What official statements have Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil made about commercial endorsements and product use?
Executive summary
Both Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Phil McGraw have publicly denied endorsing or selling CBD products that have used their names, and have warned consumers about online “clickbait” scams and hazardous products; meanwhile watchdogs and critics have documented instances where Oz promoted supplements without prominent disclosure of financial ties, creating a tension between their public disclaimers and critics’ concerns about commercial influence [1][2][3][4].
1. Denials of CBD endorsements: blunt public repudiations
Faced with proliferating scam advertisements that falsely claimed they had launched or endorsed CBD gummies, both Oz and McGraw have issued clear, public denials — telling media outlets that they never sold or endorsed the CBD products being hawked in their names and warning viewers not to fall for the ads’ promises [2][1][3].
2. Warnings about product safety and scammers: specific claims from Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil
On TMZ Live and in episodes devoted to the issue they described the mechanics of the scams and the risks: Dr. Oz reported having lab-tested some counterfeit products and said they contained dangerously high lead levels, while Dr. Phil cautioned that clickbait sign-ups lead to hard-to-cancel recurring charges — both framed the problem as theft of reputation and a public-health hazard [1][5].
3. Repeated outreach to correct the record: media appearances and joint statements
Their responses have not been one-off press releases but repeated media engagements; in February 2021 both appeared on TMZ to jointly alert the public and to call out fraudulent uses of their names, and Oz publicly wrote that he had “never sold a CBD product” and that the scam documents were untrue [1][2][3].
4. Critics and watchdogs: endorsements, disclosures, and a different sore point
While both men deny endorsing the contested CBD products, watchdog reporting and advocacy groups have criticized Dr. Oz for other commercial behavior — documenting social posts promoting products (for example from iHerb) without prominent disclosure of paid-adviser roles and noting a pattern of touting supplements tied to his brand or financial interests [4]. This line of criticism is distinct from the CBD scams: it alleges insufficient disclosure rather than outright fraudulently attributed endorsements [4].
5. Broader critique of media-doctor commercialization: context from media analysts
Observers and media critics place these episodes in a longer debate about television doctors using professional credentials to promote products and ideas, arguing that the mixing of entertainment, commerce, and credentialed health advice risks misleading the public — a theme advanced by commentators who cite both Oz and McGraw as emblematic cases [6][7]. Those critiques serve as context for why unauthorized fake endorsements gain traction and why watchdog scrutiny focuses on disclosure and accountability [7][6].
6. Where the public record ends: limits of available official statements
On the narrow question of what official statements each made about the fake CBD endorsements and product use, the available record shows explicit denials and consumer warnings from both men and their teams, plus public media appearances to debunk the scams; the record also includes watchdog claims about Oz’s other promotional behavior, but there is no single, comprehensive admission from either that addresses every form of product promotion or every alleged commercial tie [1][2][4].
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to watch for
Their denials aim to protect reputation and warn consumers, while critics and watchdogs emphasize systemic problems of undisclosed promotions and commercial incentives in health media; each side has an implicit agenda — the doctors defend their credibility and audience trust, while critics seek stricter disclosure norms and regulatory accountability — and readers should treat statements through both lenses [1][4][6].