Class action says Ledisa's GLP-1 patches contain no GLP-1
The suit targets a skin patch sold under a GLP-1 name rather than an approved GLP-1 drug, and no court has ruled on any of the claims yet.
A proposed class action filed Aug. 13, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleges that Ledisa LLC sold adhesive wellness patches labeled "GLP-1 Patches" that contain no GLP-1 and no GLP-1 receptor agonist [1]. The case is captioned Cathey v. Ledisa LLC, No. 1:26-cv-06456-EPG [1]. Ledisa has not responded in court, no class has been certified, and no court has evaluated the allegations [1].
The complaint says the ingredient list shows berberine, apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, pomegranate, resveratrol and folic acid, with no GLP-1 hormone and no GLP-1 receptor agonist such as semaglutide or tirzepatide [1]. The claim is economic, not medical: nothing in the complaint alleges the patches injured anyone [1]. The theory is that the product's name and marketing told buyers they were getting the hormone behind Ozempic and Wegovy through their skin, that the patches instead contain plant extracts, and that people paid for something they did not get [1].
The complaint quotes marketing that includes "science-backed GLP-1 support," "sustained appetite control," patches that "trigger[] GLP-1 release in body" and "keep[] GLP-1 levels steady all day," and "a natural approach to weight management…without the need for needles or the digestive upset common with oral tablets" [1]. It also points to a "#1 Doctor Approved" badge with physician photographs, and to Instagram posts from April and June 2026 describing a patch that "delivers steady GLP-1 and appetite support through the skin" [1]. The named plaintiff, a Merced, California resident, says she bought a pack on Ledisa's website on about March 7, 2026 after reading the front label and the site's claims, and that she would not have bought the patches had she known [1].
According to the complaint, Ledisa began selling the GLP-1 Patches in 2025 through its own website and other online marketplaces including Amazon, in packs of 30 [1]. The filing identifies Ledisa LLC as a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware [1].
Ledisa has relabeled the product. The complaint alleges the "GLP-1 Patches" name was changed to "Berberine Patches," and that the product is still frequently referred to as GLP-1 Patches online [1]. The complaint's position is that the rename does not resolve the deception because the same benefit and efficacy claims continue to be made about the same product [1]. The court has not addressed that argument [1].
The filing makes a second argument that would apply even if the patch contained the drug. It quotes Sheldon Markowitz, M.D., chief of endocrinology at Episcopal Health Services in New York City, telling HealthCentral that effective delivery of GLP-1 by transdermal patch is "not possible" because "these molecules are too large to pass through the skin" [1]. C. Michael White, head of the department of pharmacy practice at the University of Connecticut, is quoted saying there are currently no GLP-1 medications that can be absorbed through the skin, and Nicholas Messinger, M.D., a clinical pharmacy manager at Mount Sinai Health System, is quoted saying there are no FDA-approved patches that deliver semaglutide or tirzepatide, and that the only approved formulations are injections and the Wegovy pill [1]. On the herbal ingredients, the complaint quotes Natasha Bhuyan, M.D., saying none of these supplements has evidence it can help with weight loss, and Alyssa Dominguez, M.D., an endocrinologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, telling Rolling Stone that the doses in these patches are "super off compared to anything that was in the research studies" [1]. These are the plaintiff's allegations and her selection of published commentary; no court has evaluated any of it, and none of the physicians is a party to the case [1].
The complaint brings four counts: California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a California class, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a nationwide class [1]. On the CLRA count, the complaint states that counsel sent the required pre-suit notice by certified mail and that, for now, the plaintiff seeks only public injunctive relief, a step that leaves the door open to damages later [1]. It asks the court to certify nationwide and California classes, declare the conduct unlawful and enjoin it, award actual and statutory damages, order restitution and disgorgement, and award interest, attorneys' fees and costs [1]. A jury trial is demanded, and the complaint invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, alleging the putative class members' claims exceed $5 million in the aggregate [1].
Why it matters for patients
Patches are not an approved way to take a GLP-1 drug. The commentary quoted in the complaint states that the only FDA-approved formulations are injections and an oral semaglutide tablet, and that no FDA-approved patch delivers semaglutide or tirzepatide [1].
The complaint alleges the product at issue contains no GLP-1 at all, so a buyer expecting the effect of a prescription GLP-1 drug would be paying for plant extracts [1]. If a product's name and its ingredient panel point in different directions, the complaint's own guidance is that the ingredient panel is the more reliable guide [1].
There is no money to claim. No settlement, no settlement fund, no certified class and no claim form exist, and there is no deadline [1]. Newly filed consumer cases like this one draw fake "refund" texts, emails and messages asking for a link click, card details or a processing fee; a genuine claims process, if one is ever created, would be run by a court-appointed administrator and would be free [1].
What happens next
Ledisa will have an opportunity to respond, most likely with an answer or a motion to dismiss [1]. Labeling cases like this one often draw early challenges to whether a reasonable consumer would read the advertising the way the complaint does, to whether California statutes can reach a nationwide class, and to what relief remains for a buyer who now knows what is in the product [1]. If the case survives that stage, the plaintiff would still have to persuade the court to certify a class [1].
The complaint was filed Aug. 13, 2026 [1]. No hearing dates, response deadlines or rulings have been reported [1]. The case can take months or years and could be narrowed, amended, consolidated, settled or dismissed along the way [1].
Sources
Semaglutides.org provides information only, not medical advice. Talk to a licensed provider about your own care before making changes. Some telehealth links are affiliate links and are labeled where they appear.