by Michele S. Katz, Advitam IP, LLC for the Pharmaceutical Trade Marks Group’s “Law Lore & Practice” publication, December 2025
Over the past couple of years, Americans in particular have watched the GLP-1 drug boom take over not only the pharmaceutical market, but the general consumer market as well. Brands like OZEMPIC, WEGOVY, and MOUNJARO have landed their name in any conversation about weight loss, even if these particular brands did not intend to do so. The demand for GLP-1 drugs has far outpaced the supply available, which has created opportunities for telehealth startups, compounders, and wellness brands to capitalize on consumer fascination. Amid this rush, the truth in advertising has begun to stretch to its limits, especially since the commercial speech around weight-loss drugs borrows credibility from well-known brand names or FDA-approved drugs. As marketing around GLP-1s has skyrocketed, practitioners are turning to the Lanham Act’s false advertising and false association provisions, forcing courts and regulators to adapt old doctrines to new digital behaviors.
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits false or misleading representations in commercial advertising that misrepresent the nature, characteristics, qualities, or origin of goods or services. Traditionally, Section 43(a) disputes have taken the stage when competitors sue over product performance or claims. Recently, companies have used the Lanham Act because GLP-1 advertising is so tied into regulatory categories, such as pharmaceuticals, compounded drugs, and wellness services. Here, the traditional FDA policing does not fully reach these marketing efforts. For example, Novo Nordisk, the pharmaceutical company responsible for manufacturing OZEMPIC and WEGOVY, filed numerous lawsuits since 2023, specifically targeting medical spas and clinics based on the Lanham Act.
What has been seen to cross the line of the Lanham Act when it comes to GLP-1 advertising are statements like ‘Same as Ozempic®’ or ‘FDA-Approved Equivalent’. These marketing terms have been most commonly seen in compounding pharmacies and telehealth ads. This type of advertising misleads consumers into believing compounded semaglutide (often salt forms) are identical to well-known GLP-1 weight loss drugs. This type of advertising directly violates the Lanham Act by falsely implying equivalence and approval status. Further, marketing terms like ‘clinically proven weight loss without the prescription’ may constitute false or unsubstantiated claims under the Lanham Act because it extends clinical results from approved GLP-1 drugs to unapproved, compounded, or supplement versions.
The Lanham Act plays a unique role in the landscape of regulatory actions. The FDA oversees labeling and promotion for approved drugs. The FTC polices advertising claims for over-the-counter and health related services. The Lanham Act fills the enforcement gap when competitors, not agencies, are harmed by misleading marketing. Competitors, however, have started to run into unique issues when using the Lanham Act to enforce their intellectual property against compounders or telehealth rivals. It is sometimes difficult to prove commercial advertising or promotion in the new influencer-driven environment where speech is semi-commercial and not as easy to decipher as traditional marketing and advertising speech. Further, it is difficult to establish consumer deception since many consumers are reaching these drugs through algorithmic ad placements. Lastly, it is challenging to balance private enforcement under the Lanham Act while pursuing claims under FDA/FTC regulations because this may result in preemption.
The marketing around GLP-1 drugs has created a turning point for how truth in advertising is defined in a digital, consumer-driven healthcare market. Many consumers are turning to influencers, celebrities, and Instagram posts to learn about drugs that were traditionally marketed under the guise of the FTC. The Lanham Act, a statute meant to protect competition, has now become a tool for consumers to put their trust in the right brand. As the line blurs between FDA-approved drugs and commercial wellness supplements, false advertising enforcement will determine not only who wins the market, but who keeps credibility among consumers.
