In a market where consumers increasingly expect supplements to deliver measurable benefits, transparent and responsible marketing is essential. At their core, dietary supplements claims are regulated health-related claims, and they must be properly substantiated.
Here, Phyllis Marcus, vice president of BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division, discusses the key dietary supplement case decisions of 2025 and what marketers should take away from them.
NI: What stood out in NAD’s supplement case decisions this year?
Phyllis Marcus: In 2025, we reviewed a wide variety of supplement claims. For example, in the recent CataKor NAD+ case, NAD evaluated claims that the product could increase NAD+ levels, enhance cellular energy and promote longevity. While some ingredient-level studies existed, the studies could not support broad product performance claims, and NAD recommended that such claims be discontinued.
Similarly, in the Brainiac Applesauce and Gummy Vitamins case, NAD found that certain basic vitamin content claims were supported but required the advertiser to modify claims the product provided cognitive enhancement.
The volume of dietary supplement cases NAD handles in a given year highlights the importance of such products to consumers and the competitive nature of the dietary supplement industry. NAD emphasizes that evidence for dietary supplements must be robust and tailored to the claims.
Takeaway:
Always substantiate claims with studies on the actual product as it is marketed to consumers, not just individual ingredients, and do not overstate product benefits.
NI: Can you talk more about claims for cellular performance?
Phyllis Marcus: The Mitopure case by Amazentis SA demonstrates NAD’s approach in this area. NAD reviewed statements that Mitopure could support mitochondrial health and overall cellular performance. While NAD found that some claims regarding cellular performance were supported by ingredient studies, NAD recommended that broader claims about muscle function and strength (depicting a young and fit users) be modified to reflect the evidence in the record (which focused on middle-aged, overweight and sedentary individuals).
Marketers should note that cellular performance claims, especially those implying enhanced energy, vitality or longevity, must be supported by product-specific human clinical evidence on the target audience. NAD looks for evidence that reflects the marketed formulation, not just isolated ingredients.
Takeaway:
Words and images matter. Health or performance claims require product-specific substantiation, and the claims (and accompanying imagery) must reflect the results of the underlying testing.
NI: How are ingredient content and delivery system claims evaluated?
Phyllis Marcus: The Cata-Kor NAD+ case also illustrates the well-established principle that if a product is advertised as containing a certain amount of an ingredient, then it should contain that specified amount. NAD found that Reus Research overstated the amount of active NAD+ and found to be unsupported Reus’s claims related to the ingredient’s delivery mechanisms.
This highlights a well-settled principle for marketers: All claims related to a dietary supplement must be properly substantiated.
Takeaway:
Ingredient content and delivery mechanism claims must be based on reliable studies demonstrating the stated effect or otherwise modified to reflect the results
NI: How does voluntarily discontinuing claims in response to NAD action impact brands?
Phyllis Marcus: Brands may decide to voluntarily discontinue challenged claims for a variety of reasons. For example, Ryze Superfoods voluntarily discontinued health claims for its Mushroom Coffee & Matcha after NAD opened its inquiry. NAD treats voluntarily discontinued claims for compliance purposes as if NAD recommended they be discontinued.
Takeaway:
NAD does not judge why a brand chooses to voluntarily discontinue a claim but treats such voluntary action as if NAD recommended the claims be discontinued.
NI: What about adult sexual wellness or libido supplements?
Phyllis Marcus: The Olly Lovin’ Libido case focused on claims around enhanced libido and sexual pleasure. NAD found that while many of Olly’s efficacy claims for ashwagandha, a key ingredient, were supported by robust studies, none of the studies directly addressed the specific claimed benefit of enhanced “sensation.”
This case illustrates that the fit between the evidence and support is key. Despite robust ingredient testing supporting many of the claims, they did not relate to sensation, which needed to be discontinued.
Takeaway:
NAD looks for a strong fit between the evidence presented and the challenged claim.
NI: How does the NAD handle non-responsive brands?
Phyllis Marcus: In situations where a company does not respond to a NAD challenge (or to a NAD-initiated inquiry), the NAD will refer the matter to the relevant enforcement authorities for review and possible action.
At the federal level, we refer dietary supplement matters to the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. At the state level, we can refer matters to one or more state attorneys general. In addition, NAD has reporting relationships with several of the platforms, and we refer matters there for review.
Takeaway:
Always respond fully to NAD inquiries to avoid the risk of potential regulatory or platform scrutiny.
NI: What trends should supplement marketers watch in 2026?
Phyllis Marcus: The key trends we’re keeping an eye on are claims for:
- Cognitive wellness and brain-supporting supplements.
- Mood and stress support for adults and children.
- Beauty-from-within ingestibles, including collagen, anti-aging and skin health products.
- Innovative delivery systems, such as liposomal formulations or NAD+ products.
- Direct-to-consumer and influencer marketing requires transparent claims and conspicuous disclosures.
These trends indicate growing consumer interest in integrated wellness solutions. Marketers must ensure that claims and messaging are aligned with the supporting evidence, especially as regulatory scrutiny remains high.
Takeaway:
Innovate boldly but ensure claims, disclosures and evidence are fully aligned.
