FTC distributes $409,000 in refunds to weight-loss supplement victims

The Federal Trade Commission announced on July 9, 2025, the distribution of payments totaling more than $409,000 to consumers who purchased products from weight-loss supplement marketer Roca Labs. The refunds stem from a 2018 federal court ruling that found the company engaged in deceptive marketing practices and unfair consumer treatment.

According to the FTC, the refund program distributes checks and PayPal payments to 7,481 affected consumers who bought Roca Labs products between March 2016 and the court order's implementation. Recipients must cash checks within 90 days and redeem PayPal payments within 30 days of receipt. The commission also sent 34 claim forms to consumers who purchased products before October 2015, with submissions due by October 7, 2025.

The enforcement action centers on Roca Labs' marketing of dietary supplements marketed as "Gastric Bypass Alternative" formulas. Court documents reveal the company generated $26.6 million in gross sales while making unsubstantiated weight-loss claims and threatening legal action against customers who posted negative reviews online.

Summary

Who: The Federal Trade Commission distributed refunds to 7,481 consumers who purchased weight-loss supplements from Roca Labs, Inc. and related companies controlled by Don Juravin and George Whiting.

What: The FTC issued payments totaling more than $409,000 as consumer redress for deceptive marketing practices, false health claims, and unfair gag clause enforcement that prevented customers from posting negative reviews.

When: Refund distribution began July 9, 2025, following a federal court ruling from September 2018 and final judgment entered January 2019. The original violations occurred between 2015-2016.

Where: The enforcement action originated in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, with nationwide impact for affected consumers who purchased products online.

Why: Roca Labs violated federal trade laws by making unsubstantiated weight-loss claims, threatening customers who posted negative reviews, misrepresenting promotional websites as independent, and violating privacy promises regarding customer health information.

Deceptive health claims targeted

A U.S. District Court in Florida granted the FTC's motion for summary judgment in September 2018, finding Roca Labs violated federal trade laws through multiple deceptive practices. The court determined the company lacked "competent and reliable scientific evidence" for five express weight-loss claims about their products.

The ruling specifically addressed claims that Roca Labs products were "scientifically proven to have a ninety-percent success rate in forcing users to eat half their usual food intake and cause substantial weight loss." Federal investigators found these assertions were false and misleading to consumers seeking weight management solutions.

Additional violations included misrepresenting that product use was scientifically proven, claiming effectiveness comparable to bariatric surgery, and asserting specific weight loss amounts without proper clinical testing. The company marketed products under names including "Roca Labs Formula," "Anti-Cravings," and "Gastric Bypass No Surgery."

Court documents indicate Roca Labs also operated a supposedly independent information website to promote their products without disclosing their financial control of the platform. The FTC found this practice violated disclosure requirements for promotional materials.

Gag clause enforcement challenged

A significant component of the case involved Roca Labs' use of non-disparagement clauses in customer contracts. The company threatened to sue and filed lawsuits against consumers who shared negative experiences online or complained to the Better Business Bureau.

The court found these "gag clause" provisions unfairly suppressed negative information about the company and its products, potentially harming future purchasers who couldn't access truthful consumer feedback. This practice violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair business practices.

Federal prosecutors documented instances where Roca Labs demanded customers pay the difference between a "discount price" and alleged "full price" if they violated non-disparagement terms. The company also threatened defamation lawsuits against customers who stated the products were ineffective for weight loss.

These enforcement tactics gained attention as an early example of companies using contractual provisions to silence consumer criticism. The case established legal precedent regarding the FTC's authority to challenge such practices as unfair to consumers and competitors.

Financial penalties and asset recovery

The court imposed a monetary judgment of $25,246,000 against corporate defendants and individual defendant Don Juravin for consumer redress and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. However, the actual recovery amount was limited by available assets following the defendants' bankruptcy proceedings.

Court records show the FTC recovered funds from multiple sources, including accounts held by payment processor iPayment Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank. Between March and August 2016, defendant Must Cure Obesity Co. transferred approximately $295,688 to a third party company called Jugaad Co., violating court-ordered asset preservation provisions.

The refund distribution represents partial satisfaction of the larger judgment amount. Consumer redress programs typically recover a fraction of ordered judgments when defendants lack sufficient assets to pay full restitution. In 2024, FTC actions led to more than $339 million in refunds to consumers across the country.

This enforcement pattern reflects broader challenges in supplement industry oversight. Recent FTC initiatives have focused on combating fake reviews and deceptive testimonials that artificially inflate product credibility in digital marketplaces.

Regulatory implications for marketers

The Roca Labs case established important precedents for supplement marketing and customer review practices. The court's finding that gag clauses constitute unfair practices has influenced subsequent enforcement actions against companies that restrict consumer speech.

For digital marketers, the case demonstrates the FTC's scrutiny of health claims requiring clinical substantiation. The commission requires "randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled" human clinical testing for weight-loss efficacy claims, conducted by qualified researchers with complete documentation available for FTC inspection.

The ruling also clarified disclosure requirements for promotional websites and paid endorsements. Companies must clearly reveal financial relationships with testimonialists and cannot misrepresent independent websites that they actually control for promotional purposes.

Privacy violations added another dimension to the case. The court found Roca Labs misrepresented its confidentiality practices while disclosing customers' personal health information in public court filings and to payment processors. This finding reinforced the FTC's authority to challenge misleading privacy representations.

Enforcement trends in supplement marketing

The weight-loss supplement industry continues drawing regulatory attention due to widespread unsubstantiated health claims. Federal data shows supplement marketing cases consistently rank among the FTC's top enforcement priorities, particularly products targeting vulnerable populations seeking health solutions.

Recent enforcement actions have expanded beyond traditional advertising claims to encompass digital marketing practices. The commission increasingly targets companies that manipulate online reviews, use undisclosed affiliate marketing, or employ deceptive social media tactics to promote health products.

The Roca Labs precedent regarding non-disparagement clauses has influenced enforcement against companies in various industries. The FTC has subsequently challenged similar contractual restrictions as unfairly limiting consumer speech and market transparency.

For marketing professionals, the case underscores the importance of substantiating health claims with appropriate clinical evidence. The commission's approach requires that advertising claims match the specific conditions and populations studied in supporting research.

Consumer protection outcomes

The refund distribution provides tangible relief to consumers who purchased products based on deceptive marketing claims. However, the recovery amount represents approximately 1.6% of the company's reported gross sales, highlighting the challenges in achieving full consumer restitution through enforcement actions.

Consumer advocates view the case as demonstrating both the value and limitations of FTC enforcement. While the commission successfully challenged multiple deceptive practices and secured some consumer redress, the financial penalties may not fully deter similar future violations given the profit margins in supplement marketing.

The enforcement action also produced structural changes in how companies handle customer feedback. The prohibition against gag clauses has influenced industry practices regarding customer review policies and complaint handling procedures.

For affected consumers, the refund program provides a streamlined claims process through administrator Simpluris. The commission emphasized that legitimate refund programs never require upfront payments or personal financial information beyond what's necessary for payment processing.

Timeline

• September 2015: FTC files initial complaint against Roca Labs, Inc., Don Juravin, and George Whiting
• February 2016: Commission approves amended complaint adding Must Cure Obesity Co., Juravin Incorporated, and Zero Calorie Labs Inc.
• September 2018: U.S. District Court grants FTC motion for summary judgment on all counts
• January 2019: Court enters final judgment imposing $25.2 million monetary penalty
• July 2025: FTC begins distributing $409,000 in consumer refunds