Cymbiotika, the San Diego dietary supplement company founded by Durana Elmi, Shahab Elmi, and Chervin Jafarieh, has faced three notable lawsuits since 2022: two California Proposition 65 actions over lead in its products and a federal trade secrets suit from manufacturer Virun, Inc. All three ended in settlement, and none produced a finding of wrongdoing. The company denied liability in each case.
Proposition 65 Lead Settlements
Two separate California cases alleged that Cymbiotika products contained lead at levels requiring a consumer warning under Proposition 65, the state law that mandates warnings when products expose users to listed chemicals above set thresholds. Lead is listed as both a carcinogen and a reproductive toxin.
Environmental Research Center (2022–2023)
In December 2022, the Environmental Research Center, a nonprofit that files Prop 65 enforcement actions, sued Cymbiotika in Alameda County Superior Court. The complaint targeted two products: the Cymbiotika x Pürblack Shilajit Black Gold Complex Mineral Resin and the Bio-Charged Activated Charcoal Daily Detox Organic Lemon Crème.1California Office of the Attorney General. Stipulated Consent Judgment, Environmental Research Center v. Cymbiotika LLC
Cymbiotika denied the allegations, said its products fell within the state’s safe harbor levels, and entered a stipulated consent judgment in April 2023 to avoid further litigation costs. The company paid $55,000 total: a $15,000 civil penalty, about $4,200 in investigation costs, roughly $10,600 for ERC’s enforcement programs, and approximately $25,200 in attorney fees.2California Office of the Attorney General. 60-Day Notice, Environmental Research Center v. Cymbiotika LLC
The judgment also carried ongoing obligations. Cymbiotika is permanently barred from selling the covered products in California if they expose a person to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day, unless the label carries a specific, boxed Prop 65 warning. For online orders shipped to California, the warning must appear on the checkout page itself rather than behind a link. The company must also conduct annual lead testing for at least five consecutive years through an independent, certified lab using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, and retain the results for five years.1California Office of the Attorney General. Stipulated Consent Judgment, Environmental Research Center v. Cymbiotika LLC
Parseghian (2023)
A second Prop 65 claim followed within months. In April 2023, an individual plaintiff named Berj Parseghian served a 60-day notice alleging that Cymbiotika’s Plant Protein Alkalizing Greens & Mushrooms, Vanilla flavor, contained lead above the warning threshold.3California Office of the Attorney General. 60-Day Notice, Parseghian v. Cymbiotika LLC
Cymbiotika again denied liability and settled. Under an agreement finalized in July 2023, the company paid $27,500, made up of a $2,000 civil penalty and $25,500 in attorney fees and costs to plaintiff’s counsel, KJT Law Group. The injunctive terms mirrored the ERC judgment: no sale in California above 0.5 micrograms of lead per day without a compliant warning.4California Office of the Attorney General. Settlement Agreement, Parseghian v. Cymbiotika LLC
Virun Trade Secrets Case
In March 2022, Virun, Inc., a California supplement manufacturer that holds over 100 patents on encapsulation and ingredient-delivery technologies,5Virun. Virun Homepage sued Cymbiotika and co-founders Shabab Elmi and Chervin Jafarieh in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was filed under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.6CourtListener. Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00325 The specific trade secrets were largely kept from public view through sealed filings. Cymbiotika brought counterclaims.
In November 2023, the court ruled on competing motions to dismiss. It let Virun’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and false advertising go forward, and dismissed Cymbiotika’s counterclaims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference without leave to amend.7CourtListener. Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika LLC, Docket Page 2
The parties settled shortly afterward. According to a case profile posted by the Sheppard Mullin law firm, the resolution included Cymbiotika acknowledging Virun’s trade secrets and agreeing to source all products for international marketing from Virun.8Sheppard Mullin. Kent Raygor Attorney Profile The case was dismissed with prejudice in February 2024.7CourtListener. Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika LLC, Docket Page 2
Consumer Complaints Are Separate From Any Lawsuit
If you’re searching because of billing or cancellation problems, note that no class action or regulatory enforcement action over Cymbiotika’s subscription and return practices appears in the public record. The company’s Better Business Bureau profile did show 11 customer reviews as of early 2026, all rated one star, with recurring complaints about unwanted subscription enrollments, difficulty reaching customer service to cancel, and a return policy limited to unopened, unused products. Several reviewers said they were told orders had entered “processing” and could not be cancelled soon after being charged. In its responses, Cymbiotika attributed delays to high call volumes and confirmed refunds or cancellations after BBB escalation.9Better Business Bureau. Cymbiotika Customer Reviews