What legal actions have public figures taken against companies using their likeness in fake supplement ads since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 a mix of public enforcement and private lawsuits has been deployed against companies that used celebrities’ names, faces or fabricated testimonials to push dietary supplements and related products: federal regulators (notably the FTC) have pursued networks of fraudulent marketers and secured settlements, while individual public figures have filed civil suits or publicly denounced unauthorized uses of their likenesses — but reporting shows the landscape remains fragmented and enforcement imperfect [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The federal front: FTC investigations, suits and settlements targeting fake celebrity endorsements
The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly targeted sprawling online schemes that created fake “news” articles and celebrity testimonials to sell supplements, bringing cases that describe fabricated celebrity endorsements and deceptive “news” sites and securing settlements or injunctions against the networks and operators involved [1] [2]. The FTC’s public materials document how these operations used celebrity photos and phony mastheads to lend credibility to bogus claims — examples include fake articles invoking Will Ferrell and Paula Deen to market muscle and weight‑loss supplements — and the agency has sought to hold marketers, ad agencies and affiliate networks liable for the deception [1] [2].
2. State and regulatory complements: class actions and official enforcement around product claims
Beyond the FTC, state attorneys general and consumer‑protection agencies have pursued supplement makers for unsubstantiated health claims, sometimes resulting in class actions or settlements tied to advertising practices; reporting notes precedent such as Prevagen litigation involving state and federal action around questionable memory‑boosting claims and settlements in that posture around 2020 [5]. Legal strategies in these matters typically rest on consumer‑protection statutes and advertising law rather than on a single celebrity‑image theory, and many cases target the underlying product claims and subscription traps as much as the faux endorsements [6] [2].
3. Private lawsuits by public figures: direct litigation against illicit users of likenesses
Individual public figures have filed civil suits alleging unauthorized use of their likeness in CBD and supplement ads; for example, actress Mayim Bialik sued dozens of unnamed companies in a 2023 action that listed multiple IP addresses and alleged illegal use of her image to promote fake CBD products [3]. Reporting also documents celebrities publicly denying endorsements and calling out fraudulent ads — a reputational remedy that often accompanies litigation but does not itself redress consumer harm [3] [7].
4. Limits of litigation and shifting tactics of scammers
Coverage emphasizes that courts and regulators struggle to keep pace with digital tactics: marketers fragment operations across domains and affiliates, use fake news formats and increasingly deploy manipulated images or AI‑generated clips, constraining the reach of any single lawsuit and complicating identification of defendants, which often leads to suits naming numerous anonymous foreign IPs [8] [1] [2]. Legal settlements and enforcement actions have curbed specific networks, but experts and regulators warn the approach is reactive and frequently lags behind scammers’ technical and marketing innovations [1] [8] [9].
5. Strategic aims: why celebrities sue, and what remedies they seek
When public figures pursue litigation it typically aims to stop unauthorized use, secure damages for rights‑of‑publicity or trademark misuses, and sometimes obtain injunctive relief to take down fraudulent pages and recover fees from the operators; media reporting of cases (like Bialik’s) shows plaintiffs naming dozens of defendants and seeking to trace payments and domain operators — a procedural strategy that can unmask broader affiliate networks when successful [3] [1]. At the same time, regulators like the FTC focus on consumer restitution and dismantling deceptive ad networks, which complements but does not replace individual celebrity claims [2] [1].
Conclusion: a two‑track response with unfinished business
Since 2020 the response has been twofold — regulatory crackdowns by the FTC and allied state actions against fraudulent supplement marketers, plus private suits by public figures seeking to stop misuse of their likeness — yet reporting shows persistent gaps: scammers’ evolving tactics, cross‑border anonymity and the sheer volume of deceptive ads mean litigation and enforcement win fights but not the war, and many celebrities still rely on public denouncements alongside lawsuits to protect reputation and warn consumers [1] [2] [3] [8].