What are the specific allegations in lawsuits filed against Dr Eric Berg?
Executive summary
Multiple legal actions and regulatory complaints involving “Dr. Eric Berg” (the chiropractor and influencer behind Dr. Berg Nutritionals) allege a mix of professional discipline, consumer fraud and product-mislabeling, workplace coercion tied to Scientology, and product safety violations; available public records and reporting document specific claims ranging from improper clinical practices and deceptive “natural” labeling to Prop 65 lead-exposure settlement terms and an ex‑employee’s suit alleging pressure to take Scientology courses [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Professional disciplinary findings: alleged improper clinical practices and misrepresentation
State disciplinary records summarized by Quackwatch report that the Virginia Board of Medicine investigated Berg for clinical practices including use of an “Acoustic Cardiograph” described as an alleged nutritional evaluation and found violations of multiple Virginia chiropractic statutes, resulting in a consent order that issued a reprimand and a monetary penalty and criticized presentation of his book and methods as medical-level material without appropriate scientific scrutiny [1].
2. Consumer suits and class actions: deceptive labeling and product claims
At least one consumer class action alleges Dr. Berg Nutritionals falsely marketed its “Original Keto Electrolyte” powders as “naturally flavored” while using DL‑malic acid — an artificial flavoring — and seeks to represent California purchasers who would not have bought or paid as much had they known the flavoring was artificial [2]. That complaint frames the core allegation as consumer deception about the product’s flavor source and price-premium driven by the “naturally flavored” claim [2].
3. Product-safety and Prop 65 enforcement: lead exposure settlement and injunctive terms
California’s Attorney General filings and accompanying judgment documents show a Prop 65 action or notice that led to settlement language requiring Dr. Berg Nutritionals to stop selling or distributing Covered Products in California that expose consumers to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day unless labeled with specified warnings, and to pay an additional settlement payment of $28,728.14 for activities addressing the same public harm alleged in the action [3] [4]. Those documents indicate regulatory enforcement over alleged lead exposure in supplements sold by Dr. Berg’s business [3] [4].
4. Workplace lawsuit: coercion to participate in Scientology courses, according to a former employee
Reporting by Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker and related accounts describe a lawsuit filed by a former employee alleging that working for Berg included “constant pressure” to take Scientology courses and asserting that Berg — identified in the piece as an OT 8 Scientologist — pushed staff toward Scientology training, framing the claim as coercive workplace religious or ideological pressure [5]. The available reporting characterizes the suit as centered on compelled Scientology participation but further primary court documents were not provided in the aggregated sources.
5. Consumer complaints and reputational claims: supplement harms and misleading medical advice
Public complaint portals and review sites contain consumer allegations that Berg’s supplements caused adverse effects (for example, a reported case of insomnia and altered hormone levels after taking a DIM supplement) and that his online content misleads people with cancer or offers medical advice beyond his chiropractic credentials; these appear as BBB complaints and Trustpilot reviews asserting danger to consumers and misrepresentation of qualifications [6] [7]. These are consumer allegations and reviews rather than judicial findings in the materials provided [6] [7].
6. Other court listings and the caution about name matches
Legal database entries show other court matters listing an Eric Berg — for example an appellate docket and a 7th Circuit insurance dispute — but the 7th Circuit case reflects a different Eric Berg (a former pit broker born in 1959) and concerns disability-insurance benefits, underscoring the importance of distinguishing identically named parties in public records [8] [9]. The assembled sources do not provide full statewide or federal docket searches, so additional suits or differing allegations may exist beyond what these documents show.
7. Limits of available reporting and alternate viewpoints
The materials document allegations, regulatory findings, a Prop 65 settlement, a proposed consumer class action and an ex‑employee’s reported complaint, but do not include full complaint texts, Berg’s detailed legal defenses, outcomes for every action, or comprehensive court rulings beyond the Virginia consent order and the California settlement terms; therefore, while allegations are specific in regulatory and class-action pleadings cited, the sources do not offer a complete litigation history or Berg’s responses in each matter [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].