What actions has the FTC taken against companies using fake celebrity endorsements for supplements since 2018?
Executive summary
Since 2018 the Federal Trade Commission has continued a multi-pronged enforcement and policy campaign against companies that use fake celebrity endorsements to sell supplements—bringing lawsuits and consent judgments, extracting monetary settlements, issuing formal notices and guidance, and adopting a binding rule against fake reviews and testimonials to raise the legal stakes for deceptive endorsements [1] [2] [3]. The agency’s actions target both the marketers and the formats they use—fake news sites, phony testimonials, undisclosed paid influencers—and seek injunctive relief, consumer redress, and industry-wide deterrence [4] [5].
1. Legal enforcement: lawsuits and court orders that bar phony celebrity endorsements
The FTC has repeatedly sued networks and companies that used fabricated celebrity quotes and sham “news” websites to market supplements, securing settlements and court orders that include permanent bans on using phony celebrity endorsements and deceptive media formats; for example, the agency’s multi-million-dollar stipulated settlement with an internet marketing network prohibited the defendants from using fake media sites, bogus celebrity endorsements, and other sham testimonials and imposed injunctive relief and monetary penalties [1] [6] [7].
2. Targeting the business model: suits against affiliate networks and deceptive billing
Enforcement has not only named products but the affiliate marketing models that amplify fake endorsements—FTC complaints have alleged networks of affiliates and marketers who placed ads that appeared as independent magazine or news articles and paired those formats with false celebrity endorsements and misleading “risk-free” trials, producing injunctions, asset freezes, and obligations to monitor affiliates in settlement terms [1] [8] [9].
3. Social media and influencer enforcement: actions and precedent on paid endorsements
Beyond classical “fake news” pages, the FTC has pursued cases focused on undisclosed paid endorsements and influencer deals for health products—its 2020 suit against Teami, LLC charged the company with paying social media influencers who failed to disclose material connections, and the agency’s historical posture treats undisclosed paid celebrity or influencer promotion as deceptive under the FTC Act [10] [11] [12].
4. Formal policy tools: Notices, guidance and an expanded rulebook
The FTC has layered policy instruments on top of enforcement: it issued a Notice of Penalty Offenses concerning endorsements and testimonials to warn hundreds of businesses that certain endorsement practices are deceptive [2], published detailed business guidance and “don’ts” advising that bogus celebrity testimonials and phony formats violate the law [5] [4], and in 2024 adopted a final rule that makes fake reviews and false testimonials an explicit rule violation—raising the legal consequences for misrepresenting celebrity or consumer endorsements [3].
5. Remedies and consumer redress: refunds, bans and remediation requirements
Remedies in FTC actions have included consumer refunds and monetary components in settlements, along with affirmative injunctive requirements—orders often bar future deceptive health claims, require substantiation (in some cases randomized clinical testing for disease claims), and prohibit sham news sites and bogus celebrity endorsements, while forcing defendants to police affiliates and marketing partners [1] [5] [8].
6. Limits, counterarguments and implicit agendas in the record
The record shows vigorous agency activity but also reveals limits and competing perspectives: guidance and rulemaking broaden enforcement reach—raising industry concerns about overbreadth and compliance burdens—while defendants frequently settle without admitting liability, so some commentators argue settlements reflect risk management rather than clear-cut judicial findings [3] [1]. The FTC’s public materials emphasize consumer protection and deterrence, but law firms and industry trade pieces frame certain FTC moves as signaling regulatory uncertainty that can chill legitimate marketing partnerships [3] [1]. Reporting relied on FTC press releases and legal summaries; where the sources do not quantify every settlement or list every case since 2018, this account does not invent omitted facts and instead reflects the agency’s prominent actions and policy tools documented in the available record [1] [2] [3].