How have courts ruled in past FTC cases against supplement companies that claimed to treat diabetes or diabetic neuropathy?
Executive summary
Courts and the Federal Trade Commission have repeatedly found that supplement marketers who claim to treat, prevent, or cure diabetes and diabetic neuropathy engage in deceptive advertising and must stop those claims, with outcomes ranging from injunctions and refunds to multi‑million dollar judgments and industry bans [1] [2] [3] [4]. Enforcement, however, often resolves as settlements, consent orders, or administrative rulings rather than criminal convictions, and defendants sometimes contest or narrow orders on procedural or textual grounds, producing mixed litigation pictures [5] [6].
1. Pattern of FTC actions: injunctions, refunds, and multi‑million judgments
The FTC’s playbook against diabetes‑claiming supplements routinely produces civil remedies: defendants have been ordered to pay damages and restitution, banned from selling diabetes products, and required to refund consumers — for example a federal court entered a nearly $2.2 million judgment against Wellness Support Network Inc. and its principals after finding their “clinically proven” diabetes claims false [1], and the FTC mailed refunds to consumers who bought the “Nobetes” supplement and obtained an order banning the defendants from advertising or selling Nobetes or any other diabetes product [2] [3].
2. Administrative complaints and industry‑wide bans
In addition to district‑court litigation, the FTC uses administrative complaints and consent orders to halt deceptive marketing and to bar repeat offenders from the supplement business; an administrative order finalized in 2022 barred Health Research Laboratories and related entities from advertising or selling dietary supplements that they claimed treated diabetic neuropathy and other diseases [7] [8] [9]. Those orders typically prohibit disease claims unless the company can produce rigorous, well‑controlled clinical evidence supporting efficacy [10] [9].
3. Settlements are common; contempt and re‑litigation follow
Many matters end in settlements or consent decrees rather than contested trials, but enforcement does not always end the dispute: previous settlement defendants have been accused of breaching orders, prompting contempt motions and further litigation, as with Duhon‑linked companies that faced contempt allegations for continuing to promote products for diabetic neuropathy after an earlier FTC settlement [10] [6]. Courts scrutinize order language for clarity in contempt proceedings, and ambiguity can derail enforcement efforts — a Maine federal court found certain FTC order language ambiguous, undermining a contempt motion in 2020 [5].
4. Judicial findings hinge on evidence of falsity and lack of scientific support
Courts rule against marketers when claims are demonstrably false or lack competent and reliable scientific backing; the Northern District of California granted summary judgment finding specific percentage blood‑glucose reduction claims unsupported, and the FTC’s pleadings routinely emphasize reliance on testimonials and unverified “clinical” language as deceptive [1] [4]. Where defendants cannot point to randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trials or comparable evidence, courts and the FTC treat disease‑treatment claims as unlawful advertising under Section 5 of the FTC Act [1] [3] [9].
5. Remedies and their limits: deterrence vs. capacity constraints
Remedies have included monetary judgments, industry bans, and mandated refunds, but experts and the literature caution that the volume of suspect supplements far exceeds enforcement capacity, making selective litigation the norm rather than a panacea [11]. That enforcement reality helps explain why the FTC often pursues consent orders tailored to specific defendants and why administrative actions against repeat offenders aim not only to punish but to erect barriers to future deceptive marketing [10] [9].
6. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas
Supplement sellers argue at times that order terms were ambiguous or that claims concern general wellness rather than disease treatment, a defense that has prevailed in narrow procedural contexts [5]; meanwhile, public‑health advocates and the FTC frame enforcement as necessary to protect vulnerable patients from foregoing proven therapies in favor of unproven products [2] [3]. Industry critics also note potential regulatory limitations and the practical need for clearer statutory or rulemaking authority to streamline enforcement beyond case‑by‑case litigation [11].