How have federal agencies like the FTC and FDA coordinated with state attorneys general on fake celebrity supplement advertising?
Executive summary
Federal agencies have formalized and escalated coordination on deceptive supplement marketing: the FDA and FTC operate under a long‑standing liaison agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) that divides labeling and advertising responsibilities and facilitates joint actions, and state attorneys general frequently follow or join enforcement prompted by federal warnings and announcements [1] [2] [3]. That coordination has become more visible during crises and in the influencer era, with joint warning letters, shared guidance, and referrals shaping multi‑jurisdictional responses to fake celebrity and influencer supplement endorsements [4] [5] [2].
1. Legal architecture: who does what and why it matters
The FDA and FTC coordinate under a formal Liaison Agreement (often called the FDA‑FTC Liaison Agreement) that assigns primary responsibility for labeling to FDA and for advertising (outside labeling) to the FTC, while expressly enabling the agencies to share information and avoid duplicative efforts—a structure the agencies have relied on in supplement enforcement for years [1] [2]. The FTC’s advertising standards apply broadly to health claims irrespective of FDA product categorizations, and the agency has emphasized it may act even when FDA determinations exist, meaning federal authority on advertising can overlap and dovetail with FDA labeling determinations [2] [6].
2. Joint enforcement in practice: warning letters, press releases, and simultaneous actions
In recent years the two agencies have issued coordinated warning letters and simultaneous press announcements targeting fraudulent health products and deceptive claims, a pattern that intensified during the COVID‑19 pandemic and in the fight against miracle supplement claims—techniques explicitly documented by legal observers and agency press releases describing parallel FDA and FTC findings [4] [3] [1]. The practice typically looks like FDA flagging products as unapproved or misbranded when ads make drug‑level claims while the FTC pursues deceptive advertising theories requiring competent and reliable evidence for efficacy claims [4] [7].
3. State attorneys general: amplifiers, partners, or independent actors?
State attorneys general often follow federal signals or bring parallel actions; the COVID‑era examples include state AG suits and cease‑and‑desist orders against high‑profile promoters following FDA/FTC warnings, demonstrating that states can amplify enforcement reach and pursue remedies in their jurisdictions [3]. The federal agencies’ public warnings and joint letters lower the information and resource barriers for state enforcement and sometimes prompt multi‑state coordination, though the degree of formal intergovernmental coordination varies case by case [3] [7].
4. Celebrity and influencer endorsements: a new enforcement frontier
Both agencies have turned attention to endorsers and influencers: FDA studies and FTC updates (including the Endorsement Guides and recent Health Products Compliance Guidance) reflect a joint interest in how celebrity and influencer disclosures affect consumer understanding and the substantiation required for endorser claims, and regulators have signaled cooperative scrutiny of paid endorsers who promote health products [5] [8] [2]. The agencies’ coordination has enabled enforcement that targets not only manufacturers but also the marketing channels and testimonial frameworks that lend celebrity claims credibility [5] [9].
5. Tools, standards and industry responses
The FTC uses a rigorous, claim‑dependent substantiation standard that it has updated to cover all health‑related advertising, and it gives deference to FDA labeling determinations while retaining independent authority—tools firms must navigate alongside FDA labeling rules and possible state enforcement [8] [2]. Industry actors have pushed self‑regulatory models and sought clearer guidance, but commentators note the agencies have increasingly preferred joint public guidance plus coordinated enforcement rather than leaving policing solely to industry [10] [8].
6. Limits, tensions and the political economy of enforcement
Coordination is effective but imperfect: GAO found FDA and FTC have taken similar enforcement approaches but recommended clearer public communication about roles, and legal commentators observe that overlapping jurisdiction can create strategic choices—FTC often leads advertising suits while FDA focuses on misbranded/unapproved drug theories—leaving room for enforcement gaps or forum shopping by plaintiffs and defendants [7] [11] [4]. State AGs add a political layer—motivated by consumer protection, publicity, or local politics—so federal‑state coordination can be as much about signaling and pressure as about strictly legal complementarity [3].