Which celebrities have been most frequently impersonated in CBD gummy scams and how have fact-checkers responded?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
CBD gummy scams have repeatedly borrowed the names and images of high‑profile figures — most commonly Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Mehmet/Dr. Oz and other TV doctors, members of the “Shark Tank” cast and a rotating roster of actors and musicians — to lend bogus credibility to fake products; fact‑checkers from PolitiFact, AFP, USA Today, Snopes and consumer outfits such as the Better Business Bureau have consistently debunked those specific endorsement claims and warned consumers to report scams [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Recent reporting also shows scammers escalating tactics by using doctored videos and AI‑cloned voices, prompting renewed alerts from media and consumer advocates [6].
1. Who the scammers reuse most — a pattern across outlets
Across multiple fact‑checks and consumer‑protection reports, a repeating set of celebrity names surfaces: Oprah Winfrey is among the most frequently appropriated, cited in Snopes and MalwareTips reporting as a common bogus endorser [3] [7], while TV‑medical personalities such as Dr. Mehmet Oz, Dr. Phil and Dr. Sanjay Gupta have been explicitly named in numerous fake ads and debunking pieces [1] [2] [5]. The “Shark Tank” brand and its investors (including Mark Cuban and other “sharks”) are repeatedly invoked by scammers claiming show endorsements, and a long tail of actors and entertainers — from Dolly Parton to Tom Hanks, Kelly Clarkson, Melissa McCarthy, Tom Selleck and Wayne Gretzky — also appear often in the deceptive creatives flagged by fact‑checkers [6] [3] [7].
2. How fact‑checkers documented and debunked the fakes
Mainstream fact‑check organizations and outlets systematically examined the ads and contacted representatives: PolitiFact and USA Today traced viral posts and found no evidence linking the named celebrities to CBD products, rating the claims false and noting spokesperson denials [1] [2]. AFP and Snopes issued similar debunks, cataloguing the recurring false claims and warning readers the articles and “news” formats were fabricated [5] [3]. The Better Business Bureau and local news investigations treated the phenomenon as a fraud pattern — emphasizing the subscription and billing traps that accompany the fake endorsements — and urged skepticism of celebrity‑branded claims [4] [8].
3. Evolving tactics: doctored videos, cloned voices and “Shark Tank” hoaxes
Fact‑checkers and consumer reporters have documented an evolution from static photos to manipulated video and audio: AARP reported that scammers increasingly use AI‑tools to splice or clone celebrity images and voices into short testimonial ads, amplifying the realism and reach of fake endorsements [6]. Snopes and other debunkers highlighted the frequent reuse of “Shark Tank” language — fabricated bids and claims of investment — to make weight‑loss and CBD gummies seem legitimate, a tactic repeatedly exposed as false [3].
4. What fact‑checkers recommend and the limits of verification
Debunking outlets uniformly recommend verifying claims through official celebrity statements or representatives and reporting suspect domains and ads to platforms and regulators; Snopes and the BBB also point victims to FTC complaint channels and domain‑reporting options when the scams involve undisclosed subscription charges [3] [4]. Fact‑checkers can prove an endorsement is false when spokespeople deny involvement or when no credible evidence links a brand to a celebrity, but they note a limit: when a deepfake is realistic and no spokesperson comment is available, independent verification becomes harder and rapid platform takedown is inconsistent [2] [6].
5. Implicit agendas and who benefits
The scammers’ clear agenda is profit through trust hijacking — leveraging recognizable names to overcome consumer caution — while some platform operators and ad networks benefit from ad spend and slow detection; “sharks” and celebrities, by contrast, suffer reputational risk and repeatedly issue denials via PR teams cited in fact‑checks [3] [1]. Consumer advocates and fact‑checkers have an agenda of public protection, which explains the repetitive nature of warnings in the record [4] [5].
6. Bottom line and reporting gaps
The best available reporting shows a recurring set of targets — Oprah, TV doctors (Oz, Phil, Gupta), “Shark Tank” personalities and an array of actors and musicians — and a uniform fact‑checker response of debunking, public warning and guidance to report scams; however, the sources do not provide a precise ranked frequency (e.g., number of incidents per celebrity), so “most frequently impersonated” must be understood as “most often cited by fact‑checkers and consumer reports” rather than a definitive statistical ranking [1] [3] [6] [4].