC distributed payments totaling more than $409,000 to 7,481 consumers harmed by Roca Labs’ deceptive weight‑loss marketing and ran refund processes for The Bountiful Company tied to review‑hijacking allegations [1] [9] [2]. The FTC historically has brought scores of cases challenging supplement health claims and can seek consumer redress, civil penalties and marketing bans [10] [11]. The FDA continued to use warning letters and other enforcement tools over disease or drug‑like claims and misbranding, and its “What’s New” and warning‑letter pages show repeated actions against supplement marketers [12] [13].
4. What relief looks like in practice: refunds often modest, settlements common
When agencies win or plaintiffs prevail, remedies tend to be refunds, corrective advertising or injunctive relief rather than large individual payouts in most cases. The Roca Labs program sent roughly $409,000 to thousands of consumers rather than multimillion-dollar per‑person awards; defendants frequently resolve matters via settlements or consent orders that include refund funds and marketing restrictions [1] [14]. Industry observers note many demand letters and suits settle confidentially before trial, so public docket figures understate the full volume of disputes [3] [15].
5. Industry view and counterarguments: defenses, compliance steps and declining filing trends
Defendants and defense counsel point to legal wins and evolving defenses: companies have had “notable success” fighting suits, and some coverage notes a decline in new filings from the pandemic peak — SupplySide reported a decline again in 2024 filings compared with 2022 highs and industry lawyers stress demand letters are the bigger ongoing headache [16] [5]. Trade conferences and law‑firm forums emphasized compliance, labeling updates, and litigation strategies as the best ways for brands to limit exposure [17] [18].
6. Limits of available reporting and what’s not covered
Available sources document numerous 2024–2025 class actions and concrete FTC refund programs, but they do not provide a single comprehensive list of every 2025 enforcement action or class suit; individual company‑by‑company case outcomes beyond the cited examples are not catalogued here. Sources do not mention a consolidated database of all 2025 supplement refund orders or a complete tally of refunds beyond the FTC programs and the Perkins Coie summary noted [3] [1].
7. Bottom line for consumers and companies
Consumers harmed by deceptive supplement claims have multiple paths to relief: join class actions when certified, file FTC refund claims where the agency has a program, or follow FDA/State announcements for warning‑letter or recall actions [11] [12] [19]. Companies face continuing litigation risk around mislabeling, protein/proportion calculations, and inflated efficacy claims, and regulators (FTC and FDA) are actively using refunds, injunctions and warning letters to enforce standards [6] [10] [1].