Codeage LLC, a Los Angeles dietary supplement company, has been involved in several legal matters in recent years. The most significant Codeage lawsuit activity involves two California Proposition 65 settlements over alleged lead in its supplements, a New York website accessibility suit, and a WIPO domain dispute in which a panel ruled against the company’s parent for filing in bad faith. Codeage denied wrongdoing in the Prop 65 matters, and neither settlement is an admission of liability.
Proposition 65 Lead Settlements
California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to chemicals the state has identified as causing cancer or reproductive harm. Private parties and nonprofits can enforce the law by serving 60-day notices of violation. Codeage has resolved two such actions, both alleging undisclosed lead in its products. Neither settlement was submitted for court approval.
Full Spectrum Binder+ (2024)
In May 2024, Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. served a 60-day notice alleging that Codeage’s “Full Spectrum Binder + Codeage Supplement” contained lead without a Prop 65 warning. The notice also named Spartacus Brands LLC and Amazon.com.1California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2024-02057
Codeage and EHA signed a settlement on August 14, 2024. Codeage agreed to pay $20,000 total: $2,000 in civil penalties split between the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and EHA, and $18,000 in attorney fees and costs to EHA and its counsel, Entorno Law, LLP.2California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, EHA v. Codeage LLC
Starting 30 days after the agreement took effect, Codeage was required either to reformulate the product so that it exposes consumers to no more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per serving, or to provide a Prop 65 warning on packaging and on any website selling the product into California. The warning must appear in a box, in at least six-point type, and reference the state’s Prop 65 information page. Codeage denied all allegations and maintained that its products comply with applicable law.2California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, EHA v. Codeage LLC
Liposomal Moringa+ (2025)
On August 22, 2025, CalSafe Research Center, Inc., represented by Manning Law, APC, filed a 60-day notice alleging that Codeage’s “Liposomal Moringa+” supplement contained lead and lead compounds without a required warning.3California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2025-03259
The matter settled on October 31, 2025, for $16,500 total: a $1,650 civil penalty and $14,850 in attorney fees and costs. Codeage was permanently prohibited from selling the product in California if it exposes a consumer to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per serving unless a compliant warning is provided. Codeage again denied the allegations.4California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, CalSafe Research Center v. Codeage LLC
Pending Diethanolamine Notice
A separate Prop 65 notice, filed in July 2024 by an individual named Ema Bell, alleged the presence of diethanolamine in Codeage’s “Eternal Platinum NAD Serum.” That notice also named Spartacus Brands LLC and several Macy’s entities.5California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2024-02930 No settlement or other resolution of this notice is on the public record reviewed here.
Codeage’s Public Position on Prop 65
Codeage maintains a Prop 65 disclosures page acknowledging that some of its products may contain chemicals on the state’s list. The company says it warns California consumers when a supplement contains a listed chemical above the threshold, unless the chemical is naturally occurring. Codeage states that a Prop 65 warning “does not signify that a product is unsafe” and that the thresholds triggering these warnings are “much lower than the safety levels set by other agencies such as the FDA, EPA, WHO, and other health organizations.”6Codeage. Prop 65 Disclosures Products
Website Accessibility Lawsuit
On May 30, 2023, a plaintiff named Janelys Hernandez filed a lawsuit in New York alleging that Codeage’s website, codeage.com, was not sufficiently accessible. A scan of the website shortly after filing detected the presence of an AccessiBe third-party accessibility overlay.7Accessibility.com. Janelys Hernandez vs Codeage LLC No final ruling or settlement in the case appears in the record reviewed here.
WIPO Domain Dispute and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Finding
Codeage’s parent entity, Spartacus Brands LLC, holds U.S. trademark registrations for “Codeage” and “Code Age.” In 2025, Spartacus Brands filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization challenging an Indian company’s ownership of the domain “decodeage.com.”
A WIPO panel denied the complaint on May 16, 2025, finding that the respondent, Centenarians Life Sciences, markets products under the “Decode Age” brand and holds its own legitimate trademark registrations. The panel also ruled that Spartacus Brands had engaged in “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” by filing the complaint in bad faith, citing its failure to disclose the Indian company’s trademark rights and what the panel called misleading statements about the respondent’s responsiveness to legal communications. Spartacus Brands had also filed separate trademark infringement proceedings against the Indian company in the United States in May 2024, after which the respondent stopped marketing products in the U.S.8WIPO. Spartacus Brands LLC v. Parth Amin, WIPO Case No. D2025-1023