FDA Misclaim
Premium
$500
Sealed by May 23, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #366
What's for sale here is a dated, hashed snapshot of a defendant's live tracking behavior, marketing representations, and consent UX, sealed under FRE 901 chain of custody on the day we captured it. Defendants rewrite their policies and pull their pixels the moment a complaint lands — this record is the only proof of what the site was doing before.
Case at a glance
LocationHQ: California
Nat'l classNationwide plausible — FTC §5 / FDCA
ArbitrationArb risk — mass-arbitration target
ClaimsFTC §5 / FDCA §503A misbranding / CLRA / Lanham Act
**FTC §5 / FDCA §503A Misbranding – Compounded Drug & Supplement Claims**
Consumer-facing platform making unsubstantiated efficacy claims for hair-growth supplements and topical serums positioned as clinically proven. Seven verbatim representations captured, including "An MD-formulated dual-pill supplement clinically proven to boost hair density" and "96% of participants had less new gray hairs* *Based on a 180-day clinical study of 30 participants with 30% gray hair or less using GRO AGELESS Hair Serum & Sup." Additional claims cite small-sample studies: "93% saw less shedding* *Based on a 120-day consumer perception study of 40 participants using GRO Hair Serum once daily" and "72 hours of hair hydration and frizz reduction* *In a controlled hair swatch study using HYDR-8 Weightless Repair Oil." Site deployed 176 third-party trackers and contained 5 accessibility violations across scanned pages. Sealed PDF chain-of-custody: 12 screenshots, ~15–25 pages.
Case theory: FTC §5 / FDCA misbranding
What you receive
- Sealed PDF report (typical 15–28 pp) with full chain of custody — SHA-256 + RFC 3161 timestamps on every artifact
- Verbatim binding representations with Wayback-anchored class-period bounds
- Full network capture: every tracker fire, sensitive transmission, identity-sync event
- Wrap classification: BROWSEWRAP / CLICKWRAP / SIGN-IN-WRAP verdict + Specht-line alignment
- Per-circuit case-law alignment (LIKELY_UNENFORCEABLE / LIKELY_ENFORCEABLE / JURISDICTIONALLY_DEPENDENT)
- Defendant name + domain — revealed at purchase
✓ Prior-litigation check: clear.
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant on this theory
(CourtListener federal + web search of state courts, checked 2026-06-07).
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 2 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Ford v. this defendant, LLC; Fernandez v. this defendant, Inc.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 2 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 2 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Ford v. this defendant, LLC; Fernandez v. this defendant, Inc.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 2 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.