Nutrafol Lawsuit Over ‘Clinically Proven’ Hair Claims

The Nutrafol lawsuit is a set of consumer class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc., the Unilever-owned maker of Nutrafol hair growth supplements, of falsely marketing its products as “clinically proven” and “medical grade” based on flawed, company-funded research. As of mid-2026, the consolidated case is still pending, with a motion to dismiss filed in March 2024 awaiting a ruling and no class certified or settlement reached.¹

What Consumers Are Alleging

Three separate complaints were filed between May and July 2023. Natasha Smith filed the first on May 4, 2023 (Case No. 1:23-cv-03787).² Erin Sheehan followed on June 30, 2023 (Case No. 1:23-cv-05652).³ On July 17, 2023, five plaintiffs from New Jersey, California, Illinois, and New York filed the most detailed complaint, Malich v. Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. (Case No. 1:23-cv-06146).⁴

The suits share overlapping theories. Plaintiffs say Nutrafol charges premium prices (around $88 or more per month) by manufacturing what one complaint called a “false aura of scientific and pharmaceutical legitimacy.”⁵ The specific allegations include:

The clinical studies backing Nutrafol’s “clinically proven” claim are scientifically weak, lack objective measurements, and in places suggest the products work no better than placebo.
Nutrafol markets its supplements to treat hormone imbalances, alopecia, telogen effluvium, and similar medical conditions without FDA approval, which the complaints say makes them “unapproved drugs” and “misbranded” under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.²
The Malich complaint alleged that certain Nutrafol ingredients “harm health in the indicated dosage.”⁴
The Smith complaint alleged the company omitted the disclaimers required by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act stating that the products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.²

Five product lines are named: Nutrafol Women, Nutrafol Women’s Balance, Nutrafol Women’s Vegan, Nutrafol Postpartum, and Nutrafol Men. Together the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief exceeding $5 million.⁴

Why Plaintiffs Say the “Clinically Proven” Claim Fails

Much of Nutrafol’s marketing relies on a 2018 study in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology that reported statistically significant hair count increases at 90 and 180 days.⁶ The plaintiffs attack the study on several grounds. One author, Dr. Sophia Kogan, co-founded Nutrafol and is its Chief Medical Advisor. The other, Dr. Glynis Ablon, received a Nutrafol research grant to run the study. The Sheehan complaint called these “glaringly obvious conflicts of interest.”⁷ Only 40 women participated, split unevenly (26 supplement, 14 placebo), and the study excluded people with thyroid disorders and hormonal imbalances, which are among the conditions Nutrafol’s marketing addresses.³

An independent review by McGill University’s Office for Science and Society noted the two primary studies Nutrafol cites were company-funded, called the results “preliminary,” and said they didn’t account for participants’ baseline nutritional status.⁸ A separate review by the advertising watchdog TINA.org found that all four studies on Nutrafol’s clinical trials page were funded by the company and conducted by its employees, co-founders, or promoters.⁹

Nutrafol says on its website that its research uses “randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind” methodology, which it calls the “gold standard,” and that its studies undergo peer review. The company reports 20 clinical studies and publications in 14 medical journals.¹⁰

The Parallel Complaint to Federal Regulators

Before the class actions were filed, Truth in Advertising, Inc. (TINA.org) sent a formal complaint to the FTC and FDA on April 4, 2023, identifying what it said were more than 100 deceptive marketing claims across Nutrafol’s website, social media, Amazon storefront, and TV ads.⁹ Beyond the efficacy claims, TINA.org alleged that Nutrafol pushes consumers into auto-renewing subscriptions without clearly disclosing all material terms (potentially in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act), that influencers promoting the product failed to properly disclose paid relationships, and that the “doctor consults” bundled with subscriptions are conducted by naturopathic doctors rather than board-certified dermatologists or MDs.

TINA.org noted that in October 2021 the FTC had sent Unilever a notice reminding it of endorser disclosure requirements.¹¹ Neither the FTC nor the FDA has publicly announced any investigation or enforcement action against Nutrafol in response to the complaint.¹²

A Reported Liver Injury Case

The lawsuits are consumer-fraud cases, not personal injury suits, but a separate safety report is worth noting. In October 2024, The American Journal of Gastroenterology published a case report on a 26-year-old woman who developed severe drug-induced liver injury after five months on Nutrafol prescribed by her dermatologist. She presented with jaundice and sharply elevated liver enzymes, a biopsy showed inflammation and cholestasis, and her doctors ruled out viral and other causes before identifying Nutrafol as the likely trigger. She recovered after stopping the supplement.¹³ The report’s authors flagged several ingredients with hepatotoxic potential, giving turmeric (curcumin) the strongest evidence at Grade B, followed by ashwagandha and horsetail at Grade C, saw palmetto at Grade D, and kelp minerals and resveratrol at Grade E.¹⁴ A single case report doesn’t establish that Nutrafol broadly causes liver damage, and it isn’t the basis of the pending class actions.

Where the Case Stands

In August 2023, Judge Paul G. Gardephe consolidated the Sheehan and Malich cases into In re Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. Consumer Fraud Litigation, Case No. 23 Civ. 5652. A Consolidated Amended Complaint followed on September 27, 2023. The earlier Smith case (1:23-cv-03787) appears to remain a separate proceeding.¹⁵

Nutraceutical Wellness moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on March 29, 2024, with briefing completed the same day, and requested oral argument.¹⁶ As of the most recent docket update in June 2026, Judge Gardephe has not ruled on that motion. The case has been sitting at this procedural stage for more than two years. No class has been certified in any of the actions, and no settlement has been announced.³

The Defendant and Why the Scale Matters

Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York City.⁷ Unilever acquired a majority stake in the company in 2022.¹⁷

Nutrafol reported sales approaching $1 billion in 2025 with 23% year-over-year growth, and the brand is valued at roughly $3.5 billion. The company says it holds 80% of the hair growth product market, that more than 80% of revenue comes from repeat purchasers, and that over 7,500 hair care and healthcare professionals carry its products.¹⁸ If the plaintiffs’ allegations are ultimately proven, that customer base defines the scope of who could be affected.

1
CourtListener. Erin Sheehan v. Nutraceutical Wellness Inc.
2
ClassAction.org. Smith v. Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. Complaint
3
ClassAction.org. Nutrafol Women Falsely Advertised as Clinically Proven to Treat Hair Loss, Class Action Alleges
4
Truth in Advertising. Malich v. Nutraceutical Wellness Complaint
5
Milberg. Nutrafol Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Marketing Scheme
6
PubMed. A Six-Month, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of a Nutraceutical Supplement
7
ClassAction.org. Sheehan v. Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. Complaint
8
McGill University. Nutrafol: Holy Grail for Hair Loss or Overpriced Supplement
9
Truth in Advertising. Complaint to FTC and FDA Re Nutrafol
10
Nutrafol. Clinical Studies
11
Truth in Advertising. Nutrafol
12
Yahoo Finance. TINA.org Reports Unilever Nutrafol
13
Conexiant. Nutrafol Safety Signal Emerges in Case Study
14
MDLinx. A Popular Hair Growth Supplement Linked to Liver Failure
15
ClassAction.org. Nutrafol Class Action Says Misbranded Hair Growth Products Not Clinically Proven as Advertised
16
PACER Monitor. Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. Consumer Fraud Litigation
17
Nutraceuticals World. Unilever to Acquire Majority Stake in Hair Supplement Brand Nutrafol
18
Forbes. Nutrafol Seeks International Growth After Reaching $1 Billion in Sales