Ask VialBase
Lawsuit · private litigation

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk Lawsuits Against GLP-1 Compounders — VialBase News

Last updated · July 25, 2025

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk Lawsuits Against GLP-1 Compounders

Summary

Throughout 2025, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk launched an unprecedented private litigation campaign against compounding pharmacies and telehealth platforms selling compounded GLP-1 medications (Semaglutide, Tirzepatide). As of early 2026, Novo Nordisk alone has filed 132 complaints in federal courts across 40 states, with 44 permanent injunctions already secured. Eli Lilly filed major suits against Empower Clinic Services and Strive Compounding Pharmacy. These private lawsuits run in parallel with — and reinforce — the FDA’s own enforcement actions.

Background

Eli Lilly’s Campaign

Lilly v. Empower Clinic Services (filed July 25, 2025, S.D. Texas):

  • Accused Empower of “unlawfully manufacturing and selling untested, unapproved weight loss drugs on a large scale”
  • Claims under the Lanham Act and state consumer protection/deceptive trade practice laws
  • Lilly originally filed in the District of New Jersey (April 2025), then voluntarily dismissed and refiled in Texas — likely a strategic venue shift
  • FDA issued a warning letter to Empower’s Texas facility in April 2025, which Lilly leveraged in its filings
  • As of December 2025, the case is paused at a critical procedural moment

Lilly v. Strive Compounding Pharmacy (filed April 2025):

  • Sued alongside Empower over compounded Tirzepatide (Mounjaro/Zepbound)

Novo Nordisk’s Campaign

Scale: 132 lawsuits filed across 40 states by early 2026

August 2025 expansion: Novo Nordisk filed 14 new lawsuits in August 2025, expanding into two new areas:

  1. Pharmacies producing compounded “Semaglutide” under the “fake guise of personalization” in violation of state law
  2. Telehealth companies where corporations (not doctors) improperly steer patient care to compounded Semaglutide, violating California’s corporate practice of medicine doctrine

Results: 44 permanent injunctions against defendants, prohibiting them from:

  • Compounding Semaglutide
  • Claiming compounded products are FDA-approved, safe, or equivalent to Wegovy/Ozempic

Counter-litigation

Strive v. Lilly & Novo (filed January 14, 2026, W.D. Texas):

  • Antitrust lawsuit alleging the manufacturers engaged in exclusionary conduct to suppress compounded GLP-1 products
  • Claims Lilly and Novo entered exclusive agreements with telehealth companies that prohibited those platforms from working with compounding pharmacies
  • Alleges these agreements prevented clinicians from prescribing and patients from accessing compounded GLP-1 medications

Impact

  • Two-front war: Compounders face simultaneous FDA enforcement and private litigation from well-funded pharmaceutical companies
  • Permanent injunctions: 44 court orders permanently barring compounders from making GLP-1 products — far more binding than FDA warning letters
  • Antitrust counter-claims: The Strive lawsuit introduces a new legal theory that could reshape the landscape if successful
  • Template for other peptides: If manufacturers of other peptide-adjacent products see success here, similar litigation campaigns could target research peptide compounders
  • Cost of defense: Even winning a lawsuit against Lilly or Novo requires enormous legal spend, which most compounders cannot sustain

What This Means for Researchers

  • The GLP-1 litigation demonstrates that manufacturers will use private lawsuits as an enforcement tool alongside government action
  • Compounders selling research peptides face the same legal theories (Lanham Act, state consumer protection) that are succeeding against GLP-1 compounders
  • The antitrust counter-suit (Strive v. Lilly/Novo) is worth watching — if successful, it could establish that manufacturer-driven enforcement campaigns violate competition law
  • Access to compounded GLP-1 medications is shrinking rapidly as permanent injunctions accumulate

Sources