The Hydroxycut lawsuits arose after the FDA warned consumers in May 2009 to stop using the weight-loss supplements following 23 reports of serious liver injuries and one death. Manufacturer Iovate Health Sciences ended up resolving three major proceedings: a $14 million class-action settlement in 2014 for pre-recall purchasers, an $8 million settlement in 2017 covering reformulated products sold afterward, and a $5.5 million FTC settlement in 2010 tied to false advertising of related Iovate supplements. Individual injury claims were handled separately. All of the class settlements have closed, and no current claims window is open.
What the Lawsuits Were About
On May 1, 2009, the FDA advised consumers to immediately stop using Hydroxycut after receiving 23 reports of serious liver problems, including jaundice, elevated liver enzymes, liver failure requiring transplant, seizures, and cardiovascular problems. One death, involving a young man who died of liver failure in 2007, had come to the FDA’s attention in March 2009.1CNN. FDA Warns Consumers to Stop Using Hydroxycut2CBS News. FDA Recalls Weight Drug Hydroxycut
Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut products, including Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets, Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets, Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets, Hydroxycut 24, Hydroxycut Carb Control, and Hydroxycut Natural. The affected patients had generally been healthy before taking the product and were following label dosing. The FDA could not pinpoint a single culprit ingredient in the herbal blend.1CNN. FDA Warns Consumers to Stop Using Hydroxycut
An earlier Hydroxycut formulation containing ephedra had been pulled after the FDA banned that ingredient in 2004. Most of the adverse event reports collected between 2002 and 2009 actually came from the reformulated post-ephedra product.3Nutritional Outlook. The Facts Behind Hydroxycut
The lawsuits that followed the 2009 warning fell into two broad camps. Consumer class actions alleged Iovate sold ineffective products and failed to warn about liver and other risks. Individual injury lawsuits alleged Hydroxycut had actually caused serious physical harm. The federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as MDL 2087, In re Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, in the Southern District of California before Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz. Named defendants included Iovate along with major retailers: CVS Caremark, GNC, Walmart, Walgreens, Vitamin Shoppe, Kmart, BJ’s Wholesale Club, and Rite-Aid.4U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. MDL 2087 Transfer Order5SupplySide SJ. Iovate Settles Hydroxycut Complaints After Years of Litigation
The $14 Million MDL Settlement (2014)
The consumer class action in MDL 2087 covered people who bought Hydroxycut products between May 9, 2006, and May 1, 2009. An initial $20 million proposal was rejected by Judge Moskowitz in November 2013, after the court found the deal’s structure primarily benefited about 550 individual personal injury claimants rather than the roughly 48,000 class members who had filed claims. Actual distributions to class members at that point totaled about $1.4 million.6Jenner & Block. In Re Hydroxycut Settlement Order
The parties returned with a revised $14 million agreement. Class members could receive $15 per product purchased, capped at $50 per person, or opt for reimbursement in Iovate products that did not contain the ingredients at issue. Unclaimed funds were directed to the nonprofit ChangeLab Solutions. Judge Moskowitz granted final approval on November 18, 2014, and Iovate agreed not to oppose plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees up to $3.5 million.7Top Class Actions. Revised $14M Hydroxycut False Ad Class Action Settlement Reached8Bloomberg Law. $14 Million Hydroxycut Settlement Wins Final Approval on Second Try
This settlement is closed. It resolved false-advertising and consumer-protection claims for the pre-recall purchase window only, and it did not release personal injury claims.
The $8 Million Garcia Settlement for Post-Recall Purchases (2017)
A separate class action, Daniel Garcia v. Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc., was filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court and covered the reformulated Hydroxycut products sold after the 2009 recall. The class included anyone in the United States who bought Hydroxycut-brand products between May 2, 2009, and February 15, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged Iovate made false and misleading statements about the products’ effectiveness in advertisements and on labels, in violation of California consumer protection statutes.9Top Class Actions. Iovate Hydroxycut Supplements Class Action Settlement
Iovate denied the allegations but agreed to an $8 million settlement fund and to modify product labels to remove certain claims and add updated disclosures. The final approval hearing took place on June 21, 2017. Settlement checks went out to class members starting in December 2017. This settlement is also closed.9Top Class Actions. Iovate Hydroxycut Supplements Class Action Settlement
The FTC’s $5.5 Million Refund Case (2010)
The Federal Trade Commission brought its own case against Iovate, announcing a $5.5 million settlement on July 14, 2010. One point worth noting for anyone searching: the FTC action did not target the main Hydroxycut recall products. It focused on a different set of Iovate items: the weight-loss supplements Accelis and nanoSLIM, and the cold-and-allergy products Cold MD, Germ MD, and Allergy MD.10FTC. Dietary Supplement Maker to Pay $5.5 Million to Settle FTC False Advertising Charges
The FTC alleged Iovate had falsely claimed nanoSLIM could help users “Lose 32 lbs. FAST,” that Accelis was scientifically proven to boost metabolism, and that the cold and allergy products could treat disease. The stipulated order, entered July 29, 2010, permanently barred Iovate from making disease claims for supplements, from claiming weight-loss effects without support from at least two adequate, well-controlled human clinical studies, and from misrepresenting study results. Iovate neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The $5.5 million went toward consumer refunds, which the FTC began mailing in September 2013.11FTC. Stipulated Final Judgment and Order, FTC v. Iovate Health Sciences USA12FTC. Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. Case Proceedings
Personal Injury Claims
Consumers who alleged Hydroxycut had physically injured them pursued a separate track. Reported harms included liver damage, liver failure requiring transplant, kidney failure, rhabdomyolysis, and seizures, and the claims were brought on product liability theories centered on failure to warn. At the time of the recall, an estimated nine million people were using Hydroxycut products.13You Have a Lawyer. Hydroxycut Lawsuit
Many individual injury cases were folded into MDL 2087 for pretrial handling but were expressly excluded from the class-action settlements and resolved separately over time. Reported individual settlement amounts ranged from mid-five figures to low six figures, with larger payouts in cases involving liver transplantation, permanent disability, or death. Iovate did not admit liability in any of the resolutions.
Later Cases and Current Status
Litigation did not fully end with the earlier settlements. In June 2021, a proposed class action titled Barnes et al v. Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. was filed in the Northern District of California, alleging Iovate marketed Hydroxycut weight-loss and workout supplements without the disclaimer required for dietary supplements sold without FDA premarket review.14Bloomberg Law. Iovate Hydroxycut Supplements Unlawfully Marketed, Suit Says Medical literature has continued to document new liver-injury cases tied to reformulated Hydroxycut products.15National Library of Medicine. Hydroxycut Hepatotoxicity Review
For someone searching now: the two consumer class-action settlements and the FTC refund program are closed, and their claim deadlines have long passed. Anyone who believes they were physically harmed by Hydroxycut would need to consult a product liability attorney about whether an individual claim is still viable, since statutes of limitations vary by state and by the date the injury was discovered.