Legal actions against peptide sellers, 2020 to 2026
We collected every public legal action we could find against sellers of peptides, SARMs and copies of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs since 2020: FDA warning letters, lawsuits by drug makers, criminal cases, US states and regulators outside the US. Each one links to its source.
Records up to 29 September 2026. This is a record of public actions, not a judgment on any seller. A lawsuit, a charge or a warning letter is an allegation unless a court decided it. This page is not legal advice.
The findings in brief
Each finding has its own chart, base and method. Select one to jump to it, or copy its link to share it.
- Most actions come from FDA and two drug makers
- Almost nothing before 2023, then a steep rise
- “Research use only” shops are about 1 in 10 of the businesses named
- In 22 of 24 letters to research-use-only shops, FDA cited signs of human use
- Of 42 closed court cases with a known result, 30 ended in a judgment against the defendant
- 9 criminal cases, 2 with prison sentences
- Outside the US, Canada is the only regulator we found naming research peptide shops
- 10 suppliers on our site have a public legal action
Most actions come from FDA and two drug makers
463 public legal actions, 2020 to 29 September 2026. One row per defendant per action.
- US FDA165
- Novo Nordisk134
- Eli Lilly94
- Regulators outside the US44
- Private parties11
- US Department of Justice9
- US states6
Three actors account for most of the record. FDA sent 165 warning letters that name a GLP-1 drug, a research peptide or a SARM. Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, filed 134 lawsuits in 40 states. Eli Lilly, the maker of Mounjaro and Zepbound, named 94 defendants, 14 of them in a trade case at the US International Trade Commission.
The rest are smaller groups: 44 actions by regulators outside the US, 11 private suits, 9 criminal cases brought by the US Department of Justice, and 6 actions by US states.
Lilly's trade case ended in April 2025 with a general exclusion order. It bars imports of products that contain or claim to contain tirzepatide and infringe a Lilly trademark or carry a false designation of origin, whoever ships them. 9 of 14 respondents in that case did not respond and were found in default.
How we counted
We searched court records (CourtListener), the FDA warning letter database, Justice Department and FDA criminal releases, US state attorney general releases, the Federal Register, and the enforcement pages of regulators in the UK, Canada and Australia.
One row is one defendant in one action. A lawsuit against a business and its owner counts twice. Counts are rows, not lawsuits.
We left out patent suits against generic drug makers, drug makers' suits against government bodies, duplicate dockets, and letters that name no peptide drug.
Almost nothing before 2023, then a steep rise
463 legal actions by year. FDA warning letters shown on their own below.
- 20202
- 20213
- 20222
- 202348
- 202493
- 2025189
- 2026 (to 29 September 2026)126
- 20200
- 20212
- 20222
- 20233
- 202411
- 202574
- 2026 (to 29 September 2026)73
Before 2023 we found only a handful of actions a year. Drug-maker lawsuits rose from 2023 and were highest in 2024 and 2025. FDA letters jumped in 2025: 147 of the 165 FDA letters are from 2025 or 2026. By the end of September 2026 there were 73, close to the 74 for all of 2025.
FDA letters to "research use only" peptide and SARMs shops are a small part of that, but they are rising too: 10 in 2026 so far, more than in any earlier year.
How we counted
The year is the date of the letter, the filing date of the suit, or the date of the release. 2026 runs to 29 September 2026.
Many of the 110 FDA letters to telehealth firms came in one wave in September 2025.
“Research use only” shops are about 1 in 10 of the businesses named
463 legal actions by the kind of business named
- Telehealth firms161
- Wellness and weight-loss clinics98
- Med spas44
- Compounding pharmacies42
- "Research use only" peptide shops39
- Other31
- Named individuals (owners, pharmacists)18
- Other online sellers14
- "Research use only" SARMs shops9
- Ingredient makers and importers6
- Online marketplace1
Most actions name businesses that sell to patients: telehealth firms, clinics, med spas and compounding pharmacies offering copies of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. 48 of 463 actions (10.4%) name shops that sell peptides or SARMs labelled "research use only".
For those shops, FDA is the main actor, with 24 letters. Lilly named 12 of them, in court or in its trade case. We found no Novo Nordisk suit against a research-use-only shop by name.
How we counted
The kind of business is our reading of the source. For FDA letters it comes from keyword rules on the letter, and for Novo Nordisk suits from the defendant's name, so some rows may be in the wrong group.
In 22 of 24 letters to research-use-only shops, FDA cited signs of human use
What FDA's 24 warning letters to "research use only" peptide (18) and SARMs (6) shops cite. A letter can cite several things.
- Weight-loss or other human-use claims22 of 24
- Quotes the “research use only” label15 of 24
- Sells bacteriostatic water for mixing9 of 24
- Dosing text or a dose calculator6 of 24
- Quotes the shop's social media6 of 24
- Compares products to Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro or Zepbound5 of 24
- Quotes customer reviews3 of 24
FDA's letters to these shops say the products are unapproved new drugs, and some say they are misbranded. The reasons they give are signs that the products are meant for people: weight-loss claims, dosing text, bacteriostatic water sold for mixing, social media posts and customer reviews.
The "research use only" label did not stop a letter. 15 of 24 letters quote the label, and FDA says the rest of the shop shows the products are for human use. We found no action based on the label alone.
The 9 criminal cases follow a similar pattern. In 8 of 9, the release describes false or misleading claims, such as "FDA-approved", made in the US, or tested. In 7, it describes imports from China or elsewhere abroad.
How we counted
We read every FDA letter to a shop selling research peptides or SARMs and tagged what it cites with keyword rules. Each tag counts once per letter.
A warning letter is FDA's view. It is not a court finding. The shop is asked to reply within 15 working days.
Of 42 closed court cases with a known result, 30 ended in a judgment against the defendant
Court cases against sellers that were closed by 29 September 2026 and whose result we could read on the docket
- Consent judgment (both sides agreed to it)26
- Default judgment (the defendant did not respond)3
- Other final judgment and injunction1
- Settled or dropped, no judgment8
- Dismissed or decided in the defendant's favour4
We counted 223 court cases against sellers. By 29 September 2026, 134 were still open and 89 were closed. For 42 closed cases, the docket shows how they ended.
30 of 42 (71%) ended in a judgment against the defendant. Most were consent judgments, where both sides agree to the court's order. 8 were settled or dropped with no judgment. 4 went the defendant's way, and the drug maker appealed 2 of those.
Most of these cases are drug-maker suits against clinics, med spas and pharmacies. Few research-use-only shops have reached a result in court yet.
How we counted
A case counts as closed if the court record shows a termination date. We read the result from docket entries. For 44 closed cases we could not read the result, and 3 were closed and refiled in another court. Those are not in the chart.
Court cases include suits by drug makers, US states and private parties against sellers. They do not include suits that sellers or their trade groups brought against others, such as FDA or a bank.
9 criminal cases, 2 with prison sentences
Criminal cases brought by the US Department of Justice that we found. In each release's own words.
- 30 July 2026Paradigm Peptides (Matthew J. Kawa and Jennifer L. Stechkober)Sentenced “after pleading guilty to introducing unapproved new drugs into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead”. Kawa: 70 months in prison. Stechkober: 16 months. Source
- 15 May 2025Rat's Army LLC (Tyler Jordan Hall)Pleaded guilty “to introduction of unapproved drugs in interstate commerce”. Five years of probation. Source
- 14 April 2025Lewis Family Care (Matthew Lewis, physician)“Ashland Doctor Pleads Guilty to Distribution of Misbranded Semaglutide”. We did not find the sentence. Source
- 3 February 2025Warrior Labz SARMs (Jeremy Brown)Sentenced “for introducing into interstate commerce new drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’) with the intent to defraud or mislead”. One year of supervised release and $100,000 forfeiture. Source
- 13 November 2023SARMTECH (Michael Terry Little)“Sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for introduction of unapproved new drugs in interstate commerce”. Source
- 24 April 2023“Releana” hCG (Audrey Arona, physician)Pleaded guilty “to causing the introduction into interstate commerce of a misbranded drug product containing HCG”. Agreed to forfeit about $65,000. Source
- February 2021Tailor Made Compounding LLC and its owner, Jeremy DelkThe company “pleaded guilty to unlawful distribution of selective androgen receptor modulators (‘SARMS’) and other substances that the FDA had not approved”. Probation, and forfeiture of $1,788,906.82. Source
- April 2026A physician in UtahIndicted. Charges are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent. The case is open. Source
- May 2024A person in New YorkCharged by complaint. Charges are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent. We did not find a later outcome. Source
Criminal cases are rare. We found 9 since 2020, 4 of them against research peptide or SARMs sellers. 7 include a guilty plea. The 2 prison sentences were in the Paradigm Peptides and SARMTECH cases.
In both of those, the releases describe more than selling unapproved drugs. Both describe imports from China or elsewhere abroad. The Paradigm release describes false claims about quality and FDA approval, and the SARMTECH release describes shipments declared as vitamins and supplements.
We do not name the 2 people who were charged but not convicted.
How we counted
We used FDA's list of Justice Department releases involving its criminal investigators, plus web searches. The Justice Department's own search does not work from our servers, so smaller cases may be missing.
Outside the US, Canada is the only regulator we found naming research peptide shops
44 actions by regulators in the UK, Canada and Australia
- UK Advertising Standards Authority (ad rulings)23
- Health Canada (seizures and advisories)9
- Australia TGA (fines, seizures)8
- UK MHRA (raids)4
Health Canada named 5 online research peptide shops in seizure notices or advisories. It says that labelling such as "For Research Use Only" "does not make these products legal".
The UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against 23 weight-loss drug ads, most of them by licensed online pharmacies. The UK medicines regulator, the MHRA, raided sites where it says weight-loss pens were made, but named no sellers. We found no named action against a UK or EU research peptide shop.
Australia's regulator fined telehealth firms over weight-loss drug ads and seized a social media influencer's peptide stock in August 2026. It says anyone promoting unapproved peptides, including affiliates, may be held accountable.
How we counted
We searched the enforcement pages of Health Canada, the UK MHRA and Advertising Standards Authority, and Australia's TGA. We did not search EU or German sources in depth, so actions there may be missing.
Suppliers on our site with a public legal action
10 suppliers we list match a business named in one of these actions. We only count a match when the web address in the court record or letter is the supplier's own. Names that only look alike are left out.
- Legendary PeptidesLawsuit, 12 August 2026
Eli Lilly and Company sued Legendary Peptides, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (case 1:26-cv-00347). Lilly alleges unfair competition under the laws of seven states and Texas, based on what it says is the sale of unapproved new drugs, including a product sold as "GLP3 (R)" that Lilly says is retatrutide.
Pending. Legendary Peptides filed a motion to dismiss on 2 October 2026. Court docket (CourtListener)
- NuScience PeptidesWarning letter, 24 August 2026
FDA sent NuScience Peptides LLC a warning letter saying that products on nusciencepeptides.com, including "GLP-3 RT (Retatrutide) Research Peptide", "Survodutide", "Mazdutide" and "Bacteriostatic water for Peptides (BAC Water)", are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Peptide PartnersWarning letter, 24 August 2026
FDA sent Peptide Partners LLC a warning letter saying that products on peptide.partners, including "GLP-1 S (Semaglutide)", "GLP-2 T (Tirzepatide)", "GLP-3 Reta (Retatrutide)" and "Reconstitution Solution (BAC)", are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Royal Peptides USWarning letter, 24 August 2026
FDA sent Royal Peptides LLC a warning letter saying that products on royal-peptides.com, including "Tirzepatide", "Semaglutide" and "Retatrutide", are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Tex PeptidesWarning letter, 24 August 2026
FDA sent TXP Innovations LLC, doing business as Tex Peptides, a warning letter saying that products on texpeptide.com, including "Semaglutide (GLP-1 SEM)", "Tirzepatide (GLP-2 TRZ)", "Retatrutide (GLP-3 RT)" and a bacteriostatic water, are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Mile High CompoundsWarning letter, 31 March 2026
FDA sent Mile High Compounds LLC a warning letter saying that products on milehighcompounds.is, "GLP-1 SM", "GLP-2 TRZ", "GLP-3 RT" and "BAC Water", are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Paramount PeptidesLawsuit, 5 March 2025
A consumer sued Paramount Peptides LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case 4:25-cv-02305) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the US law on marketing calls and text messages.
Closed. The plaintiff dismissed the case on 16 May 2025. No court finding. Court docket (CourtListener)
- Prime Peptides USWarning letter, 10 December 2024
FDA sent Prime Vitality, Inc., doing business as Prime Peptides, a warning letter saying that its "Semaglutide" and "Retatrutide" products, sold through primepeptides.co, are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Swiss ChemsWarning letter, 10 December 2024
FDA sent Swisschems a warning letter saying that its "Semaglutide" and "Retatrutide" products, sold through swisschems.is, are unapproved new drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
- Umbrella LabsWarning letter, 18 May 2021
FDA sent Umbrella a warning letter about websites including umbrellalabs.is, saying that its products, including ones marketed as SARMs such as "MK-2866 Ostarine SARM – 20 MG/ML" and "RAD-140 Testolone", are unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs.
Warning letter. Not a court finding. FDA warning letter
On 8 October 2026 we checked that each supplier is still listed and that each source still opens. A warning letter is FDA's view and a lawsuit is the plaintiff's claim. Neither is a court finding. We have not checked whether FDA has since closed any letter. This section does not change any supplier's score or position on our site. A supplier named in a lawsuit carries a notice on its page.
How we did it
- Search. We searched federal court records on CourtListener for suits by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and for cases naming peptides, SARMs or GLP-1 drugs; the FDA warning letter database for 26 drug and research-use terms; Justice Department and FDA criminal releases; US state attorney general releases; the Federal Register; and regulators in the UK, Canada and Australia.
- Reading. We opened every FDA letter and criminal release we counted. For lawsuits we read the docket, and the complaint for some cases.
- One row per defendant. Each row is one business or person named in one action, with a link to its source. Counts are rows, not lawsuits.
- Checks. A script made every figure from the data file, and a second script checks that the two agree. Before publishing we opened the sources for the largest claims again.
Limits
- Federal courts only. We mostly miss suits in state courts unless a state attorney general announced them, and we miss sealed cases.
- Open may mean unknown. A case counts as open if the court record shows no end date. Some may have ended without that being recorded.
- Business types are our reading. For Novo Nordisk suits they come from the defendant's name, and for FDA letters from keyword rules.
- Lighter search outside the US. We did not search EU or German sources in depth. Some Australian pages were read from archive copies.
- Allegations, not findings. Warning letters, lawsuits and charges are allegations. We say a business broke the law only where a guilty plea or court decision says so, and then in the source's words.
- A snapshot. Records run to 29 September 2026. Cases move on after that date.
Download the data
Every action in the record, one row per defendant, with its source link. 464 rows, including one 2019 case kept as context.
Cite as: Peptide Scanner, “Legal actions against peptide sellers, 2020 to 2026”, October 2026, peptidescanner.co/reports/legal-actions-2026/, with the finding's link.
Corrections and comment
If a row is wrong or out of date, or a case has moved on, tell us and we will check it against the court or agency record. Journalists and researchers can also ask for the method in full. Email media@peptidescanner.co.
Peptide Scanner compares the prices and certificates of research-peptide shops. It sells nothing and takes no orders. See also our disclaimer and review policy.