The Irwin Naturals lawsuit history spans more than a decade and includes a $2.65 million California settlement in 2011 over lead contamination and mislabeling, a 2021 federal class action challenging the company’s “natural” marketing, and a 2024 lender suit that accused founder Klee Irwin of self-dealing. Those pressures pushed the Los Angeles supplement maker into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2024, and its assets were sold to FitLife Brands in August 2025 for $42.5 million.
The 2011 California Settlement Over Lead and Mislabeling
In February 2011, Irwin Naturals agreed to pay $2.65 million to resolve a civil suit brought by a task force of ten California district attorney offices led by Orange County. The participating counties were Orange, Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, and Sonoma. Officials called it the largest multi-jurisdictional settlement of its kind involving a dietary supplement company in California.1OC District Attorney. Dietary Supplement Distributor to Pay $2.65 Million to Settle Historic Statewide Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit
The investigation began in 2008 and centered on three problems. Prosecutors alleged that Green Tea Fat Metabolizer, Green Tea Fat Burner, System Six, and Green Tea Fat Meltdown contained lead at up to 14 times the Proposition 65 threshold of half a microgram per day, but were sold without the required warning. They alleged that Fast Action Hoodia Diet and 10-Day Hoodia Diet did not actually contain the Hoodia gordonii herb on the label. And they alleged that the company failed to refund returns on time and billed customers for items they had not ordered.2Nutraceuticals World. Irwin Naturals Settles Lawsuit for $2.65 Million1OC District Attorney. Dietary Supplement Distributor to Pay $2.65 Million to Settle Historic Statewide Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit
Orange County Superior Court Judge David McEachen approved the settlement in Case No. 30-2011-00445453. The money broke down into $1.95 million in civil penalties, $600,000 in investigative costs paid to the Orange County District Attorney, and up to $100,000 in consumer restitution. Irwin Naturals did not admit fault.1OC District Attorney. Dietary Supplement Distributor to Pay $2.65 Million to Settle Historic Statewide Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit3NutraIngredients. Irwin Naturals Agrees $2.65 Million Settlement Over Supplements
The restitution window is closed. Only California consumers who had already filed a documented complaint with the company, the Better Business Bureau, the California Attorney General, or one of the ten prosecuting DA offices between July 1, 2006, and January 18, 2011, were eligible. New claims could not be filed under the settlement. Irwin Naturals was also required to add Proposition 65 lead warnings to any California products exceeding the threshold going forward.1OC District Attorney. Dietary Supplement Distributor to Pay $2.65 Million to Settle Historic Statewide Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit
The 2021 “Natural” Labeling Class Action
A decade later, on September 27, 2021, New York consumer Joseph Asaro filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:21-cv-05340). The complaint accused Irwin Naturals of marketing more than 20 supplements as “natural” while they contained synthetic ingredients, causing consumers to pay a premium under false pretenses.4ClassAction.org. Class Action Alleges Irwin Naturals Products Deceptively Advertised, Contain Synthetic Ingredients
The suit named 23 products, from Power to Sleep PM Wake Up Refreshed and Sunny Mood with 5-HTP to Green Tea Fat Metabolizer and Stored-Fat Belly Burner. The plaintiff pointed to ingredients he characterized as synthetic, including glycerin, titanium dioxide, maltodextrin, microcrystalline cellulose, zinc oxide, and carboxymethyl cellulose. The complaint brought claims under New York General Business Law sections 349, 350, and 392-b, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment, and sought class certification for New York purchasers, an injunction, and damages exceeding $5 million.5ClassAction.org. Asaro v. Irwin Naturals Complaint The available record does not show a final resolution.
East West Bank’s Suit and the Self-Dealing Allegations
In May 2024, East West Bank sued Irwin Naturals and Klee Irwin personally in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. 24STCV12034), alleging default on a $40 million credit facility originated in February 2023. The bank said the company had failed to deliver financial statements, maintain required insurance, and meet other loan covenants.6LA Business Journal. East West Bank Sues Over a $40M Loan
The complaint went beyond breach of covenant. The bank accused Klee Irwin of “blatant acts of self-dealing,” alleging that after laying off employees in April 2024 he added his wife, sister, and goddaughter to the company payroll, and used company funds to pay mortgages on properties in Topanga, California and Hawaii, along with auto insurance, car payments, landscaping, and family gifts.7East West Bank. East West Bank vs. Irwin Naturals Complaint
When it filed, the bank said it was owed $18.5 million by Irwin Naturals and related entities and $7.6 million by Klee Irwin personally. Irwin Naturals stock had fallen from $3.18 per share in February 2024 to $0.34 by mid-July. Using contractual proxy authority, the bank appointed a new director and removed Klee Irwin from the board.6LA Business Journal. East West Bank Sues Over a $40M Loan
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and the FitLife Sale
On August 9, 2024, one day after a status conference in the East West Bank case, Irwin Naturals and related entities filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 1:24-bk-11323-VK). East West Bank came in as the primary secured creditor, asserting roughly $19.4 million as of December 2024.8U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. Irwin Naturals Memorandum Decision
The bankruptcy court did not treat the debtor’s reorganization proposals gently. In a March 2025 hearing, the court flagged a “credibility problem,” noting that the proposed plans would have raised Klee Irwin’s salary from $240,000 to $790,000 a year, given favorable treatment to equity holders without requiring new value, and left creditor payments uncertain. Filings also disclosed that Klee Irwin owed the company $4.13 million in matured promissory notes as of December 2024, and the company said it did not plan to collect because the notes were “not currently collectible.”8U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. Irwin Naturals Memorandum Decision
On August 5, 2025, FitLife Brands (Nasdaq: FTLF) announced a definitive agreement to buy substantially all of Irwin Naturals’ assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code for $42.5 million. The bankruptcy court approved the sale, and it closed on August 8, 2025. FitLife funded the purchase with cash, a $40.625 million term loan, and a $10 million revolving credit facility from First Citizens Bank, retained about 50 Irwin employees, and kept the brand running as a distinct unit.9Nasdaq. FitLife Brands Acquire Irwin Naturals10SEC. FitLife Brands Irwin Naturals Acquisition Filing
Other Suits Worth Knowing About
Washington State Tax Case
Irwin Naturals also lost a tax fight with Washington State. It challenged Business and Occupation tax and retail sales tax on Washington sales from 2002 to 2009, a period when it earned about $10 million in wholesale revenue and $5 million in retail revenue there. The company argued its retail sales were separate from its wholesale presence and that taxing them violated the Commerce Clause. In July 2016, the Washington Court of Appeals disagreed, finding a substantial physical presence through four marketing firms and frequent executive visits to the state.11Washington State Courts. Irwin Naturals v. Department of Revenue, No. 73966-2-I
Website Accessibility Suit
In March 2021, plaintiff Frankie Monegro sued Irwin Naturals in New York federal court, alleging the company’s website was not accessible to visually impaired users under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint pointed to missing alt text, unlabeled input fields, repetitive page titles, and broken links that screen readers could not process.12Accessibility.com. Monegro v. Irwin Naturals
What This Means If You Bought Irwin Naturals Products
The 2011 California restitution program is long closed and never accepted new claims. The 2021 “natural” labeling class action was filed on behalf of New York purchasers of specific products; the available record does not show a settlement fund open for claims. If you bought products from Irwin Naturals before the bankruptcy and believe you have a consumer claim, that claim generally runs against the debtor estate, not against FitLife Brands, which acquired the assets through a Section 363 sale rather than a merger. The Irwin Naturals brand you see on shelves and on Amazon today is operated by FitLife.