Does Mehmet Oz have financial ties to iHerb or its parent companies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public reporting shows Dr. Mehmet Oz has had paid advisory and equity relationships with iHerb and related entities: Public Citizen accused him of touting iHerb products while a paid adviser [1] [2], his financial disclosures and reporting say he held up to $25 million in iHerb stock which he pledged to divest if confirmed [3], and his ethics filings and press accounts show he planned to divest vested RSUs while retaining some interest in an entity called iHerb Oz Partners LLC at least initially [4] [5].
1. What the reporting documents: advisory role and product promotion
Multiple outlets cite a Public Citizen letter saying Oz “regularly touted products from iHerb” on social platforms without prominently disclosing he was a paid adviser, framing this as a watchdog concern about advertising and conflicts [1] [2] [6]. Those reports include examples of social posts referencing iHerb products and note the watchdog’s contention that his posts could run afoul of marketing rules because of undeclared financial ties [1] [2].
2. How much money is at issue — the $25 million figure
A straight factual line in reporting: an Associated Press piece says Oz’s advisory work “has earned Oz as much as $25 million in company stock,” and that he pledged to forfeit those holdings “as soon as practicable but not later than 90 days after confirmation” [3]. That number is the most-cited estimate in the provided sources for his iHerb-related holdings [3].
3. The ethics filings: divestment pledge plus retained interest complication
Oz’s published ethics agreement and reporting reveal he committed to divest vested restricted stock units (RSUs) in iHerb and to resign his formal role there upon confirmation, but he also told ethics officials he “will continue to have a financial interest in iHerb Oz Partners LLC” or, in other filings, stated he “do[es] not, and have never, had financial interests in iHerb Oz Partners LLC” — showing a contested or evolving disclosure about that entity [4] [5]. Roll Call quotes that he planned to divest vested RSUs but would “continue to have a financial interest in iHerb Oz Partners LLC,” a point that drew Senator Elizabeth Warren’s scrutiny [4] [7].
4. Timeline and subsequent promises to divest or step away
Reporting from STAT and the OGE filings indicate Oz pledged to sell certain holdings and step away from iHerb roles as part of his confirmation process; one STAT summary notes he “pledged to sell off” many holdings and that he “pledged to sell” iHerb stock if confirmed [8]. The AP likewise reports he said he would forfeit iHerb stock within a defined period after confirmation [3]. Those promises figure centrally in how outlets describe attempts to manage potential conflicts.
5. Disputes, ambiguities and what sources disagree on
Sources diverge on the exact status of any retained interest in entities tied to iHerb. Roll Call and Senator Warren’s letter flag that he might retain an interest in iHerb Oz Partners LLC and call that a conflict risk [4] [7]. By contrast, an OGE filing excerpt included in the provided search results records Oz saying he “do[es] not, and have never, had financial interests in iHerb Oz Partners LLC,” suggesting a contradictory assertion in official materials [5]. Available sources do not settle which statement fully reflects his final holdings after divestment steps.
6. What this means for claims that he “has financial ties” now
On the evidence in these sources: reporting documents past paid-adviser status and substantial stock holdings tied to iHerb, and they document pledges to divest [1] [3] [8]. But the sources also show ambiguity about residual interests in an entity named iHerb Oz Partners LLC and different public statements about whether he ever held an interest in that specific LLC [4] [5]. Available sources do not conclusively say whether every financial tie had been resolved at a single later date; they instead show commitments and contested disclosures during the confirmation process [8] [3] [5].
7. Why this matters — conflicts, optics and agency authority
Journalistic coverage and Senator Warren’s letter frame these ties as potential conflicts because CMS oversees programs where policy changes could benefit supplement sellers or insurers — and watchdogs argue undeclared endorsements undermined transparency [7] [1]. The AP and watchdog accounts connect the monetary scale (up to $25 million reported) to ethical concerns about a regulator holding substantial interests in market participants it could influence [3] [1].
Limitations and next steps for readers: all factual assertions above use only the documents and reporting you provided; if you want a definitive current ledger of Oz’s holdings or a formal ethics office ruling, those are not found in the supplied sources and would require reviewing the most recent Office of Government Ethics or CMS public disclosures and confirmations.