Three Arrows Iron Lawsuit: Settlement, Counterclaims, Ruling

The Three Arrows iron lawsuit is a pair of federal cases brought by Colorado Biolabs, the maker of Proferrin, against Three Arrows Nutra over its IronRepair supplements. Colorado Biolabs alleges Three Arrows falsely marketed the products as containing heme iron when independent lab testing found none detectable. The first suit ended in a 2024 confidential settlement requiring Three Arrows to pay $400,000 and drop all heme iron claims. The second, filed in March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges Three Arrows broke that agreement. It is still active.

What the Lawsuit Is Really About

The dispute turns on one factual question: does IronRepair actually contain heme iron? According to the court record in the 2025 case, Colorado Biolabs’ internal testing found that IronRepair Heme Plus contained only 3 to 7 percent of the iron stated on its label, and IronRepair Simply Heme contained just 1 to 2 percent. Testing by an outside laboratory found that heme iron was “not detectable” in either product.¹

That matters because Three Arrows was not accused of merely overstating how much heme iron was in the bottle. The allegation is that the products contained no measurable heme iron at all, despite being sold under names that included the word “Heme” and marketed heavily on the benefits of heme over non-heme iron. Bovine spleen, the source ingredient, is naturally rich in heme iron in raw form. But whatever processing Three Arrows used to make the finished supplement did not, according to Colorado Biolabs’ testing, preserve heme iron in detectable amounts.

Colorado Biolabs (CBL), based in Cozad, Nebraska, sells Heme Iron Polypeptide under the Proferrin brand and filed a New Dietary Ingredient notification with the FDA for that ingredient in 2000.² Three Arrows Nutra is a Texas-based supplement company founded by Krystal Moore. Its IronRepair line is derived from concentrated bovine spleen and provides 20 mg of elemental iron per capsule.³

The First Lawsuit and the $400,000 Settlement

CBL filed suit on May 19, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act.⁴ The case settled on May 31, 2024, and was dismissed with prejudice on June 3, 2024. The key terms, later disclosed in the 2025 litigation, were:

Three Arrows agreed to pay CBL $400,000.
By September 1, 2024, Three Arrows had to relabel and rebrand its IronRepair products to eliminate all representations that they contain heme iron.
Beginning September 1, 2024, Three Arrows agreed not to represent, expressly or by implication, that its products contain heme iron.
Neither party would disparage the other or its products.

This was a negotiated settlement, not a court-imposed fine. Claims circulating on social media that Three Arrows was ordered to pay “millions in fines” are not supported by the court record.¹

Why Colorado Biolabs Sued Again in 2025

Three Arrows did rebrand. “IronRepair Heme Plus” and “IronRepair Simply Heme” became “IronRepair Plus” and “IronRepair Simply.” But according to CBL, the company kept implying its products contained heme iron. CBL filed a second federal suit in March 2025 in the Northern District of Texas alleging breach of the settlement agreement, Lanham Act false advertising, and common-law business disparagement.¹

CBL alleged that on Three Arrows’ website and Amazon storefront, old product labels, descriptions, and customer Q&A responses using the word “heme” remained visible as late as March 2025. CBL also alleged a more indirect marketing strategy: Three Arrows would promote the benefits of heme iron over non-heme iron, emphasize that heme iron comes from animal sources, then state that IronRepair is made from bovine spleen. Customers were meant to draw the conclusion themselves.¹

Much of the alleged conduct played out in the Iron Protocol Facebook Group, a private community of roughly 166,300 members focused on iron deficiency. The group was administered by Caitlyn R. Hartigan, who also served as a paid brand ambassador for Three Arrows and earned commissions through a discount code. When members noticed the word “heme” had disappeared from Three Arrows’ labels, Krystal Moore posted reassurances in the group. According to CBL, she wrote: “Nothing fishy going on. Heme iron is animal derived. Iron Repair is made from bovine spleen only.” She added that “the iron is 100% derived from bovine spleen (animal sourced).” CBL alleged that after being notified of a settlement breach, Moore edited an earlier post to delete the word “yes” from a line that had read “yes, the iron is 100% derived from bovine spleen.”¹

Hartigan, meanwhile, allegedly told group members that Three Arrows’ products still contained heme iron and cast the original lawsuit as a competitive attack, saying CBL was “pissed three arrows was taking so much of their market share” and wanted to “bleed them dry in legal battles.” CBL alleged Moore did not correct any of it.¹

Three Arrows’ Counterclaims Against Colorado Biolabs

Three Arrows did not just defend. It filed counterclaims alleging that CBL breached the settlement agreement, breached a separate non-disclosure agreement, and engaged in Lanham Act unfair competition.⁵ Three Arrows alleged CBL posted information on Reddit that implied Three Arrows had admitted liability, in violation of the non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions. Three Arrows also alleged that CBL misrepresented itself on its website as the only U.S. manufacturer of heme iron, and that CBL overstated the heme iron content of its own Proferrin products, advertising 10.5 mg per capsule when the actual content was allegedly less than 10 mg.¹

What the Judge Ruled in September 2025

On September 2, 2025, Senior Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater resolved both sides’ motions to dismiss. Most of the case survived.

The court denied Three Arrows’ motion to dismiss CBL’s Lanham Act false advertising claims. Three Arrows had argued that posts in a private Facebook group did not qualify as “commercial advertising or promotion.” The court found that a group of 166,300 members was a “valuable source of potential iron supplement customers” and that, combined with public website and Amazon content, the allegations were sufficient to proceed.¹

CBL’s breach of settlement claim also survived. The court held that the conduct at issue occurred after the settlement was signed, so it fell outside the release. And the court denied CBL’s motion to dismiss Three Arrows’ counterclaims, holding that even an indirect competitor has standing under the Lanham Act, citing Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.⁵

One claim was dismissed. Under Texas law, common-law business disparagement requires proof of “special damages,” meaning specific realized pecuniary losses, not general brand harm. The court found CBL’s complaint identified no lost sales tied to the Facebook posts and gave CBL 28 days to amend.¹

Where the Case Stands Now

The case is in discovery as of mid-2026. No trial date has been reported in the available record.⁶ Three Arrows’ IronRepair products remain for sale, now marketed as containing iron derived from bovine spleen rather than as heme iron supplements.⁷ Nothing in the court’s rulings so far represents a finding that the claims against Three Arrows are true; the judge decided only that Colorado Biolabs’ allegations, if proved, could support the case going forward. The same is true of Three Arrows’ counterclaims against Colorado Biolabs.

1
Justia. Colorado Biolabs Inc v. Three Arrows Nutra LLC, No. 3:25-CV-0601-D
2
Regulations.gov. Colorado Biolabs NDI Notification for Heme Iron Polypeptide
3
Three Arrows Nutra. IronRepair Simply
4
UniCourt. Colorado Biolabs, Inc. v. Three Arrows Nutra, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00264
5
Midpage. Colorado Biolabs Inc v. Three Arrows Nutra LLC
6
PACER Monitor. Colorado Biolabs, Inc. v. Three Arrows Nutra, LLC
7
Three Arrows Nutra. IronRepair Products