Noom and Willow Health drop challenged compounded GLP-1 claims after NAD rulings

Two sellers of compounded GLP-1 drugs have dropped or changed the advertising claims that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk challenged at the National Advertising Division, the advertising industry's self-regulatory review body. NAD recommended in May 2026 that Noom modify or discontinue a headline claim for its Microdose GLP-1Rx program, and it confirmed in July 2026 that Willow Health Services had permanently discontinued every claim challenged in its case ^[1][2].

The Noom case

Lilly's challenge targeted Noom's tagline "A Smaller Dose. A Smarter Start. Microdose GLP-1Rx Starts at $119." NAD found the claim conveyed an unsupported message that a smaller dose itself provided a measurable health benefit, and recommended the company modify or discontinue it. Noom disagreed with NAD's conclusion but voluntarily agreed to comply. Separately, Noom told NAD it was permanently discontinuing other challenged claims covering dosing, efficacy and side effects. Because those claims were dropped, NAD did not review them on the merits ^[1][2].

The Willow Health case

Novo's challenge, decided in December 2025, led NAD to determine that the Texas telehealth company's safety, efficacy and superiority claims for its compounded semaglutide product were unsubstantiated. Willow did not provide a statement saying it would comply, so NAD referred the matter to the Federal Trade Commission, relevant state attorneys general and the platforms where the ads ran. Willow later returned to NAD after discussions with the FTC, and in July 2026 NAD confirmed the company had permanently discontinued all the challenged claims — covering weight loss support, comparability to FDA-approved semaglutide, and effectiveness without diet or exercise ^[1].

How the review process works

NAD is a non-government body founded in 1971 that resolves advertising disputes faster and more cheaply than litigation. Participation is voluntary, the advertiser carries the burden of showing a reasonable basis for its claims, and NAD recommendations are not legally binding. If a company does not comply, NAD can escalate the matter to the FDA, the FTC or state attorneys general, or report the ad to social media platforms where it ran ^[2].

Over the past year, Lilly and Novo filed 10 cases against compounders and telehealth companies with NAD ^[2]. Novo says it has filed 130 federal lawsuits and five NAD challenges; Lilly has filed dozens of federal lawsuits and at least five NAD challenges ^[1]. The FDA has sent more than 100 warning letters in the last year over misbranded compounded GLP-1 claims, though enforcement has stayed focused on a narrow set of issues such as active ingredients, branding and product performance ^[1][2].

Lilly's tirzepatide franchise reached $40 billion in sales and Novo's semaglutide products generated $35 billion last year ^[2]. After the FDA determined the branded drugs were available again following a shortage period, mass production of cheaper copies was effectively prohibited. At least a million patients had used those copies, and compounders continue to make personalized versions ^[2].

Why it matters for patients

The decisions turn on whether advertising claims were supported, not on whether compounded products are safe or effective. NAD's finding against Noom was that a smaller-dose message was unsupported as a health-benefit claim, and it never reviewed the other Noom claims once the company withdrew them ^[1][2]. Neither decision includes a finding about product safety, and neither discloses whether prices or availability changed.

Compounded versions of these drugs are not FDA-approved, while the brand-name products Lilly and Novo sell are ^[2]. The NAD decisions do not say anything about how compounded semaglutide compares with FDA-approved semaglutide in practice.

Because NAD has no enforcement power and the process is voluntary, similar claims can continue to run elsewhere. Ashwin Chetty, a Yale School of Medicine doctor of medicine candidate who studied compounded GLP-1 ads, said FDA enforcement "has really been focused on what these websites shouldn't say, and that absolutely is needed," adding: "But there should also be some guidance and enforcement on what these websites should be saying as well" ^[2].

Phyllis Marcus, vice president of NAD, said the GLP-1 cases brought by the drugmakers "present almost the full suite of advertising techniques. You've got social media, you've got influencers, you've got health claims, you've got one of the hottest drugs on the market" ^[2].

What happens next

Willow's case was referred to the FTC and state attorneys general; what those offices do with it has not been disclosed ^[1]. No further hearing dates in either matter have been reported.

The legal fight has also moved in other directions. In January 2026, Strive Compounding Pharmacy filed a federal antitrust suit in the Western District of Texas alleging that Lilly and Novo used exclusive agreements with telehealth platforms to bar those platforms from working with compounding pharmacies, restricting patient access to compounded versions ^[1]. Whether that case affects the NAD matters has not been reported.