Judge allows Lilly's 'personalized' ad claim against Henry Meds to continue

A federal judge in California has allowed part of Eli Lilly's false-advertising lawsuit against telehealth company Henry Meds to move forward, ruling on September 24, 2025, that Lilly's challenge to the word "personalized" can proceed while dismissing a second claim for now ^[1].

The case involves compounded tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Lilly's Mounjaro and Zepbound ^[1]. Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the decision on Henry Meds' motion to dismiss ^[1].

Lilly filed suit in April 2025 ^[1]. Lilly alleged that Henry Meds described its compounded tirzepatide as "the same active ingredient" found in Lilly's FDA-approved drugs, sold an oral tirzepatide as a "patient-specific" treatment even though it was made in standardized batches, and presented the compounded products as "safe and effective" without clinical trials behind them ^[1]. Lilly brought claims under the Lanham Act and California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, saying the marketing pulled patients away from Mounjaro and Zepbound ^[1].

On the first claim, the court found Lilly had plausibly alleged that words like "individualized," "tailored" and "patient-specific" were literally false: patients receiving an identical formula are not getting an individualized one, and the wording could confuse buyers ^[1]. That count survives.

The second count, over "safe and effective," was dismissed with permission for Lilly to file an amended complaint ^[1]. The court reasoned that Lilly had pointed to missing evidence rather than showing the statements were untrue ^[1]. If Lilly declines to refile, only the personalization count would remain ^[1]. The ruling did not separately resolve the "same active ingredient" allegation ^[1].

Why it matters for patients

This is a ruling about whether a lawsuit can continue, not a verdict on whether compounded tirzepatide works or is safe ^[1]. The dismissed count turned on how strong Lilly's evidence was, not on any finding about the drugs themselves ^[1].

What the decision does establish is that the vocabulary of customization is being read strictly by at least one federal court ^[1]. Terms such as "tailored" and "patient-specific" suggest a product made for one person, and the lawsuit questions whether that description fits drugs produced in bulk ^[1]. How telehealth sellers describe compounded versions of Mounjaro and Zepbound could be affected as the case proceeds ^[1].

The case concerns advertising language rather than product quality, and the ruling does not address how any compounded product is manufactured or tested ^[1].

What happens next

Lilly may amend its complaint on the "safe and effective" claim ^[1]. If it does not, the litigation continues on the personalization claim alone ^[1]. No deadline for an amended filing and no trial date have been reported.