Big Pharma vs. Telehealth just got more interesting. On September 24, Eli Lilly secured a limited but meaningful victory in federal court, keeping alive its legal fight over how Henry Meds markets compounded versions of tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Lilly’s blockbuster GLP-1 drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound.
U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar (N.D. Cal.) ruled on Henry’s motion to dismiss, allowing Lilly’s claim that Henry falsely advertises its compounded GLP-1s as “personalized” or “patient-specific” to proceed. On the other hand, Lilly’s broader claim that Henry falsely marketed its products as “safe and effective” was tossed for now. The court said Lilly hadn’t shown that those claims were actually false, only that they weren’t backed by data.
The Case Against Henry Meds
Lilly filed suit in April 2025, alleging that Henry Meds was:
- Marketing compounded tirzepatide as “the same active ingredient” as Lilly’s FDA-approved products;
- Advertising oral tirzepatide as a “patient-specific” treatment when it was actually standardized and mass-produced; and
- Suggesting that these compounded drugs were “safe and effective” with no clinical trials to back it up.
Lilly alleged violations of the Lanham Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, arguing that Henry’s misrepresentations diverted patients away from Mounjaro and Zepbound.
What the Court Said
- Personalization Claim Sticks: The court said Lilly plausibly alleged that Henry’s use of terms like “individualized,” “tailored,” and “patient-specific” was literally false. If patients are getting the same formula, it’s not individualized, and that could mislead consumers.
- “Safe and effective” dismissed (for now): The court dismissed Lilly’s claim that Henry’s compounded GLP-1s were falsely marketed as safe and effective, finding that Lilly’s allegations amounted to a lack of substantiation rather than a showing of falsity. The judge allowed Lilly to amend the complaint to try again on that point.
If Lilly doesn’t amend, the case will move forward solely on the personalization issue.
Why This Matters
This case sends a clear message: watch your words. Courts are taking marketing language literally, and that can mean real legal risk.
Key Takeaways
- “Personalized” isn’t just a buzzword. If your treatments aren’t truly tailored, don’t say they are. Claims of customization are now litigation targets.
- “Safe and effective” needs backing: You can’t just say it. Plaintiffs must show the claim is false, but companies should be prepared to show actual evidence, not just a lack of studies.
The Bottom Line
Lilly’s win was narrow, but high-impact. It opens the door to more scrutiny of how telehealth and compounding companies market GLP-1s, especially when they blur the lines between compounded products and FDA-approved drugs.
Even a small ruling at the motion-to-dismiss stage is a wake-up call: Regulators and judges are paying attention. So should your marketing and legal teams.