Peptide Shop Case Studies: Names, Timelines and Outcomes

Alabama Attorney General
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2026-01-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Alabama announced a settlement closing Aurora IV and Wellness after allegations that research-grade semaglutide and tirzepatide were presented as pharmaceutical-grade treatments. Owners Amanda and Chris Medders were barred from the specified direct-patient-care work, and Amanda surrendered her nursing license. The announced monetary terms distinguish consumer damages from penalties and fees. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The attorney general alleges administration of research-grade preparations marketed as pharmaceutical grade. Source 1
• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The attorney general alleges administration of research-grade preparations marketed as pharmaceutical grade. Source 1

How it came to light

The release references complaining consumers and agency cooperation, but does not establish which complaint or event began the investigation. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation The state alleged deceptive presentation and administration of drugs labeled by their manufacturer for research use, rather than authorized human treatment. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The announced settlement permanently closed the clinic, restricted the owners’ healthcare work, and required $17,267.50 in consumer damages plus $7,000 in penalties/fees. The reviewed release is not the underlying consent judgment. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-11 reported period
   A temporary restraining order had been announced after the state filed suit. Source 1
2. 2026-01-12 announcement
   The attorney general announced the settlement. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the filed settlement/order and monitor compliance or enforcement of its restrictions. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact complaint/TRO dates, initial trigger, full settlement language and payment completion were not independently established.

U.S. International Trade Commission
337-TA-1377 · Outcome source: 2025-04-09 · Link to this record

October 13 document clarification

Swiss Chems’ respondent status is unresolved in the reviewed record. The December 2024 decision says the motion to add it was denied without prejudice and still calls it a proposed respondent. The April 2025 notice gives a different account of the same earlier amendment event; the June 2024 notice also differs from that later account. We have not resolved this conflict or verified a Swiss-specific final remedial order. Do not assign orders against other respondents to Swiss Chems. December decision, PDF pp. 10 and 133 · June notice, p. 2 · April notice, p. 2.

We also reviewed the actual cease-and-desist order against Triggered Supplements LLC, whose product and conduct scope remains limited as specified in that order. Order bundle, PDF pp. 27–35.

What happened

This was Lilly’s Section 337 trade proceeding over tirzepatide and purported tirzepatide imports, not a criminal prosecution or an FDA approval decision. Lilly filed its complaint on October 19, 2023 and supplemented it on November 10. The ITC announced institution on November 21; the final notice identifies November 27 as the formal institution date. The starting mechanism is therefore known—a private complainant brought an import case—but the reviewed notices do not explain how Lilly first identified each seller. Partial summary determinations resolved specified trademark, false-origin and false-advertising allegations; the results varied by respondent and claim. On April 9, 2025 the Commission issued import-exclusion remedies and cease-and-desist orders, then terminated the investigation. The general exclusion order applies to covered goods that infringe a specified trademark or are falsely designated as to origin. A separate limited order addresses false advertising by named respondents. Remaining allegations against several respondents were withdrawn earlier, which must not be presented as adjudicated liability on those withdrawn claims. The proceeding supplies evidence about import restrictions and marketing representations. It does not establish a blanket prohibition covering every tirzepatide product, every peptide, or retatrutide. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide and products purporting to contain tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  Express investigation scope; purported contents were not uniformly established by laboratory analysis. Source 1 · Source 2

How it came to light

Lilly filed the complaint that initiated this trade investigation on October 19, 2023. The reviewed institutional and final notices do not establish the underlying vendor-discovery process or each product test. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• judicial finding Specified respondents were found in violation on trademark infringement, false designation of origin and/or false advertising claims through partial summary determinations; the finding was respondent- and claim-specific. Source 1
• mixed Certain remaining allegations were withdrawn; withdrawal should not be described as a merits determination against those respondents. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

Commission issued a general exclusion order for covered trademark-infringing or falsely designated imports; a limited exclusion order for falsely advertised products imported for Super Human Store, Austro Peptide and Arctic Peptides; and cease-and-desist orders against Arctic Peptides, Triggered Brand and Strate Labs. Investigation terminated. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2023-10-19 filing
   Lilly filed complaint. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2023-11-10 filing
   Lilly supplemented complaint. Source 1 · Source 2
3. 2023-11-21 announcement
   ITC announced institution vote. Source 1
4. 2023-11-27 event
   Formal institution date identified in final notice. Source 1
5. 2024-12-06 event
   Order 26 partial summary determination issued. Source 1
6. 2025-01-10 event
   Order 29 granted withdrawal of specified remaining allegations. Source 1
7. 2025-04-09 event
   Commission issued final remedies and terminated investigation. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to final Commission remedies: 538 days
  2023-10-19 to 2025-04-09. Source 1
• Partial summary determination to final remedies: 124 days
  2024-12-06 to 2025-04-09. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor CBP implementation, any Commission enforcement or modification proceeding and any appeal; no later result was established in this review. Source 1

What remains unknown

• No retatrutide scope established.
• Individual test results and initial identification of each respondent were not supplied by the reviewed notices.
• Later review, appeal and actual import-enforcement outcomes remain unverified.

Connecticut Attorney General
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-08-05 · Link to this record

What happened

Connecticut sued Triggered Brand over direct-to-consumer research-grade semaglutide and tirzepatide sales, then announced a settlement. The state alleged weight-loss marketing without the required prescribing and pharmacy safeguards. The settlement imposed a sales stop and a $300,000 judgment, suspended after an $18,500 payment, with the larger obligation relevant to a breach. The announcement does not independently establish payment completion. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The attorney general’s lawsuit announcement alleges direct-to-consumer offers of research-grade weight-loss drugs. Source 1
• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The attorney general’s lawsuit announcement alleges direct-to-consumer offers of research-grade weight-loss drugs. Source 1
• GLP-1 drugs Settlement scope
  The settlement announcement describes the required cessation of GLP-1 drug sales. Source 1

How it came to light

Website and social-media marketing were evidence in the allegations. The source does not establish the original complaint or tip that triggered the inquiry. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation The state alleged unlawful and misleading marketing of research-grade drugs for human weight loss, including unlicensed pharmacy activity and sales without appropriate prescription oversight. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The company and CEO Sam Stolt agreed to the announced restrictions and financial terms. The release does not say $300,000 was paid or establish a criminal conviction. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-05-21 announcement
   The attorney general announced the lawsuit. Source 1
2. 2025-08-05 announcement
   The attorney general announced the settlement. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Watch for compliance or breach proceedings, rather than treating the settlement as a laboratory finding or a criminal verdict. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• The underlying docket/consent judgment and initial discovery trigger were not reviewed. Separate investigations mentioned in the lawsuit release are not part of this defendant’s settlement.

U.S. District Court, D. Delaware
1:25-cv-01418 · Outcome source: 2025-11-20 · Link to this record

What happened

Darby Day’s proposed class action is a consumer suit, unlike the manufacturer-led cases surrounding it. Day alleges he bought oral tirzepatide through MEDVi for $279.99, received Triad Rx packaging, experienced none of the effects he expected after prior injectable GLP-1 use, and cancelled. The complaint links OpenLoop and Triad entities through billing, packaging and service relationships and alleges a broader deceptive-sales scheme. These details document a consumer’s asserted experience, not proof that every oral formulation was ineffective. The requested nationwide and state classes were proposed; no class-certification order is established. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 82–92 describe oral tablets allegedly containing tirzepatide with L-carnitine and vitamin B12; no independent composition test is attached in the reviewed account. Source 1

How it came to light

The plaintiff’s purchase, packaging and lack of expected effect are described. How counsel first identified or began investigating the wider alleged scheme is not established. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation The consumer alleges false efficacy claims, inadequate clinical interaction and a coordinated sales operation, asserting civil RICO and consumer-law theories. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The November 20, 2025 complaint is the latest verified event here. No certified class, liability finding, settlement or consumer recovery is established. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-11-20 filing
   Consumer alleges oral tirzepatide products were ineffective and deceptively marketed; pleads RICO/state-law theories and seeks class certification. No certified class or merits outcome verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Watch for dismissal and class-certification decisions and evidence connecting each defendant to the representations and purchased product. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Purchase date is stated as on or about October 18, so it is not used as an exact elapsed-time anchor.

U.S. District Court, N.D. California
4:25-cv-03536 · Outcome source: 2025-09-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Henry Meds case, filed against Adonis Health, concerns both compounded injectable tirzepatide and an oral tirzepatide offering. The September 2025 decision makes a useful claim-level distinction: challenges to safety-and-efficacy statements were dismissed, while claims about personalized treatment survived. The court treated Lilly and Henry as competing for the same tirzepatide customers at the pleading stage and found the alleged diversion sufficient to proceed on the surviving theory. That is not a trial finding that every treatment was standardized or that the oral product had a demonstrated therapeutic effect. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion identifies compounded injectable and oral tirzepatide and describes Henry’s advertising. Source 1

How it came to light

Website screenshots and cited marketing are documented evidence sources. The court’s discussion does not establish the initial lead, investigation date or product testing. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged misleading safety/effectiveness and patient-specific treatment claims; the court distinguished those theories rather than accepting or rejecting the complaint wholesale. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

September 24, 2025 partial dismissal removed safety-and-efficacy advertising theories and allowed personalization theories to proceed, with an amendment deadline. No final liability or damages determination was verified. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-23 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2025-09-24 event
   Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and set an October 15 amendment deadline. No final disposition verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to partial dismissal: 154 days
  2025-04-23 to 2025-09-24. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Retrieve the amended complaint and later ruling on whether the promised personalization matched actual care. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Later disposition and independent evidence of product contents or effectiveness are missing.

U.S. District Court, E.D. California
2:26-cv-02764-TLN-SCR · Outcome source: 2026-09-11 · Link to this record

What happened

Aesthetic Envy is a med-spa retatrutide case with a particularly short documented court timeline. Lilly’s complaint alleged the business promoted purported retatrutide as a wellness treatment and used clinical-trial comparisons to suggest it outperformed semaglutide and tirzepatide. Those comparison drugs are background to the challenged advertisement, not proof that Aesthetic sold them in this matter. Thirty days after filing, Lilly voluntarily dismissed the whole action with prejudice. The notice says nothing about a settlement, changed business practices or why Lilly chose dismissal, so none of those explanations can be asserted. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint describes a retatrutide wellness offering and challenged efficacy comparisons; actual contents are not verified. Source 1
• semaglutide Background
  Used as a comparator in the challenged retatrutide advertisement, not established here as a defendant product. Source 1
• tirzepatide Background
  Lilly’s products and comparative trial claims provide background; no defendant tirzepatide sale is inferred. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint cites the clinic’s retatrutide webpage. It does not disclose the first lead or establish a test purchase or inspection. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged misleading trial-based superiority and regulatory-status representations for purported retatrutide. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The September 11, 2026 notice voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before an answer or summary-judgment motion. It is a dismissal notice, not a merits finding or an explained settlement. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2026-08-12 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-09-11 event
   Lilly voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice before an answer or summary-judgment motion. No reason or settlement is stated. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to voluntary dismissal with prejudice: 30 days
  2026-08-12 to 2026-09-11. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Any public settlement or compliance document would add context, but no further obligation is inferred from the notice alone. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Reason for dismissal, any confidential agreement and post-dismissal sales conduct remain unknown. Actual venue was E.D. California.

U.S. District Court, N.D. California
4:25-cv-03535 · Outcome source: 2026-03-26 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s separate Aios/Fella case addresses compounded tirzepatide and how allegedly standardized treatment was represented as personalized. The March 2026 opinion divides the theories carefully. Lilly had not adequately connected alleged corporate practice of medicine to its own injury, but its unfair-competition theory and false-personalization advertising claims could proceed, along with civil conspiracy. The survival of these claims means they were plausibly pleaded, not that a court found every patient received identical treatment. This is distinct from Novo’s later suit against related Fella entities and should retain its own docket and claim history. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion describes compounded tirzepatide, including challenged formulations and treatment-plan claims; no independent assay is reported. Source 1

How it came to light

Marketing and alleged company-level prescription changes support the pleading. The initial lead and any investigative start date are not established. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged false personalization, misleading promotion and corporate interference in care. Only specified theories survived the pleading challenge. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

March 26, 2026 partial dismissal rejected the corporate-practice standing theory, allowed unfair competition, limited surviving false advertising to personalization, and allowed conspiracy, with leave to amend. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-23 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1
2. 2026-03-26 event
   Mixed pleading ruling: corporate-practice UCL theory lacked adequately pleaded standing; false-advertising/personalization and related conspiracy theories survived. Leave to amend granted. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to partial dismissal: 337 days
  2025-04-23 to 2026-03-26. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Read the amended pleading and later evidentiary rulings on whether actual prescribing matched the personalization claims. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Final liability, damages and the post-amendment claim set are unverified.

U.S. District Court, W.D. Louisiana
5:26-cv-04146 · Outcome source: 2026-10-08 · Link to this record

What happened

The American Peptides proceeding is verified at docket level, but its October 2026 complaint was not obtained for this analysis. Contemporaneous Bloomberg reporting expressly includes American Peptides among vendors sued over purported retatrutide. That supports a carefully attributed connection to the retatrutide litigation wave, not a reconstruction of its advertisements, products or evidence. The collection cannot establish whether Lilly relied on a website, customer complaint, sample purchase or laboratory test in this particular case. It also cannot transfer detailed allegations from the simultaneously filed LiveWell complaint to this defendant. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Unclear relationship
  Contemporaneous reporting identifies this suit as concerning purported retatrutide; the original complaint is missing, so offering details and primary attribution remain unverified. Source 1

How it came to light

Not established. No original complaint or investigation account is available to identify an initial lead or supporting evidence-gathering method. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Secondary reporting describes allegations of unlawful sale and promotion of purported retatrutide. Exact counts, representations and defendant-specific evidence remain unknown. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The docket records an October 8, 2026 filing in W.D. Louisiana. No later result or finding is established by the October 10 collection cutoff. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2026-10-08 filing
   Docket records complaint filing; contemporaneous reporting links it to alleged retatrutide sales. Complaint text not obtained. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain docket document 1 and any exhibits before making product-specific or discovery-method claims. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Original complaint, exact product aliases, quantities, testing and response are missing. This is a private Lilly suit, not an agency enforcement finding.

U.S. District Court, W.D. Texas
5:26-cv-05147 · Outcome source: 2026-08-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s original Astra complaint expressly targets purported retatrutide, rather than merely mentioning it as background. It cites a product page discussing appetite and metabolic effects and a Trustpilot review describing personal weight loss, arguing that research-only labeling did not match the intended consumer use. Those exhibits show how Lilly assembled its allegations; they do not prove the vial contents or establish when Lilly first became aware of the seller. Later reports about a wrongly identified Astra entity or dismissal remain unresolved in the collected primary record, making defendant identity and procedural status unusually important gaps. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 44–46 cite the retatrutide product page and a consumer review; composition was not independently established. Source 1

How it came to light

Website and review-platform research are documented methods of gathering supporting evidence. The initial lead and start date are not disclosed. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges research-only disclaimers masked consumer retatrutide sales and that metabolic-benefit marketing diverted patients from approved medicines. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The August 12, 2026 original complaint is verified. Conflicting later identity and disposition reports are unresolved; neither pending nor closed is asserted as current status. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-08-12 filing
   Original complaint alleges deceptive marketing or sale of purported retatrutide. Later party-identification and dismissal reports remain unresolved; do not label case pending or closed. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Prioritize the amended complaint, party-correction papers and any dismissal before drawing conclusions about who was sued or how the case ended. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Legal-entity attribution and later disposition unresolved. General online adverse-event examples are not Astra-specific adjudicated injuries.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
4:26-cv-08806 · Outcome source: 2026-10-08 · Link to this record

What happened

Cenexa Labs is another October 2026 Lilly defendant whose full pleading remains missing from the archive. The docket-index source identifies a Southern District of Texas proceeding, while contemporaneous reporting links Cenexa to allegations involving purported retatrutide. That evidence is enough to retain the proceeding in the historical collection with a visible limitation, but not to claim a particular vial was tested or a named advertisement was unlawful. No allegations from Striker, Lone Star or LiveWell should be silently borrowed to fill this record. The source gap is material to any compound-by-outcome comparison. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Unclear relationship
  Named as a retatrutide-related defendant in contemporaneous reporting; no reviewed original pleading establishes the precise offering or alias. Source 1

How it came to light

Not established. The collected metadata does not identify a tip, website review, purchase, test, inspection or discovery date. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Secondary reporting attributes purported-retatrutide sale and promotion allegations to Lilly; specific state claims and evidence are unverified. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

An October 8, 2026 complaint filing is recorded under 4:26-cv-08806. No substantive order, settlement or adjudicated violation is established. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2026-10-08 filing
   Docket records complaint filing; contemporaneous reporting links it to alleged retatrutide sales. Complaint text not obtained. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Retrieve the original complaint and confirm entity and product attribution before adding detailed conduct analysis. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Docket index is sparse; complaint, exhibits, response and current posture are missing. No government action is inferred.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
4:25-cv-03464 · Outcome source: 2026-04-29 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Texas Empower action concerns oral-disintegrating tirzepatide tablets and injectable tirzepatide/niacinamide, with advertising and unfair-competition theories under several jurisdictions’ laws. The April 2026 decision produced a mixed result: federal Lanham Act and Texas common-law claims were dismissed, while claims under eight other states’ laws survived. The court also treated compliance with compounding exceptions as an issue that could not simply be resolved against the plaintiff on the pleadings. None of this establishes a failed batch or a completed government enforcement action. The related New Jersey case should remain linked rather than counted as unrelated seller conduct. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion describes Empower’s oral-disintegrating tablets and tirzepatide/niacinamide injections as the challenged products. Source 1

How it came to light

The reviewed opinion identifies product marketing and formulations but not the initial lead, a dated test purchase or a laboratory finding. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly challenged efficacy, clinical-support and customization representations and asserted state unfair-competition theories concerning the compounded products. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

April 29, 2026 dismissal removed Lanham Act and Texas common-law claims; Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington claims survived. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-07-25 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-04-29 event
   Lanham Act and Texas common-law claims dismissed; Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington claims survived. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Texas complaint filing to partial dismissal: 278 days
  2025-07-25 to 2026-04-29. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Follow evidence-stage rulings on compounding exceptions and the remaining state claims, and reconcile procedural overlap with New Jersey. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• No final outcome or finding of actual product composition established.

U.S. District Court, D. New Jersey
2:25-cv-02183 · Outcome source: 2025-04-01 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s New Jersey complaint attacks two specific Empower offerings: orally disintegrating tirzepatide tablets and injectable tirzepatide combined with niacinamide. Its private advertising case alleges that evidence for Lilly’s approved injectable medicines was used to promote materially different compounded products, and that customization and regulatory-quality language overstated what Empower supplied. The complaint asks for sales restrictions and corrective advertising. Those requested remedies are not orders already entered. A later Texas Empower proceeding is separately docketed but related; the two matters should not be counted as two independent episodes of product harm. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint identifies oral-disintegrating tablets and tirzepatide/niacinamide injections; this establishes allegations about formulation, not independently measured contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint relies on product and marketing representations. It does not establish the first lead, a dated initial investigation, or a seller-specific laboratory finding. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges misleading efficacy, clinical-support, personalization and regulatory-standard claims for the oral and injectable formulations. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The April 1, 2025 complaint is the latest verified New Jersey event in the collected sources. No New Jersey merits outcome or operative injunction is established. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-01 filing
   Complaint alleges misleading advertising and sale of compounded tirzepatide. Later disposition not verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Retrieve the New Jersey docket and compare any transfer, dismissal or amended pleading with the related Texas action. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Current New Jersey disposition and precise procedural relationship to Texas need verification.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Indiana
1:24-cv-01862 · Outcome source: 2026-06-18 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Genesis litigation concerns compounded tirzepatide promotion and use of Lilly’s branding across several Genesis-related businesses. By May 2026 the parties represented that they had signed a confidential settlement and asked for a consent judgment and permanent injunction. The June order refused that request because the settlement was not supplied and the proposed judicial relief did not satisfy the applicable requirements. A private settlement and a court-enforceable injunction are different outcomes. The reviewed order documents the former’s reported existence while expressly declining to enter the latter. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The complaint and later proposed-injunction discussion identify compounded tirzepatide; no retatrutide sale is established. Source 1 · Source 2

How it came to light

Advertising and trademark representations are documented evidence sources. The initial discovery route and any test purchase or laboratory result are not established. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged misleading promotion and trademark-related confusion. Defendants denied the allegations, and the order did not resolve their truth. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

June 18, 2026 order denied approval of the proposed consent judgment and injunction. Parties could renew with adequate materials or dismiss; no later accepted injunction or dismissal is verified. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2024-10-21 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-05-19 filing
   Parties filed a joint motion stating they had executed a confidential settlement and requesting judicial approval. Source 1
3. 2026-06-18 event
   Court denied joint motion to approve consent judgment/permanent injunction because the confidential settlement was not supplied and Rule 65 requirements were not met. Parties could renew or dismiss. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to refusal of proposed consent judgment: 605 days
  2024-10-21 to 2026-06-18. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Find the renewed motion or dismissal to determine how the settlement was ultimately implemented. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Confidential settlement terms and final docket outcome are missing; proposed restrictions must not be presented as an entered injunction.

U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas
1:26-cv-00347 · Outcome source: 2026-09-10 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Legendary Peptides complaint explicitly identifies GLP3 (R) as purported retatrutide and cites a consumer review accompanied by a vial photograph, plus a co-founder’s TikTok promotion of retatrutide kits. It also uses a separate social post about the co-founder’s NAD+ self-use as context for intended human use across the business. That NAD+ anecdote is not a retatrutide adverse event. The September 2026 court order only adjusts briefing time if a dismissal motion is filed; it neither accepts the allegations nor prohibits sales. The seller-specific material is distinct from the complaint’s general Reddit examples of market-wide retatrutide harms. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 42–49, including OCR of pp. 14–17, explicitly identify GLP3 (R) as purported retatrutide and describe a seller video and customer-vial photograph. Source 1
• NAD+ Background
  Paragraph 46 describes a co-founder’s NAD+ self-use social post as supporting human-use context; it is not a retatrutide injury or independent verification of a sold product. NAD+ is not classified here as a peptide. Source 1

How it came to light

The documented supporting sources are website and social-media materials. The initial lead, test-purchase route and beginning of an investigation are not established. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges retatrutide marketing and sales for human use under research-only presentation, causing consumer and competitive harm. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

A September 10, 2026 order extended potential dismissal briefing. No merits ruling, settlement or injunction is established in the reviewed record. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2026-08-12 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-09-10 event
   Court extended briefing time in the event of a motion to dismiss; no merits determination. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to briefing-extension order: 29 days
  2026-08-12 to 2026-09-10. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Retrieve any motion to dismiss and response, then the ruling that resolves those arguments. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Product contents, seller-specific injury and ultimate disposition are unverified. Briefing relief is not a finding against the defendant.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
4:26-cv-06562 · Outcome source: 2026-08-12 · Link to this record

What happened

The Lone Star Peptide complaint documents a direct connection between educational-looking GLP-1 comparisons and a retatrutide purchase link. Lilly cites a page describing weight-loss trial results and alleged superiority over other GLP-1 drugs, alongside consumer-facing marketing and a founder-associated social account. Its theory is that those materials established intended human use despite research-only disclaimers. The complaint is a private competition suit, not an FDA seizure. General reports about black-market retatrutide harms and other sellers appear as background and should not be converted into Lone Star laboratory findings or confirmed customer injuries. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 48–50 connect retatrutide comparison claims with a purchase link and research-only disclaimer. Source 1

How it came to light

Lilly’s cited website pages and social posts document evidence gathering. The complaint does not identify the first lead, a test purchase or an initial investigation date. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges purported retatrutide was promoted for consumer weight management and that trial comparisons misleadingly supported the seller’s own product. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The August 12, 2026 complaint is the latest verified substantive event here. No answer, judgment, settlement, seizure or criminal charge is established. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-08-12 filing
   Complaint alleges deceptive research-only marketing and retatrutide sales. Later disposition not verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the response and any ruling on intended use, commercial injury and the relationship between trial claims and the product offered. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Actual composition, sales volume, supplier identity and later court disposition remain unverified.

U.S. District Court, N.D. Texas
3:24-cv-02634 · Outcome source: 2025-06-23 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Mangoceuticals dispute concerned its MangoRx TRIM tirzepatide offering and challenged marketing. The strongest recorded outcome comes from Mangoceuticals’ own securities filing, which reports a June 2025 confidential settlement and mutual release, a $20,000 payment, and an agreement to stop the TRIM tirzepatide offering. A corporate filing is useful primary evidence of what the company reported, but it is not the missing court dismissal or the complete settlement. The amount should therefore be described as a reported settlement payment rather than a court-assessed penalty or damages verdict. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  Mangoceuticals’ filing describes ending its TRIM tirzepatide offering as part of settlement. Source 1

How it came to light

The first lead and any test purchase are not established. The available material identifies the product and dispute, not how Lilly originally discovered it. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly challenged the marketing of the TRIM tirzepatide product; the full operative complaint and adjudicated factual findings have not been reviewed. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The company reports a June 23, 2025 settlement and a $20,000 payment on June 27. The original dismissal order and full confidential terms were not obtained. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2024-10-21 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2025-06-23 event
   Mangoceuticals securities filing reports settlement and mutual release, a $20,000 payment and agreement to stop its TRIM tirzepatide offering. Original court dismissal not obtained. Source 1
3. 2025-06-27 event
   Mangoceuticals reports paying the $20,000 settlement amount. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to company-reported settlement: 245 days
  2024-10-21 to 2025-06-23. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the docket dismissal and any public settlement terms to confirm release scope and continuing obligations. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Outcome is company-reported; no independent laboratory result or contested liability finding is established.

U.S. District Court, D. Arizona
2:26-cv-07361 · Outcome source: 2026-10-08 · Link to this record

What happened

The MedShape Weight Loss Clinic case expands the October 2026 retatrutide wave beyond research-peptide storefronts to a clinic defendant. However, that connection presently rests on a court-docket entry and contemporaneous reporting, not the original complaint. The reviewed evidence does not establish the clinic’s precise formulation, whether it dispensed or administered a product, or which representations Lilly challenged. Those distinctions are essential before comparing a clinical treatment business with an online research seller. The same reporting also names Medrein, a different business; the names should not be merged or treated as aliases. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Unclear relationship
  Contemporaneous reporting links MedShape to purported-retatrutide allegations; original pleading and exact product role remain unreviewed. Source 1

How it came to light

Not established. No reviewed primary narrative identifies the first lead, a patient report, purchase, inspection or testing method. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Secondary reporting says Lilly alleged unlawful sale and promotion of purported retatrutide. Specific clinic conduct and statutory claims cannot be reconstructed from the docket title. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The docket identifies an October 8, 2026 Arizona complaint, 2:26-cv-07361. No subsequent merits event or government sanction is established. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2026-10-08 filing
   Docket records complaint filing; contemporaneous reporting links it to alleged retatrutide sales. Complaint text not obtained. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the complaint and exhibits to distinguish product administration, sale, advertising and any independently documented medical-practice issue. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Original complaint, product contents, business-specific evidence and later outcome remain missing.

U.S. District Court, N.D. California
3:25-cv-03534 · Outcome source: 2026-09-08 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Mochi litigation challenges connected telehealth, medical-group and pharmacy businesses over compounded tirzepatide. Its complaint identifies formulations with glycine, niacinamide or pyridoxine and alleges broad prescription changes contradicted personalization claims. After an April pleading ruling, a September 2026 order split the amended conspiracy theories: UCL conspiracy against Aequita could proceed, but Lanham Act conspiracy against Mochi Medical and Aequita was dismissed. The court found knowledge of advertising alone insufficient without an alleged act advancing the false-advertising scheme. These are pleading decisions, not proven conspiracy, product contamination or clinical-harm findings. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 3 and 8 identify tirzepatide products with glycine, niacinamide and pyridoxine; ingredients are alleged formulations, not independently assayed contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint cites promotional materials and reported group-wide prescription changes. The initial lead, sample purchase and laboratory investigation are not established. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged misleading personalization, unlicensed corporate influence and advertising of compounded products unsupported by the cited branded-drug evidence. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Outcome and its limits

September 8, 2026 order allowed UCL conspiracy against Aequita and dismissed Lanham Act conspiracy against Mochi Medical/Aequita without leave to amend, while allowing a later amendment motion if new supporting facts emerge. Other surviving claims were not finally adjudicated. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-23 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. 2026-04-20 event
   Court allowed UCL and Lanham Act claims to proceed and dismissed the conspiracy theory with leave to amend; a subsequent September 8 ruling addresses the amended conspiracy theories. Source 1
3. 2026-09-08 filing
   Court partly granted dismissal of the second amended complaint: Lanham Act conspiracy against Mochi Medical/Aequita dismissed; UCL conspiracy against Aequita survives. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to reviewed partial-dismissal order: 362 days
  2025-04-23 to 2026-04-20. Source 1 · Source 2
• Complaint filing to second-amended-complaint ruling: 503 days
  2025-04-23 to 2026-09-08. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (scheduled event)

The May schedule sets a case-management statement for October 28 and conference for November 4, 2026, and trial for January 2028. Check for subsequent schedule changes. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Final liability, damages and later schedule changes are unverified. September conspiracy dismissal does not dispose of every claim.

U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington
2:24-cv-01719 · Outcome source: 2025-05-20 · Link to this record

What happened

Pivotal is the clearest bridge between a research-peptide complaint and a documented negotiated outcome. Lilly’s original complaint concerned tirzepatide, including pharmaceutical-grade, purity and regulatory representations and sales without prescriptions. The approved settlement contains Pivotal’s admissions about those tirzepatide practices and commits it to stop tirzepatide sales. It also prohibits products involving semaglutide or retatrutide. Those additional restrictions establish settlement scope; they do not establish that Pivotal previously sold either compound. The May 2025 dismissal was with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  The settlement stipulation admits specified tirzepatide sales and marketing practices. Source 1
• semaglutide Settlement scope
  Included in the forward-looking settlement restriction, not established as an original complaint product. Source 1
• retatrutide Settlement scope
  Named only in the reviewed settlement restriction; no prior sale is inferred. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint documents Lilly’s July 12, 2024 cease-and-desist letter and a later seller communication. It does not establish when or how Lilly first discovered the conduct. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• admission Pivotal admitted that nonprescription tirzepatide sales and marketing research-grade material as pharmaceutical grade violated Washington law and endangered patient safety. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The court approved the stipulation May 20, 2025, dismissed with prejudice and retained enforcement jurisdiction. This is a settlement with express admissions, not a contested trial. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2024-07-12 event
   Lilly sent a private cease-and-desist letter, according to the complaint. Source 1
2. 2024-10-21 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
3. 2025-05-20 event
   Court approved stipulated settlement and dismissed with prejudice, retaining enforcement jurisdiction. Stipulation includes admissions and an agreement to stop selling tirzepatide, semaglutide and retatrutide products. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Private cease-and-desist letter to complaint filing: 101 days
  2024-07-12 to 2024-10-21. Source 1
• Complaint filing to settlement approval: 211 days
  2024-10-21 to 2025-05-20. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Any later enforcement motion would show whether disputes arose over compliance; none is established here. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Initial detection date and prior semaglutide/retatrutide sales are not established.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
4:23-cv-03521 · Outcome source: 2026-08-04 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s long-running Revive RX case concerns compounded tirzepatide and state unfair-competition theories. The August 2026 opinion analyzes whether compounded preparations can fall within state new-drug laws and rejects a categorical argument that pharmacy compounding is outside those provisions. It also emphasizes that plaintiffs still must prove their claims and that legitimate patient-specific compounding may raise different causation and safe-harbor issues. This is a pleading-stage legal decision, not a finding that all compounding is unlawful. Revive RX should not be confused with similarly named clinics or sellers in other records. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion identifies compounded tirzepatide, including a tirzepatide/vitamin-B6 combination discussed in the allegations. Source 1

How it came to light

The opinion recites product and sales allegations, but it does not establish how Lilly first identified the conduct or document a test purchase. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged unfair competition through challenged compounded-drug sales. Revive argued that compounding was categorically outside the new-drug provisions; the court rejected that pleading defense. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The August 4, 2026 order denied judgment on the pleadings. Earlier Texas claims had been dismissed with prejudice and Hawaii claims without prejudice; other state theories remained in the reviewed record. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2023-09-19 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1
2. 2026-08-04 event
   Court denied judgment on the pleadings. Earlier rulings dismissed Texas claims with prejudice and Hawaii claims without prejudice; other state claims continued. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor summary judgment or trial evidence concerning actual formulations, statutory exceptions, competitive harm and the surviving state claims. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Final liability and damages are not established; this ruling is not an agency inspection or prosecution.

U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
4:26-cv-06563 · Outcome source: 2026-08-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Striker differs from research storefront defendants because Lilly describes a compounding pharmacy supplying medical practices and shipping to consumers. The complaint cites vial images, a price list and customer reviews to support its allegation that Striker offered purported retatrutide. It also compares archived versions of the website with later product-page availability and challenges language about ingredients from FDA-registered facilities. These are specified sources of Lilly’s evidence, not proof of an FDA inspection or an admission by Striker. Website changes alone do not establish why material changed or prove concealment. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 49–56 cite alleged vial/price-list evidence and customer reviews; no independently verified assay establishes contents. Source 1

How it came to light

Lilly documents website-archive comparisons, product imagery and review evidence. None establishes the initial tip or whether a purchase initiated the investigation. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges unauthorized retatrutide compounding and sales, and misleading implications of regulatory legitimacy from FDA-registration language. Source 1

October 13 document check

Two October 5 filings add the defense position and schedule. In the joint case-management plan, Striker disputes unlawful conduct and says it intends to challenge Lilly’s claims and requested remedies. The plan reports settlement discussions, not a completed settlement. A court order sets initial disclosures for October 30, 2026, discovery and dispositive motions for August 10, 2027, and docket call for November 1, 2027; the order does not set a trial date. These are procedural developments, not liability or punishment. The public mirror was last retrieved October 7, so later activity is unverified. Joint plan, pp. 1 and 3–4 · Scheduling order, pp. 1–2 · Docket mirror.

Outcome in the original source snapshot

The August 12, 2026 private complaint is verified. No reviewed ruling determines liability, orders the pharmacy closed or establishes a regulatory sanction. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-08-12 filing
   Complaint alleges improper compounding and sale of retatrutide. Later disposition not verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Seek authenticated product records and any ruling on the defense arguments described above; distinguish any separate pharmacy-board or FDA action from this suit. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Actual formulation, source of the depicted samples and later disposition remain unknown. Broader GLP-1 adverse-event statistics are not Striker-specific findings.

U.S. District Court, D. Delaware
1:25-cv-00401 · Outcome source: 2025-10-08 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly sued Strive Pharmacy and Strive Specialties in Delaware over advertising of compounded tirzepatide, including representations about personalization. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction in October 2025. That means the selected forum could not adjudicate the dispute on the showing made; it does not mean the underlying advertising allegations were disproved. Lilly filed an Arizona action two weeks later. The Delaware and Arizona dockets are distinct proceedings, but reporting them as two unrelated seller incidents would exaggerate the conduct covered by the collection. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The complaint identifies compounded tirzepatide products and challenged personalization claims. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint cites marketing representations; neither it nor the jurisdiction ruling establishes the initial lead or a dated discovery event. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged false or misleading promotion of compounded tirzepatide as personalized. The reviewed ruling addressed jurisdiction rather than advertising truth. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

Dismissed without prejudice October 8, 2025 for lack of personal jurisdiction. The subsequent Arizona action is linked history, not a merits reversal. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-01 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2025-10-08 event
   Dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Lilly could plead additional jurisdictional facts or sue in Arizona. No merits decision. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to jurisdictional dismissal: 190 days
  2025-04-01 to 2025-10-08. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Follow the Arizona docket for resolution of the substantive claims and identify any materially different amended allegations. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• No Delaware merits decision; refiling should not be counted as a new episode of harmful conduct.

U.S. District Court, D. Arizona
2:25-cv-03942 · Outcome source: 2026-03-13 · Link to this record

What happened

The Arizona Strive action followed dismissal of Lilly’s Delaware suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. It is a separate docket concerning related compounded-tirzepatide advertising allegations, not evidence of a newly discovered seller or an additional proven episode of harm. The collected Arizona sources establish the October 2025 filing and later case-management activity, but the complete operative pleading and subsequent merits rulings have not been fully reviewed. Any product or claim comparison with Delaware must therefore preserve that source limitation instead of assuming every paragraph and defendant role remained identical. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  Collected complaint metadata identifies compounded tirzepatide as the related Arizona dispute’s subject; full Arizona allegations need review. Source 1 · Source 2

How it came to light

The documented path into Arizona is procedural refiling after Delaware’s jurisdictional dismissal. That is not the original detection of the challenged conduct. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly pursued related advertising claims concerning compounded tirzepatide. Precise amendments and differences from Delaware are not established in this review. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The latest collected Arizona event is a March 13, 2026 case-management report. It does not establish a final result or prove that the case remains pending today. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-10-22 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-03-13 filing
   Arizona action followed Delaware jurisdictional dismissal. Latest collected docket event is a case-management report, not a final disposition. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the current docket and operative complaint, then link any merits disposition to both procedural records. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Full operative complaint and latest status are missing; this refiling should not inflate distinct-conduct counts.

U.S. District Court, W.D. Texas
5:26-cv-05146 · Original outcome source: 2026-08-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s Texas Peptides complaint expressly identifies the seller’s Reta GLP-3 product as purported retatrutide, allowing that particular alias to be normalized without guesswork. A cited January 2026 social post links the offering to weight loss, blood-sugar and other health-related benefits, and references trial results. Lilly argues these representations showed intended human use despite research-only language elsewhere. The post is evidence of a dated public representation, not the start of sales or Lilly’s detection date. The complaint’s broader reports of retatrutide adverse events do not establish a Texas Peptides-specific injury. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 42–44 explicitly connect Reta GLP-3 to retatrutide and cite seller-specific marketing. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint cites website and social-media evidence, including a January 20, 2026 post. It does not disclose how or when Lilly first found the business. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges purported retatrutide was sold for human use using metabolic and clinical-result claims despite research-only disclaimers. Source 1

October 13 reporting update

A settlement has since been reported. Read the attributed terms and verification limits in the updated Texas Peptides profile. The original classification and source snapshot are retained below.

Outcome in the original source snapshot

The August 12, 2026 complaint is verified. The original snapshot did not establish a later disposition, assay result, government penalty or customer-injury finding; see the dated update above. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-01-20 event
   Complaint cites a Texas Peptides social post linking Reta GLP-3 to weight-loss and other health claims. Source 1
2. 2026-08-12 filing
   Complaint alleges deceptive research-only marketing and retatrutide sales. Later disposition was not verified in the October 10 source snapshot. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the signed settlement and any dismissal or enforcement order to verify the reported terms, timing and obligations. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact sales start, actual product contents and the signed settlement terms remain unverified. The dated post is not an exact discovery anchor.

U.S. District Court, N.D. Texas
3:26-cv-03514 · Outcome source: 2026-10-08 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s LiveWell complaint names William Ian Brown doing business as LiveWell Peptides and focuses on purported retatrutide. It combines a product page, clinical-trial references, consumer-oriented supplies and influencer promotions to argue that research-only labeling contradicted the business’s intended human use. The complaint explicitly connects the GLP-1-R listing with retatrutide, so that alias is supported in this record. It also cites semaglutide and tirzepatide product pages, but those are supporting catalog evidence; retatrutide remains the central challenged product. General Reddit adverse-event stories and third-party testing reports do not prove contamination or injury from LiveWell’s own vials. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint paragraphs 42–51 and cited GLP-1-R page expressly identify purported retatrutide marketed by LiveWell. Source 1
• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Footnote 43 cites a LiveWell semaglutide product page as supporting catalog evidence; this is not the core retatrutide allegation. Source 1
• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  Footnote 43 cites a LiveWell tirzepatide listing; no sale volume or verified composition is established. Source 1

How it came to light

Website, social posts and affiliate material document evidence gathering. The initial lead, investigation start and any LiveWell test purchase remain undisclosed. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleges research-only branding masked human-use retatrutide sales and that consumer endorsements and clinical references conveyed misleading legitimacy. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The October 8, 2026 complaint is verified. No answer, liability ruling, seizure or settlement is established by the collection cutoff. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-10-08 filing
   Lilly alleges research-only labeling is a pretext for retatrutide sales for human use. No later disposition verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor the response, any injunction request and evidence tying particular promotions or samples to the named defendant. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Actual vial composition and seller-specific injury are unproved; this defendant is distinct from TruLife/Live Well Drugstore.

U.S. District Court, C.D. California
2:25-cv-03570 · Outcome source: 2026-08-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Lilly’s case against Willow Health Services challenged marketing of compounded tirzepatide, including personalization claims. The February 2026 ruling dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice and without further leave to amend because Lilly had not adequately pleaded its own injury and causal connection under constitutional and Lanham Act standards. The truth of every advertisement was not adjudicated. Willow is consequently a clear example of why a dismissal should be described by its grounds. It is also not a closed historical endpoint: Lilly’s Ninth Circuit appeal is documented and had later briefing activity. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The dismissal opinion describes Willow’s compounded-tirzepatide marketing and the challenged personalization representations. Source 1

How it came to light

The reviewed record concerns marketing and pleading allegations. It does not establish the initial lead, a test purchase or the start of a government investigation. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Lilly alleged deceptive compounded-tirzepatide promotion; the court found its pleaded commercial injury and causal theory insufficient. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

Dismissed with prejudice February 3, 2026. Appeal 26-1317 opened March 5; an August 12 order extended the answering-brief deadline to October 23, 2026. No appellate merits outcome is verified. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-23 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2
2. 2026-02-03 event
   First amended complaint dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend for inadequate Article III and Lanham Act standing; court requested proposed judgment. Advertising truth was not adjudicated. Source 1
3. 2026-03-05 event
   Ninth Circuit appeal 26-1317 opened from 2:25-cv-03570. Source 1
4. 2026-08-12 event
   Court extended answering-brief deadline to October 23, 2026. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to district-court dismissal: 286 days
  2025-04-23 to 2026-02-03. Source 1
• District-court dismissal to appeal opening: 30 days
  2026-02-03 to 2026-03-05. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (scheduled event)

The recorded October 23, 2026 answering-brief deadline is the next scheduled appellate milestone, subject to later docket changes. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Appellate outcome unknown; dismissal does not certify product safety or advertising accuracy.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 719111 · Outcome source: 2025-12-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Atomix’s letter concerned MK2866, expressly identified as ostarine/enobosarm, and RAD140, identified as testolone. FDA cited website and social-media claims about muscle, bone and disease-related effects. The named products were advertised as research chemicals, but the agency assessed their surrounding promotional claims as establishing drug intent. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• ostarine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• RAD-140 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the offers as unapproved new drugs based on claims affecting human structure or function and treating disease, notwithstanding research disclaimers. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-03-04 event
   FDA cited dated social-media material supporting its intended-use assessment. Source 1
2. 2025-11 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
3. 2025-12-12 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 711330 · Outcome source: 2025-09-11 · Link to this record

What happened

Chengdu Brilliant was an upstream semaglutide active-ingredient manufacturer in this record, not simply a research-peptide storefront. FDA reviewed requested manufacturing records and identified missing process validation and incoming-material identity testing. The case concerns the quality system behind an ingredient supply, not just how a finished vial was advertised. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  The letter identifies semaglutide API manufacturing and supply; it does not report a patient-dose assay. Source 1

How it came to light

The documented evidence-gathering step was FDA’s March 12 records request. Why FDA initiated that request is not established. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed manufacturing controls as inconsistent with current good manufacturing practice, including failure to establish process reliability and verify incoming raw-material identity or the reliability of supplier certificates. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA imposed an import-alert listing and subsequently issued the warning. The reviewed letter does not establish final remediation or removal from the alert. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-03-12 event
   FDA requested manufacturing records under its statutory records authority. Source 1
2. 2025-07-09 event
   FDA placed the firm on Import Alert 66-40. Source 1
3. 2025-09-11 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Documented records request to warning letter: 183 days
  2025-03-12 to 2025-09-11. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• The initial selection trigger, later corrective-action acceptance and current import-alert status were not established.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 716152 · Outcome source: 2025-12-08 · Link to this record

What happened

Darmerica supplied and repackaged active pharmaceutical ingredients. FDA’s inspection raised supplier, traceability and quality-control issues and separately challenged distribution of ingredients ineligible for the cited compounding pathway. Crucially, the letter records that Darmerica stopped retatrutide and cagrilintide distribution; FDA regarded those particular corrections as adequate while retaining other concerns. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• cagrilintide acetate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• dapoxetine hydrochloride Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• 2-methoxyestradiol Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• tesofensine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• FGL acetate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• thymogen Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• buserelin acetate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• elamipretide acetate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1
• larazotide acetate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies receipt/distribution of these bulk ingredients; this is supply-chain evidence, not proof of a particular finished-dose composition. Source 1

How it came to light

FDA’s onsite inspection is documented, but the initiating trigger is not. Earlier particle complaints form part of the evidence and are not established as the original reason for inspection. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA identified deficient supplier qualification, complaint handling and release controls. It also assessed specified bulk substances distributed to pharmacies as ineligible for the claimed compounding exemptions. Particle complaints concerned redacted ingredients and cannot be assigned to retatrutide. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA’s warning acknowledged the retatrutide and cagrilintide corrective steps as apparently adequate. That limited acknowledgement is neither a blanket clearance nor evidence that those sales continued after the reported stop. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-03-03 event
   FDA began its inspection. Source 1
2. 2025-03-19 event
   The inspection ended. Source 1
3. 2025-04-07 event
   Darmerica submitted an inspection response. Source 1
4. 2025-05-01 event
   The firm reported ending retatrutide import/distribution and stopping cagrilintide distribution, with listing corrections. Source 1
5. 2025-12-08 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Inspection end to warning letter: 264 days
  2025-03-19 to 2025-12-08. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Look for resolution of the remaining quality-system findings and any independently documented changes in ingredient distribution. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Identity of ingredients in redacted particle complaints and the final disposition of other deficiencies are unknown.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 738238 · Outcome source: 2026-09-18 · Link to this record

What happened

Empower Pharmacy’s letter follows an inspection of sterile compounding and records for semaglutide/cyanocobalamin and tirzepatide/niacinamide preparations. FDA questioned whether high-volume compounded products satisfied patient-specific significant-difference conditions and also raised aseptic-control concerns. It acknowledged some corrective work while finding other responses inadequate or insufficiently documented; this is not a final compliance clearance. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies compounded tirzepatide/niacinamide and semaglutide/cyanocobalamin preparations in inspected production records. Source 1
• niacinamide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies compounded tirzepatide/niacinamide and semaglutide/cyanocobalamin preparations in inspected production records. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies compounded tirzepatide/niacinamide and semaglutide/cyanocobalamin preparations in inspected production records. Source 1
• cyanocobalamin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA identifies compounded tirzepatide/niacinamide and semaglutide/cyanocobalamin preparations in inspected production records. Source 1

How it came to light

The inspection and production-record review are documented evidence-gathering steps. The source does not identify the initial trigger for inspecting Empower. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed certain preparations as essentially copies outside the claimed compounding exemption, questioning repeated or absent prescriber determinations. It separately identified insanitary conditions and manufacturing-control deficiencies. Those are agency assessments, not a court finding that every prescription was improper. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued the warning after multiple responses, accepting some corrective elements but retaining unresolved concerns. A later closeout or adjudicated final outcome is not established. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-07 reported period
   The reviewed production period began in July and continued through October. Source 1
2. 2025-11-03 event
   FDA began the inspection. Source 1
3. 2025-11-14 event
   Inspection ended and observations were issued. Source 1
4. 2025-12-08 event
   The firm submitted an initial response. Source 1
5. 2026-03-18 event
   The firm submitted a further response. Source 1
6. 2026-04-30 event
   FDA identified an additional response. Source 1
7. 2026-09-18 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Inspection end to warning letter: 308 days
  2025-11-14 to 2026-09-18. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Later correction acceptance, current production status and patient-level outcomes are not established.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 723330 · Outcome source: 2026-05-01 · Link to this record

What happened

Harbin Jixianglong’s letter concerns semaglutide and tirzepatide active ingredients. FDA found major manufacturing and supplier-control deficiencies, including relabeling externally sourced semaglutide as the firm’s own manufacture. The letter records a voluntary two-batch semaglutide recall and an import restriction before the warning. These are upstream ingredient events, not proof of contamination in every finished injection. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  Both APIs are identified in the manufacturing inspection; semaglutide batches were specifically distributed and recalled. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  Both APIs are identified in the manufacturing inspection; semaglutide batches were specifically distributed and recalled. Source 1

How it came to light

FDA’s inspection and subsequent records/response review are documented. The reason for initiating the inspection is not established. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed supplier qualification, process/method and cleaning validation, water controls, traceability and batch dating as deficient. It challenged unsupported attribution of semaglutide manufacture and dating changes. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

A voluntary recall and import restrictions preceded the warning. FDA did not regard the documented responses as resolving all concerns; no later closeout was located in the reviewed sources. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-08-23 event
   One semaglutide batch distribution date is identified in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-10-03 event
   A further semaglutide batch distribution date is identified. Source 1
3. 2025-11-03 event
   FDA began the inspection. Source 1
4. 2025-11-07 event
   The inspection ended. Source 1
5. 2026-02-19 event
   The firm initiated a voluntary recall of two semaglutide batches. Source 1
6. 2026-02-27 event
   FDA added an Import Alert 66-40 restriction and removed the firm from the identified green list. Source 1
7. 2026-05-01 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Inspection end to voluntary recall: 104 days
  2025-11-07 to 2026-02-19. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Current import-alert status, final remediation and any finished-product patient exposure or injury are not established.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 721088 · Outcome source: 2026-03-31 · Link to this record

What happened

Pink Pony Peptides’ warning expressly identified GLP2TZ as tirzepatide and GLP3RT as retatrutide. FDA cited metabolic and weight-loss claims together with the marketed reconstitution water. The explicit identifications matter: these compounds can be compared by name here without guessing from a product code. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the peptide offers and bacteriostatic water as unapproved new drugs. It considered the claims and injection-related context evidence of human-use intent despite research-only statements. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-12 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-03-31 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 719339 · Outcome source: 2025-12-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Musclepower’s MONSTER KING and GE LABS matter includes an actual product test. FDA bought samples in March 2025 and found undeclared trendione in GE Labs Ykarine. The letter also concerned an MK677/ibutamoren offer. Ykarine is retained as a product name: the reviewed letter does not establish that it should simply be normalized to YK-11. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• GE Labs Ykarine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• ibutamoren Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• trendione Reported test contents
  FDA analysis of a purchased Ykarine sample detected undeclared trendione. Source 1

How it came to light

The agency reports sample purchases and website review during March–November 2025. It does not disclose the initial reason for selecting the seller. Sample acquisition is evidence gathering, not necessarily the first detection. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA challenged unapproved drug claims, supplement classification and misbranding involving the undeclared steroid trendione. Ibutamoren’s legal exclusion from the dietary-supplement definition was separately discussed. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and noted that the two products appeared no longer available for U.S. sale through monsterking.eu as of the letter. That observation does not establish worldwide cessation or a formal closeout. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-03 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-03 reported period
   FDA purchased product samples subsequently analyzed; website review continued through November. Source 1
3. 2025-12-12 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Ykarine’s complete composition, the original inquiry trigger and later disposition are unknown. The observed U.S. availability change is limited to the identified website.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 733652 · Outcome source: 2026-08-24 · Link to this record

What happened

NuScience’s warning covered multiple peptide offers and bacteriostatic water. The letter expressly names retatrutide and links other product discussions to semaglutide, survodutide, mazdutide, bremelanotide, tesamorelin and ipamorelin. Its GLP2 Tirz product is retained as coded where the reproduced text does not supply the full generic identity. Advertised mechanisms are not demonstrated product benefits. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• survodutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• mazdutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• ipamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• GLP2 Tirz Unclear relationship
  The coded offer is reproduced; a full generic-name mapping is not established in the reviewed passage. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed metabolic, disease, sexual-function and other human-use claims, plus reconstitution context, as supporting unapproved-new-drug findings despite research labeling. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-07 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-08-24 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Full generic identity of GLP2 Tirz, actual batch contents, initial trigger and later response or closeout are not established.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 735127 · Outcome source: 2026-08-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Peak Performance Peptides’ warning expressly identifies GLP3R as retatrutide and connects SS31 with elamipretide. It also names semaglutide, PT141, tesamorelin and bacteriostatic water. The PT141 generic-name mapping in the product list is separately sourced, rather than inferred from this letter alone. Clinical and mechanistic claims are marketing evidence, not proven effects of the products. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. The source label is PT-141; generic-name mapping uses the separately cited FDA Royal Peptides letter, which explicitly supplies this alias. Neither source proves batch contents. Source 1 · Source 2
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the offered products as unapproved new drugs based on human-use claims and reconstitution context despite research disclaimers. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-07 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-08-24 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 721817 · Outcome source: 2026-02-20 · Link to this record

What happened

Peaks Curative’s warning concerned compounded semaglutide marketing. FDA objected to statements about approval, safety and effectiveness and to a pictured PeakNow label suggesting that Peaks was the compounder. The problem identified was the promotional representation and attribution of compounding, not an assay showing that the preparation contained a different active ingredient. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the marketing and label depiction as false or misleading and requested identification of the actual compounders and associated labels. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-12 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-02-20 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• The initial trigger, independently verified manufacturing arrangements, later label changes and final regulatory disposition are not established.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 721709 · Outcome source: 2026-03-31 · Link to this record

What happened

PekCura Labs was warned over coded peptide offers, a combination product and reconstitution water. The letter reproduces GLP1S, GLP2T and GLP3R names, but does not expressly translate all of those codes into generic ingredients. Cagrilintide is identified in discussion of the blend. The analysis therefore preserves the coded identities rather than silently counting GLP3R as retatrutide. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• GLP1S Unclear relationship
  Product offers are documented, but generic identities are not fully decoded by this letter. Source 1
• GLP2T Unclear relationship
  Product offers are documented, but generic identities are not fully decoded by this letter. Source 1
• GLP3R Unclear relationship
  Product offers are documented, but generic identities are not fully decoded by this letter. Source 1
• Cag (1 mg) Tirz (10 mg) blend Unclear relationship
  Product offers are documented, but generic identities are not fully decoded by this letter. Source 1
• cagrilintide Reported marketing/supply
  The reproduced blend discussion explicitly names cagrilintide. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed disease and body-function claims, clinical-study discussion and injection-related supplies as establishing unapproved drug uses despite research disclaimers. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-01 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-03-31 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Generic identity of the coded products, actual contents, initial trigger and subsequent corrective-action status remain unresolved.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 735063 · Outcome source: 2026-08-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Peptide Partners’ warning explicitly maps its GLP1S, GLP2T and GLP3Reta labels to generic ingredients. FDA also names SS31/elamipretide, Tesa/tesamorelin and PT141/bremelanotide. The letter cites study summaries and disease-related statements associated with sales pages, together with bacteriostatic reconstitution solution. Those mappings support compound comparison without inferring identity from abbreviated branding alone. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the offers as unapproved new drugs, relying on promoted metabolic, kidney, liver, retinal and other disease/function uses. The warning does not validate the cited benefits or analytically establish the shipped products. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-07 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-08-24 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 719337 · Outcome source: 2025-12-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Pinnacle Professional Research, trading as Pinnacle Peptides, was warned about three named SARM products. FDA expressly linked Andarine S4, LGD4033/Ligandrol and MK2866/ostarine to the offers. Cancer, osteoporosis, muscle and insulin-sensitivity claims formed part of the evidence. The business name alone does not make this a peptide-specific action. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• andarine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• LGD-4033 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• ostarine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the advertised products as unapproved new drugs. The letter relies on intended-use claims and does not report laboratory confirmation of the contents or a final adjudication. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-11 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-12-12 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 719433 · Outcome source: 2025-12-12 · Link to this record

What happened

Prime Sports Nutrition received a warning over products advertised for sports performance, body composition and other human effects. The letter named LGD4033, RAD140, ibutamoren/MK677 and S23. Ibutamoren is listed by its name rather than automatically classified as a pharmacological SARM simply because the marketing grouped it with SARMs. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• LGD-4033 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• RAD-140 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• ibutamoren Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• S-23 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the offers as unapproved new drugs, citing muscle and body-function claims alongside disease-related and sexual-function statements. A research-compound disclaimer did not resolve the intended-use findings. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-11 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-12-12 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 695156 · Outcome source: 2024-12-10 · Link to this record

What happened

Prime Vitality, trading as Prime Peptides, was warned about semaglutide and retatrutide offers supported by website and social-media claims. FDA cited weight-loss, diabetes and liver-fat material, including consumer-facing promotional content. Tirzepatide appeared in the surrounding blog/video discussion, but the letter’s two challenged offered products were semaglutide and retatrutide. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Background
  Mentioned in cited educational/promotional material; not one of the two offered products identified for this warning. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the two products as unapproved new drugs. It treated the surrounding health claims and testimonials as evidence of intended human use notwithstanding the seller’s research disclaimer. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2024-06-23 event
   One retatrutide social-media post later cited by FDA was dated this day. Source 1
2. 2024-10 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
3. 2024-12-10 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 723704 · Outcome source: 2026-04-07 · Link to this record

What happened

ProRx’s outsourcing-facility inspection led to a warning over sterile-drug production, compounding conditions and other compliance issues. The letter records an October 2025 voluntary recall of specified tirzepatide and semaglutide lots for insufficient sterility assurance. It also acknowledges corrective responses. Insufficient assurance is not proof that every recalled vial was contaminated. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

An onsite inspection supplied the evidence. The source does not explain the initial reason FDA selected this facility for inspection. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA identified inadequate aseptic controls and investigations, including microbial findings, plus failures to satisfy relevant outsourcing-facility conditions. It also challenged tirzepatide production from bulk substance outside the applicable list/shortage conditions. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The firm recalled affected lots and reported pausing aseptic compounding pending cleanroom certification. FDA accepted some corrective elements but considered others inadequate or insufficiently documented. The warning is not a final closeout. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-09-09 event
   FDA began the facility inspection. Source 1
2. 2025-09-19 event
   Inspection ended and FDA issued inspection observations. Source 1
3. 2025-10-10 event
   FDA amended the inspection observations. Source 1
4. 2025-10-15 event
   The firm voluntarily recalled specified tirzepatide and semaglutide lots. Source 1
5. 2025-10-24 event
   The firm submitted a response; subsequent correspondence continued. Source 1
6. 2026-02-13 event
   The letter identifies further correspondence from the firm. Source 1
7. 2026-04-07 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Inspection end to warning letter: 200 days
  2025-09-19 to 2026-04-07. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor a closeout, recall updates and documented restoration of compliant sterile operations, without assuming either continuing failure or completed remediation. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Later resumption of aseptic operations, current recall completion and final FDA disposition are not established. Other non-peptide products also appear in the letter; this product list focuses on the GLP-1 preparations.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 715218 · Outcome source: 2025-09-08 · Link to this record

What happened

PureRawz’s warning in this collection concerned tianeptine products, including several chemical forms and an Ultimate-branded offering. FDA cited mood, depression and anxiety marketing across the website and social channels. It should not be counted as a retatrutide or peptide warning simply because the business may be associated with a broader research-chemical market. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tianeptine ethyl ester sulfate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tianeptine free acid Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tianeptine sodium Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tianeptine sulfate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• Tianeptine Ultimate Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the advertised tianeptine products as unapproved new drugs based on therapeutic and body-function claims despite research-only language. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-03-12 event
   A social-media post later cited by FDA promoted tianeptine. Source 1
2. 2025-08 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
3. 2025-09-08 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 734884 · Outcome source: 2026-08-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Royal Peptides’ warning combined GLP-1-related offers with other peptide products. The letter expressly identifies the retatrutide/tirzepatide mix pack and the tesamorelin–ipamorelin BIMORELIN blend, alongside other named compounds. FDA used metabolic, mitochondrial, sexual-function and growth-related claims to assess intended human drug use, rather than accepting the research disclaimer in isolation. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• ipamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the listed products as unapproved new drugs based on therapeutic and body-function promotion. Scientific references in the offer pages were part of the agency’s evidence, not agency endorsement of efficacy. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-07 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-08-24 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 695607 · Outcome source: 2024-12-10 · Link to this record

What happened

Summit Research Peptides was warned after FDA reviewed its website and Facebook marketing. The letter expressly decoded Sema, Reta and Tirz, avoiding reliance on inferred aliases. It cited metabolic and weight-loss claims, including discussion of combinations, as evidence that these ostensibly research products were offered for human drug uses. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• cagrilintide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• mazdutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the offers as unapproved new drugs. Its findings concerned claims establishing intended use, rather than a finding that particular purchasers suffered injury or that tested batches failed purity specifications. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2024-05-18 event
   A Facebook post later cited in the warning promoted weight-loss combinations. Source 1
2. 2024-10 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
3. 2024-12-10 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 695663 · Outcome source: 2024-12-10 · Link to this record

What happened

Swisschems received a warning concerning semaglutide and retatrutide marketed on its website and social channels. FDA connected scientific-study discussion, metabolic claims and product promotion to the offered drugs. This record illustrates that scientific framing in sales material can contribute to an intended-use assessment; it does not establish the advertised clinical benefits as true. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the two products as unapproved new drugs, citing disease and body-function claims despite research-only language. No product-specific assay or criminal determination is reported in this letter. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2024-09-18 event
   FDA cited a dated social-media promotion relating to the products. Source 1
2. 2024-10 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
3. 2024-12-10 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 719645 · Outcome source: 2025-12-12 · Link to this record

What happened

TITAN SARMS was warned after FDA reviewed its online offers for four named compounds. The cited evidence included exercise imagery and claims about muscle, bone and recovery. FDA treated the overall presentation as drug marketing despite research-grade labeling. The letter does not establish the identity or purity of every product shipped under these names. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• LGD-4033 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• RAD-140 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• andarine Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• YK-11 Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed LGD4033, RAD140, Andarine S4 and YK11 as unapproved new drugs based on their promoted human structure/function and therapeutic uses. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-11 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-12-12 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 735067 · Outcome source: 2026-08-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Tex Peptides’ warning covers considerably more than tesamorelin. FDA expressly names semaglutide, tirzepatide and retatrutide, together with elamipretide, bremelanotide and reconstitution water. The narrower compound list in the initial catalogue therefore understates this letter. The reviewed primary source supports treating retatrutide as an advertised product here, while leaving actual vial contents unverified. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• bacteriostatic water Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the disease, metabolic, mitochondrial, sexual-function and other human-use claims as establishing unapproved drug uses despite research-only labeling. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-07 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2026-08-24 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 696885 · Outcome source: 2025-02-26 · Link to this record

What happened

USApeptide.com was warned over injectable semaglutide and tirzepatide offers to U.S. consumers. FDA cited several vial strengths, comparisons with branded medicines, and access without a prescription. The site’s accompanying injection supplies helped explain the human-use context, but should not be mistaken for laboratory evidence about the peptide vials. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The letter reports a recent website review without a precise review date. It does not identify an initial complaint, interception or other trigger. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the products as unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs, including prescription-drug offers without a prescription and inadequate directions for safe lay use. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA requested cessation of violative U.S. offers and corrective action. The warning does not establish that sales stopped or that a later enforcement case or closeout occurred. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-02-26 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
MARCS-CMS 694608 · Outcome source: 2024-12-10 · Link to this record

What happened

Xcel Research received a warning over online peptide offers. FDA explicitly linked RETA to retatrutide and CagriLean to a cagrilintide–semaglutide combination. Its assessment rested on metabolic, cardiovascular and other human-use claims accompanying the offers, despite research-only labeling. The record documents marketing, rather than a laboratory determination that the vials contained those ingredients. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• cagrilintide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• mazdutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• survodutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• sermorelin Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the named products as unapproved new drugs because their advertised purposes included treating disease or affecting human body structure or function. Research-only disclaimers did not overcome that stated intended use. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2024-10 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2024-12-10 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial investigation trigger, actual product contents and any later response or closeout are not established by the reviewed letter.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER
MARCS-CMS 715878 · Outcome source: 2025-09-09 · Link to this record

What happened

The ybycmeds warning addressed marketing of compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide in vials and prefilled syringes. FDA challenged the impression that these products were equivalent to approved branded drugs. This was a compounding-marketing case, rather than a finding that a research-only retailer’s products contained an undisclosed chemical. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  FDA reproduced the seller’s product offers or marketing; this establishes the advertised identity, not analytically verified vial contents. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial tip or reason FDA selected this business is not established. The letter identifies an online review as its evidence basis; that does not establish how the inquiry first began. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment FDA assessed the promotional comparisons with Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound as false or misleading and identified misbranding under the provisions discussed in the letter. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

FDA issued a warning and requested corrective action. The reviewed record does not establish a subsequent closeout, injunction, criminal charge or final compliance determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-08 reported period
   FDA reviewed the website or online marketing described in the letter. Source 1
2. 2025-09-09 event
   FDA issued this warning letter. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a company response, FDA closeout or a separately documented follow-up action; the warning alone does not establish continuing noncompliance. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial review trigger, actual compounder details, product assay results and later corrective-action disposition are not established by this source.

Health Canada
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-08-01 · Link to this record

What happened

Health Canada reported seizing unauthorized injectable peptide drugs associated with Canada Peptide while warning about online sales. The affected list explicitly includes retatrutide and tirzepatide alongside growth-hormone, repair-peptide and other labels. These names establish advertised or labeled products in an enforcement record, not independent confirmation of their chemical identity or concentration. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• AOD-9604 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• ARA-290 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• bronchogen Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• BPC-157 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• CJC-1295 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• cortagen Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• DSIP Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• epitalon Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• GHK Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• GHK-Cu Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• GHRP-2 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• GHRP-6 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• GLP-1 (7-37) Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• gonadorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• hexarelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• human growth hormone Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• HGH fragment Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• humanine Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• ipamoreline Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• kisspeptin Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• KK-23 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• livagen Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• LL-37 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• melanotan I Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• melanotan II Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• NR-7 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• ovagen Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• Pal-GHK Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• pinealon Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• PNC-27 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• prostamax Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• QS-13 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• selank Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• semax Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• sermorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. The source label is SS-31; generic-name mapping uses the separately cited FDA Royal Peptides letter, which explicitly supplies this alias. Neither source proves batch contents. Source 1 · Source 2
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• thymosin alpha Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• thymosin beta-4 Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• vilon Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1
• VIP Reported marketing/supply
  Named in Health Canada’s affected-product list; spelling and incompletely specified identities are retained where applicable. Source 1

How it came to light

The announcement identifies a seizure and online offers but does not disclose the original tip or reason the agency began looking at this seller. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment Health Canada assessed the listed injectable drugs as unauthorized and not evaluated for the required safety, efficacy and quality assurances. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

A seizure and public advisory were reported. The reviewed source does not announce a conviction or establish the seller’s eventual compliance status. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-08-01 announcement
   Health Canada announced the seizure and online-sales warning. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for a revised affected-product list or a separate enforcement disposition, keeping authorization findings separate from laboratory findings. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact seizure date, initiating trigger, verified batch composition and later disposition are not established.

Health Canada
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-12-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Health Canada seized unauthorized products at Maxximus Supplements and Cutting Edge Nutrition in Maple Ridge. The mixed inventory included peptide, SARM, steroid and other prescription-drug labels; the list explicitly includes semaglutide and tirzepatide. A product labeled RETRA is not expressly identified as retatrutide in the advisory and is therefore left unresolved. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• BPC-157 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• TB-500 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• ipamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• melanotan Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• human chorionic gonadotropin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• somatropin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• ostarine Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• RAD-140 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• andarine Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• LGD-4033 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• YK-11 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• ibutamoren Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• cardarine Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• testosterone Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected-product labels in a two-store seizure advisory; this does not assign every product to both stores or verify vial chemistry. Source 1
• RETRA Unclear relationship
  The advisory reproduces RETRA labeling without an explicit retatrutide identification. Source 1

How it came to light

The source reports seizures at the two stores. It does not establish the initial referral or inspection trigger. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment Health Canada assessed the products as unauthorized and reported that some carried misleading drug-identification numbers. The advisory does not establish that every listed item carried such a number. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

Products were seized and a public advisory was issued; no court conviction or final business-wide disposition is established. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-12-24 announcement
   Health Canada published the two-store seizure advisory. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor corrected product identities and subsequent licensing or court records before changing the compound attribution. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact seizure date, RETRA identity and later court outcome are unknown. This peptide/SARM-focused product list is not the full mixed inventory of other prescription drugs.

Health Canada
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-04-02 · Link to this record

What happened

Health Canada seized unauthorized injectable peptide products at Optimum Wellness Centre in Calgary. Its advisory initially appeared April 1 and was corrected April 2 to amend product names. The list spans numerous peptide labels but does not identify retatrutide, semaglutide or tirzepatide. The agency’s authorization concerns are distinct from a batch assay establishing adulteration. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• ARA-290 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• BPC-157 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• CJC-1295 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• DSIP Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• epitalon Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• thymosin beta-4 fragment 17-23 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• GHK-Cu Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• humanin HNG Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• ipamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• KCF-18 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• kisspeptin-10 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• KPV Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• melanotan II Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• MOTS-C Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• pinealon Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• PNC-27 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• bremelanotide Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. The source label is PT-141; generic-name mapping uses the separately cited FDA Royal Peptides letter, which explicitly supplies this alias. Neither source proves batch contents. Source 1 · Source 2
• PTD-DBM Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• selank Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• thymosin alpha-1 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• thymosin beta-4 Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• thymulin Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• vesugen Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• vilon Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1
• VIP Reported marketing/supply
  Listed as affected product labels in Health Canada’s seizure advisory; identity is not analytically verified in that source. Source 1

How it came to light

The seizure is documented, but the initial complaint, tip or inspection-selection reason is not disclosed. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment Health Canada assessed these as unauthorized injectable drug products sold without the required authorization and seized them. General risk warnings are not findings of injury from a particular vial. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

Products were seized. The reviewed advisory does not establish a prosecution, conviction or final business-wide compliance disposition. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-01 announcement
   Health Canada published the original seizure advisory. Source 1
2. 2025-04-02 announcement
   The advisory was updated to correct product names. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor advisory corrections and any separately documented licensing or court action. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact seizure date, initial trigger, actual contents and any later prosecution are not established.

Health Canada
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-04-14 · Link to this record

What happened

Health Canada reported seizing unauthorized injectable peptides and bodybuilding drugs connected with Prime Research in Sherbrooke. The company also stopped advertising and selling the products and removed its website at the agency’s request. The source does not name individual active ingredients, so this action cannot support a retatrutide-specific count. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• unspecified injectable peptides Reported marketing/supply
  Health Canada describes the seized and online-sold product classes without naming individual molecules. Source 1
• unspecified bodybuilding drugs Reported marketing/supply
  Health Canada describes the seized and online-sold product classes without naming individual molecules. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial trigger is not established. The advisory reports a seizure and subsequent company actions, rather than explaining the first detection. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment Health Canada assessed the products as unauthorized drugs; no approved safety, efficacy or quality assessment was established for the offers described. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The agency reported seizure, cessation of the identified advertising/sales and website removal. It did not announce a conviction or comprehensive final clearance. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-04-14 announcement
   Health Canada announced the seizure and reported cessation/removal steps. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Watch for an updated advisory or court record; preserve the reported cessation rather than assuming continued sales. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Individual compounds, exact seizure and cessation dates, initial trigger and any later court proceedings are unknown.

Health Canada
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-12-24 · Link to this record

What happened

Health Canada’s Rize Fitness advisory explicitly lists retatrutide 5 mg among PHX Labs products, alongside semaglutide and other peptides. Products were seized in Vancouver and had been sold through phxlab.net. The agency reported that the company stopped advertising and selling the unauthorized products and removed its website at its request. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• AOD-9604 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• CJC-1295 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• epithalon Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• GHK-Cu Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• BPC-157 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• TB-500 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• KPV Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• ipamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• kisspeptin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• MOTS-C Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• elamipretide Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. The source label is SS-31; generic-name mapping uses the separately cited FDA Royal Peptides letter, which explicitly supplies this alias. Neither source proves batch contents. Source 1 · Source 2
• tesamorelin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• thymosin alpha-1 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• melanotan II Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• DSIP Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• 5-AMINO-IMQ Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• SLU-PP-332 Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• somatropin Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• testosterone cypionate Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1
• DHEA Reported marketing/supply
  Named on affected labels, including blend components, in Health Canada’s advisory; not reported assay results. The advisory spelling 5-AMINO-IMQ is retained without inferring a different chemical identity. Source 1

How it came to light

The first investigative trigger is not disclosed. The source reports the seizure, website sales and resulting company response. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• agency assessment Health Canada assessed the seized and advertised products as unauthorized drugs and required the identified advertising and sales to stop. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The agency reported seizure plus cessation of the identified sales/advertising and website removal. This is not a criminal conviction or proof that all related operations permanently ceased. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-12-24 announcement
   Health Canada announced the seizure and reported company cessation/removal actions. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Watch for an updated advisory or subsequent disposition, retaining the documented company response in any summary. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Exact seizure and cessation dates, actual contents and later proceedings are unknown. The selected product list excludes ordinary vitamin entries from the broader advisory.

New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners; Office of the Attorney General
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2025-09-15 · Link to this record

What happened

New Jersey permanently revoked John R. McGee’s medical license through a final consent order. The announced allegations included indiscriminate semaglutide prescribing and compounding, alongside unrelated professional misconduct. This is a physician-discipline matter; the source does not support describing the revocation as a judgment solely about peptide sales. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The agency announcement alleges indiscriminate prescribing and compounding, rather than identifying a retail product or tested preparation. Source 1

How it came to light

The announcement identifies state investigators but not the complaint or event that first triggered their inquiry. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Allegations included improper prescribing/compounding, failures in medical-spa care, misuse of other physicians’ prescription pads and an inappropriate patient relationship. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The board permanently revoked the license and barred McGee from managing, supervising or influencing medical practice in New Jersey. This was announced as a consent-order outcome, not a criminal conviction. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-09-09 filing
   The final consent order was filed, according to the agency. Source 1
2. 2025-09-15 announcement
   The attorney general announced the permanent revocation. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Obtain the consent order for precise findings/admissions before attributing further legal conclusions. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Direct agency pages were inaccessible; official indexed announcement text was reviewed. The underlying consent order, full evidentiary record and initial trigger were not obtained.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Northamptonshire Police; Lincolnshire Police
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2026-02-25 · Link to this record

What happened

MHRA reported disrupting an unlicensed weight-loss medicine production operation in Northampton and later a linked facility near Sleaford, with associated action in Grantham. The announcements described retatrutide and tirzepatide products, large quantities of pens or doses and production materials. They represent connected investigative events, not two convictions or necessarily distinct seller enterprises. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  MHRA identifies these as products in the suspected manufacture/seizure operation; the releases do not supply batch assay results. Source 1 · Source 2
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  MHRA identifies these as products in the suspected manufacture/seizure operation; the releases do not supply batch assay results. Source 1 · Source 2

How it came to light

Warrants and seizures are described, but the original tip, intelligence source or first detection is not disclosed. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation MHRA suspected unlawful manufacture and supply of unlicensed weight-loss medicines. The later operation was expressly linked to the earlier investigation. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The agency reported seizures and an ongoing connected investigation. The reviewed announcements do not establish named defendants’ convictions or a final court outcome. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-10-24 announcement
   MHRA announced the Northampton operation. Source 1
2. 2026-02-25 announcement
   MHRA announced a linked Sleaford/Grantham operation. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for charges, court records and explicit links across operations before counting unique sellers or defendants. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Exact raid dates, original trigger and final prosecutions are not established. Possible overlap with the later Northamptonshire-estate record is unresolved.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Northamptonshire Police
Docket/reference not established · Outcome source: 2026-05-29 · Link to this record

What happened

MHRA reported a Northamptonshire-estate raid involving about 12,000 doses of unlicensed weight-loss medicines and other peptide-related materials. Retatrutide and tirzepatide were named. Two 29-year-old men were arrested on suspicion of medicines offences. Arrest and seizure establish an investigation, not guilt or the final identity and concentration of every seized product. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• retatrutide Reported marketing/supply
  MHRA describes products and materials in the seizure; no batch-level assay is supplied in the release. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  MHRA describes products and materials in the seizure; no batch-level assay is supplied in the release. Source 1
• unspecified other peptides Reported marketing/supply
  MHRA describes products and materials in the seizure; no batch-level assay is supplied in the release. Source 1

How it came to light

The raid is documented, but the first intelligence, complaint or interception that led to it is not disclosed. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation The agency suspected unlawful manufacturing and supply activity under the medicines framework. These remain allegations at the stage reported. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The agency reported seizures, two arrests and an ongoing investigation. A charge, conviction or sentence is not established by this announcement. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2026-05-28 event
   MHRA carried out the raid and arrests. Source 1
2. 2026-05-29 announcement
   MHRA announced the operation. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Look for charge announcements and court records linking or separating the investigations. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Initial trigger, identities/final outcomes and any overlap with the Northampton/Sleaford network are unresolved; the records cannot safely be added as unique enterprises.

High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (Chancery Division)
IL-2025-000131 · Outcome source: 2026-06-23 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo Nordisk obtained website-blocking relief against six internet service providers acting as intermediaries, not accused peptide sellers. The original order concerned four websites and was later extended. This is private civil litigation supported by medicines-regulator evidence. Judicial findings about unlawful online offers do not amount to criminal convictions of the sites’ operators. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  The judgment describes website offers; product attribution varies by site. The liraglutide discussion distinguishes legitimate generics from the counterfeit branded offers at issue. Source 1
• liraglutide Reported marketing/supply
  The judgment describes website offers; product attribution varies by site. The liraglutide discussion distinguishes legitimate generics from the counterfeit branded offers at issue. Source 1
• cagrilintide Reported marketing/supply
  The judgment describes website offers; product attribution varies by site. The liraglutide discussion distinguishes legitimate generics from the counterfeit branded offers at issue. Source 1
• tirzepatide Reported marketing/supply
  The judgment describes website offers; product attribution varies by site. The liraglutide discussion distinguishes legitimate generics from the counterfeit branded offers at issue. Source 1

How it came to light

The judgment describes unsuccessful MHRA action against a domain in February 2025 and a request for Novo’s help that prompted the application. How the sites were first identified is not established. Online investigation and purchases were subsequent evidence gathering. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• judicial finding The court assessed unlawful online medicine offers, including unlicensed products and particular counterfeit-branded products, as supporting intermediary blocking relief. Legitimate generic liraglutide also existed; not all liraglutide offers were inherently unlawful. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The court granted the initial blocking order on October 2, 2025. Published reasons followed May 13, 2026; a June 23 extension added seven sites and further updating provisions. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-02 reported period
   MHRA sought action against a domain and subsequently asked Novo for assistance. Source 1
2. 2025-10-02 event
   The court granted the initial four-site blocking order. Source 1
3. 2026-05-13 announcement
   The court published reasons for the earlier order. Source 1
4. 2026-06-23 event
   The court issued further blocking relief. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Initial blocking order to further order: 264 days
  2025-10-02 to 2026-06-23. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Watch for variations, challenges and further published judgments defining the scope and duration of blocking relief. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Initial identification of the sites and ultimate proceedings against each seller are not established. ISP defendants should not be counted as sellers.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
4:25-cv-06560 · Outcome source: 2026-09-23 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s suit against Aios, Fella Health, Delilah and the associated Fella Medical Groups challenges how compounded weight-loss medicines were marketed and prescribed. The complaint identifies semaglutide and tirzepatide, alleging that company-wide formulation changes and nonphysician influence undermined claims of individualized care. Those are Novo’s allegations, not findings that every prescription lacked a medical reason. The latest original reviewed here is a September 2026 discovery order about confidential information and expert access. It shows active evidence disputes at that point, without deciding the truth of the advertising or the safety of any formulation. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Complaint introduction paragraph 12 identifies purported semaglutide products promoted as personalized. Source 1
• tirzepatide Alleged marketing/supply
  The same paragraph expressly identifies purported tirzepatide products; it is not an inferred GLP-1 alias. Source 1

How it came to light

The complaint draws on marketing and alleged prescribing practices. The initial discovery route and whether Novo made a test purchase are not established. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Novo alleges false personalization claims and unlawful corporate influence over medical decisions, including broad prescription changes presented as individualized care. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

Outcome and its limits

September 15, 2026 discovery rulings adopted safeguards for counsel and expert access; a protective order followed September 23. These orders impose information-handling rules, not liability findings. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

Documented timeline

1. 2025-08-04 filing
   Novo alleged false advertising and unfair competition in the promotion of compounded weight-loss drugs through Fella Health and Delilah. Source 1
2. 2026-09-15 event
   Court resolved access-to-confidential-information disputes and directed a proposed protective order. Source 1
3. 2026-09-23 event
   Court granted the stipulated protective order; this is a discovery ruling, not a liability determination. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Review dispositive rulings and evidence on who made prescribing decisions, while keeping protected patient information out of public reporting. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

What remains unknown

• No final outcome or seller-specific laboratory result verified. A March 2026 dismissal ruling is referenced in Lilly’s related case and should be obtained for complete claim history.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
4:25-cv-01048 · Outcome source: 2026-03-19 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo challenged Amble’s promotion of personalized compounded semaglutide, but the reviewed dismissal focused on Novo’s ability to connect that advertising to its own injury. The March 2026 opinion found the pleaded chain of causation inadequate, including the role of independent prescription decisions, and addressed both constitutional standing and Lanham Act proximate causation. This is a useful counterweight to accounts that treat every drug-company suit as a successful enforcement action. The court did not establish the truth of all Amble advertisements, validate a batch, or authorize a compounded product. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion describes challenged marketing of purportedly personalized compounded semaglutide. Source 1

How it came to light

Advertising is the documented source of the challenged representations. The first lead, investigation start and any test purchase are not established. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Novo alleged misleading personalization and related compounded-semaglutide promotion; Amble contested whether those allegations established injury traceable to its conduct. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

The order was signed March 17 and filed March 19, 2026. Dismissal rested on inadequately pleaded standing/causation; no advertising-truth or product-quality judgment was entered. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2025-05-21 filing
   Complaint challenges advertising of personalized compounded semaglutide. Source 1
2. 2026-03-19 filing
   Order signed March 17 and filed March 19 dismissed the complaint for lack of standing/jurisdiction, finding inadequate causal connection between the challenged advertising and Novo’s claimed harm. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to dismissal order filing: 302 days
  2025-05-21 to 2026-03-19. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Check any amended proceeding or appeal and whether later allegations supply the missing causal link. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• Post-dismissal appellate or refiling history is not verified.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
1:25-cv-01236 · Outcome source: 2025-09-23 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s case against Docere Medical remains thinly documented in this collection. The docket identifies a June 2025 complaint and exhibits concerning semaglutide qualification, benefits and aftercare. Those exhibit titles support the connection to semaglutide promotion, but cannot substitute for reading the advertisements and complete pleading. The most useful procedural distinction is that the clerk entered default in September and the defendant then answered and sought to set that default aside. A clerk’s default is not a default judgment and does not establish a damages award or permanent injunction. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  Docket-listed complaint exhibits concern semaglutide promotion; the underlying documents were not obtained. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial lead and any evidence-gathering method are not established. Exhibit titles alone do not show a test purchase, inspection or consumer complaint. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• unknown The docket indicates an advertising dispute involving semaglutide; specific misrepresentations and statutory counts cannot be confidently reconstructed from metadata. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The clerk entered default September 5, 2025; Docere filed an answer and motion to set it aside September 23. No resolution of that request is verified. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2025-06-12 filing
   Docket records complaint and exhibits concerning semaglutide qualification, benefits and aftercare advertising. Source 1
2. 2025-09-05 event
   Clerk entered default; this was not a default judgment. Source 1
3. 2025-09-23 filing
   After clerk’s September 5 entry of default, defendant filed an answer and motion to set aside default. No disposition of that motion verified. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• No exact, comparable pair of dates established. This is not evidence of immediate action or of a safe period before action.

What to watch next (inference)

Retrieve the complaint and ruling on the default challenge before assigning a liability outcome. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Full complaint, advertisements and later disposition missing. A related Docere Holdings filing may be an entity correction/refiling and is not counted here as separate conduct.

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
1:24-cv-00640 · Outcome source: 2025-12-11 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s lawsuit against Drip Drop Hydration Station, operating as Bedside Manner Telehealth, produced an actual default judgment concerning semaglutide advertising. The December 2025 order found trademark, false-origin, false-advertising and Ohio consumer-law violations after the defendant defaulted. Its injunction restricts Ozempic and Wegovy branding and representations that compounded products are FDA-approved or equivalent to those medicines. It also requires disclosure that the compounded offerings lack FDA approval. This is stronger outcome evidence than an unanswered complaint, while remaining a default proceeding rather than a contested trial of laboratory quality. Source 1 · Source 2

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  The default judgment addresses the defendant’s compounded semaglutide marketing and prescribes corrective disclosures. Source 1

How it came to light

The initial identification route is not established. The judgment concerns advertising evidence, not a reported undercover purchase or agency investigation. Source 1 · Source 2

Conduct challenged in the source

• judicial finding The court declared willful trademark and false-advertising violations on default and required changes to branding, approval claims and disclosures. Source 1 · Source 2

Outcome and its limits

Default judgment and permanent advertising injunction entered December 11, 2025. Sales accounting was ordered; profit disgorgement was deferred pending that accounting, and fee entitlement did not establish a final dollar award. Source 1 · Source 2

Documented timeline

1. 2024-11-08 filing
   Novo filed trademark and advertising claims against Bedside Manner Telehealth. Source 1
2. 2025-12-11 event
   Court granted default judgment, declared willful trademark/false-advertising violations, issued permanent advertising restrictions and disclosure requirements, ordered sales accounting, and deferred profit disgorgement pending further proceedings. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to default judgment: 398 days
  2024-11-08 to 2025-12-11. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Check the ordered accounting and later damages or fee rulings before reporting money recovered. Source 1 · Source 2

What remains unknown

• No contested product-quality finding or final disgorgement amount is established.

U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
1:26-cv-00143 · Outcome source: 2026-03-09 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s Hims & Hers action is a patent dispute over compounded semaglutide, rather than a finding of contamination or false research-only labeling. Hims’ SEC filing says Novo asserted U.S. Patent 8,129,343, sought damages and an injunction, then voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice in March 2026. The same filing acknowledges semaglutide products were available by prescription through its platform. This establishes the company’s own account of the offering and case history. It does not establish infringement, invalidate the patent, or explain every term behind the dismissal. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Reported marketing/supply
  Hims’ SEC legal-proceedings disclosure acknowledges compounded semaglutide products available through its prescription platform. Source 1

How it came to light

The corporate statement and securities filing identify the challenged business but do not establish the initial discovery route or any product-testing investigation. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Novo alleged patent infringement, including willful infringement, in connection with compounded semaglutide. Those claims were withdrawn without a merits adjudication. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Outcome and its limits

Novo voluntarily dismissed without prejudice March 9, 2026, and the case closed. Hims reports Novo reserved the right to refile; no patent-liability judgment resulted. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Documented timeline

1. 2026-02-09 filing
   Novo filed patent-infringement claims concerning compounded semaglutide and U.S. Patent 8,129,343. Source 1
2. 2026-03-09 event
   Docket records voluntary dismissal and case closure. Hims securities filing states all claims were dismissed without prejudice. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Patent complaint filing to voluntary dismissal: 28 days
  2026-02-09 to 2026-03-09. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Monitor any renewed patent action or public agreement clarifying the commercial arrangement and scope of permitted activity. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

What remains unknown

• Full settlement or commercial terms are not established by the reviewed litigation disclosure.

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
8:24-cv-02292 · Outcome source: 2025-04-16 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s Florida case against IV Harmony centers on allegedly deceptive claims that compounded semaglutide was FDA-approved and on use of Ozempic or Wegovy references in promotion. The April 2025 opinion allowed those theories past dismissal, distinguishing allegations about misleading advertising from attempts merely to enforce the federal approval requirement. The distinction helps explain why some seemingly similar Novo suits were dismissed while this pleading survived. The order also rejected the defendant’s First Amendment argument at that stage. It did not resolve whether the challenged advertisements were ultimately false or award damages. Source 1

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion describes the complaint’s allegations about compounded semaglutide and FDA-approval/brand representations. Source 1

How it came to light

The source identifies advertisements as supporting evidence but does not explain the first discovery of them or describe an agency investigation. Source 1

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Novo alleged deceptive FDA-approval and branded-drug representations. The court decided legal sufficiency and defenses on assumed pleading facts. Source 1

Outcome and its limits

The motion to dismiss was denied April 16, 2025. This is a pleading-stage ruling, not a liability judgment or a product-quality determination. Source 1

Documented timeline

1. 2024-09-30 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1
2. 2025-04-16 event
   Court denied dismissal of claims alleging misleading FDA-approval and brand references in semaglutide advertising; rejected preemption and First Amendment arguments at pleading stage. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to denial of dismissal: 198 days
  2024-09-30 to 2025-04-16. Source 1

What to watch next (inference)

Look for the answer, factual discovery and a later merits or settlement order to assess what was actually proved. Source 1

What remains unknown

• Later disposition, damages and seller-specific test results are not established.

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
3:24-cv-09018 · Outcome source: 2026-01-28 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s LifeRxMD case focuses on whether promotion of compounded semaglutide implied FDA approval or equivalence to Ozempic and Wegovy. The January 2026 opinion describes specific approval and brand references, then rejects LifeRxMD’s attempts to dismiss on standing, preemption and pleading-sufficiency grounds. Novo plausibly alleged commercial injury at that stage, which allowed its federal and New Jersey unfair-competition claims to continue. The opinion’s background also recites broader adverse-event statistics; those are not LifeRxMD-specific injury findings and should not be republished as such. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Products and their role in the record

• semaglutide Alleged marketing/supply
  The opinion identifies LifeRxMD’s purported compounded semaglutide offering and quotations from challenged marketing. Source 1 · Source 2

How it came to light

Marketing materials are the documented evidence source. The opinion does not explain the initial discovery route or establish a seller-specific sample purchase or test. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Conduct challenged in the source

• allegation Novo alleges compounded products were misleadingly presented as FDA-approved or equivalent to branded medicines, causing consumer confusion and commercial injury. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Outcome and its limits

LifeRxMD’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety January 28, 2026. The court accepted sufficiently pleaded allegations for that motion, without entering a liability judgment. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Documented timeline

1. 2024-09-06 filing
   Private civil complaint filed. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. 2026-01-28 event
   Court denied LifeRxMD’s motion to dismiss Novo’s false-advertising and unfair-competition claims. Source 1

How long between documented milestones?

• Complaint filing to denial of dismissal: 509 days
  2024-09-06 to 2026-01-28. Source 1 · Source 2

What to watch next (inference)

Look for evidence-stage rulings, a settlement or judgment establishing which representations were actually false. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

What remains unknown

• Later outcome and any seller-specific injury or composition evidence remain unverified.

U.S. District Court, M.D. Florida
8:23-cv-01503 · Outcome source: 2025-07-28 · Link to this record

What happened

Novo’s Brooksville Pharmaceuticals suit reached a substantive summary-judgment record, unlike the many complaint-only cases in this collection. The May 2025 opinion rejected its remaining Florida unfair-practices claim on three grounds: mootness, implied federal preemption, and failure to demonstrate consumer injury. The opinion references Novo’s acquisition and testing of three compounded-semaglutide samples, but concluded the record did not support the required claim. That evidentiary failure is significant and should not be reduced to a generic procedural dismissal. It still is not a blanket finding that every Brooksville product was safe or FDA-approved. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3