What legal actions exist against marketers who falsely attribute endorsements to public figures like Ben Carson?

1. The immediate landscape: repeated fakery, documented by fact‑checkers

Multiple outlets documented a pattern of scam ads and fabricated articles falsely claiming Ben Carson endorsed medical products; AFP, PolitiFact, Reuters and Science Feedback all report that Carson’s spokespeople deny any such endorsements and that the posts are scams, often using doctored images or copied news templates ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

2. Civil claims commonly used (context — available sources do not enumerate these here)

In general practice, victims of fake endorsements often pursue civil claims such as false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violations of state publicity or privacy rights, and sometimes defamation or fraud claims; however, the current reporting provided does not detail any specific legal actions brought in the Ben Carson fakery episodes or cite cases using these theories — available sources do not mention actual lawsuits tied to these recent ads ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

3. Regulatory and platform remedies reported by fact‑checkers

Fact‑checkers note that social platforms and third‑party fact‑check programs flagged and sometimes removed or downranked the posts; PolitiFact specifically mentions Meta’s efforts to combat false news on its News Feed in connection with one of the Carson CBD claims, indicating platform enforcement is part of the practical response to such scams ^[2].

4. Why legal action can be complicated — what the reports imply

The pieces emphasize the viral, copycat nature of these ads and the use of doctored images and cloned article templates, suggesting defendants may be numerous, anonymous, or overseas; Science Feedback highlights recurring “lookalike” webpages and reused imagery, which complicates tracing and suing the original promotor ^[4].

5. Credibility and remedies from the subject (Carson’s team) vs. public redress

Reporting records prompt denials from Carson’s team and public corrections: Carson’s American Cornerstone Institute and spokespeople told AFP and Reuters the endorsements are fabrications, and fact‑check articles label the posts scams — that public rebuttal is a fast, low‑cost remedy to inform consumers even when litigation is absent ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Past endorsement and liability context around Ben Carson (background only)

Some background reporting shows Carson has in the past been associated with product endorsements (e.g., speeches for supplement company Mannatech reported by Media Matters) and has faced malpractice litigation in his medical career; such history can shape public perceptions but does not appear in the supplied fact‑checks as legal responses to the recent scam ads ^{[5] [6]}. The supplied fact‑checks, however, consistently treat the new claims as fabricated and dangerous ^[4].

7. What the fact‑checkers recommend and what victims can do

Fact‑checkers documented hallmarks of the scams — fake “news” layouts, altered photos, and reused templates — and implicitly recommend skepticism and reporting to platforms; Science Feedback and AFP advise scrutiny of such patterns to avoid falling for fraudulent health claims, while PolitiFact notes platform flagging as part of Meta’s response ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

8. Competing perspectives and limits of the reporting

The provided sources uniformly agree the ads are fake and report denials from Carson’s representatives ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. What the sources do not provide is documentation of successful lawsuits, statutory citations, or enforcement actions against specific marketers pushing those ads — available sources do not mention any prosecutions or civil judgments in these specific instances ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

9. Bottom line for consumers and potential plaintiffs

The reporting shows clear misinformation and public denials but little on formal legal outcomes; victims or the falsely‑attributed public figure can and often do pursue civil claims and rely on platform enforcement in practice, yet in these cases the documented remedies in the supplied material are fact‑checking, public statements, and (where noted) platform flagging rather than reported court victories ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

If you want, I can use outside legal sources to outline specific statutes, sample claims, and illustrative cases that typically apply to false endorsements (for example, Lanham Act false endorsement claims, state right‑of‑publicity statutes, and consumer‑protection fraud lawsuits) — those are not in the current fact‑checks but I can compile them if you’d like.