Black Girl Vitamins Lawsuit: Prop 65 Lead and Accessibility Claims

Black Girl Vitamins has faced two lawsuits in recent years. A California Proposition 65 enforcement action ended in a $40,000 settlement in 2026 over alleged lead exposure in two of its supplements, requiring warning labels and years of independent testing. A separate federal lawsuit alleging the company’s website was not accessible to visually impaired users was voluntarily dismissed in 2025 with no public settlement terms.

The Proposition 65 Lead Case

In July 2025, the Environmental Research Center issued a Notice of Violation to Maxwell Nutrition LLC (doing business as Black Girl Vitamins) and BG Health LLC.¹ The notice named two products: Black Girl Vitamins Meno-Chill Dietary Supplement (containing ashwagandha, black cohosh, and probiotics) and Black Girl Vitamins In The Mood Dietary Supplement.² The Environmental Research Center alleged the products exposed consumers to lead without the warnings California law requires, and that the violations had been ongoing since at least July 17, 2022.³

After the mandatory 60-day waiting period, the Center filed a civil complaint in Alameda County Superior Court on September 29, 2025, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation.³ The docket number is 25CV145698.

What the Settlement Requires

The parties reached a settlement on December 29, 2025, and a judge entered a consent judgment on May 27, 2026. Black Girl Vitamins agreed to pay $40,000 total: $9,000 in civil penalties, $24,546 in attorney fees and costs, and an additional $6,454 settlement payment.²

The ongoing obligations matter more than the payment. The judgment permanently bars the company from selling any covered product in California that exposes a consumer to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day without a compliant Proposition 65 warning. The compliance deadline was set as the later of 45 days after judgment or April 15, 2026.⁴

When a warning is required, it must appear on the product label in a box, in at least 6-point type, beginning with “WARNING” in bold capitals. For online orders shipped to California, the warning must appear on the checkout page itself, not behind a link.⁴

The judgment also imposes annual testing. Within one year of the judgment, and for at least five consecutive years, the company must have three randomly selected samples of each covered product tested by an independent lab using a method sensitive to very low lead concentrations. Changing an ingredient supplier or reformulating a product triggers four more years of annual testing. Lab reports must be kept for five years and produced to the Environmental Research Center within 30 days of a written request.⁴

What Proposition 65 Does and Doesn’t Mean

A Proposition 65 case is not an FDA finding that a product is unsafe, and it is not a recall. The California statute requires warnings when a product exposes consumers to listed chemicals above certain thresholds, and it allows private organizations to bring enforcement actions when public prosecutors do not. The allegation against Black Girl Vitamins was a failure to provide the required warnings, not a federal determination of harm. No FDA warning letters, enforcement actions, or recalls related to Black Girl Vitamins were found in the record.²

The company has not issued a public statement about the allegations or the settlement in the available record. Its website states that products undergo “rigorous third-party testing” and that it works with a clinical advisory team of Black physicians.⁵

The Website Accessibility Lawsuit

In October 2024, Kimberly Miller sued Black Girl Vitamins in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging the company’s website was not accessible to visually impaired users in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.⁶

Miller is a “tester” plaintiff. As of May 2025 she had filed 88 website accessibility lawsuits since January 2022, represented by Gottlieb & Associates, a firm that has filed more than 2,400 similar cases.⁷ Many such cases end in voluntary dismissal or small settlement rather than trial.

This one followed that pattern. Miller filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on August 14, 2025, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice the following day.⁶ The public docket reflects no settlement payment or terms. Dismissal without prejudice means the same claim could, in theory, be refiled.

Consumer Complaints Outside Court

Separate from litigation, the Better Business Bureau shows a pattern of unresolved consumer complaints. As of mid-2026, 71 complaints had been filed against Black Girl Vitamins in the previous three years, with 36 closed in the most recent 12 months. The company is not BBB-accredited, and 63 of the 71 complaints were marked “unanswered.”⁸

The most common issues involve delivery problems (35 complaints), including missing packages, invalid tracking numbers, and processing delays. Product complaints (18) cover incorrect items and disputed subscription charges. Service complaints (10) center on the lack of a phone number for support and unresponsive email. The BBB has flagged the company with a “Pattern of Complaints” alert.⁸

1
California Attorney General. Proposition 65 Notice of Violation, AG No. 2025-02453
2
California Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice, AG No. 2025-02453
3
California Attorney General. Proposition 65 Complaint, AG No. 2025-02453
4
California Attorney General. Consent Judgment, AG No. 2025-02453
5
Black Girl Vitamins. About Us
6
PACER Monitor. Miller v. Black Girl Vitamins, Case No. 1:24-cv-00985
7
Barclay Damon LLP. Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several Tester Plaintiffs Targeting Businesses
8
Better Business Bureau. Black Girl Vitamins BBB Complaints