Dietary Supplements and Legal Challenges in New York

A major industry trade group argued before a panel of appellate judges, contesting a U.S. District Court’s 2024 decision that refused to grant a preliminary injunction against a New York law. This law bans the sale of dietary supplements marketed for muscle building or weight loss to minors. The oral arguments were heard at 10 a.m. EST on January 24, 2025 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a leading trade association, will present its case against the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James. Circuit Judges Denny Chin, Myrna Pérez, and Alison Nathan are slated to oversee the proceedings.

On April 19, 2024, Federal Judge Andrew Carter from the Southern District of New York dismissed CRN’s plea for a preliminary injunction, deeming it an “extraordinary relief” measure. In response, CRN filed an appellate brief in July, challenging this denial. The case is now set to be debated before the appeals court, with Tamar Wise of Cozen O’Connor representing CRN. Wise is noted for her prior success in securing a First Amendment victory before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last month, discussions with CRN’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Megan Olsen, shed light on the organization’s stance. CRN asserts that the law violates commercial speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Olsen emphasized that the legislation affects the broader supplement industry, not just businesses selling weight-loss or muscle-building products. The outcome of this case, she argued, could significantly influence how companies communicate the benefits of their products moving forward.

As extensively reported by industry publications like the SupplySide Supplement Journal, there has been a growing trend of state legislatures attempting to regulate minors’ access to dietary supplements. New York remains the only state with such a law in effect, but this could change if similar legislative efforts gain traction elsewhere. According to Olsen, this legal development presents a slippery slope for the supplement industry, with potential regulatory expansions beyond muscle-building and weight-loss products to other categories, such as cosmetics and anti-aging supplements.

CRN members are actively working to comply with the law but have faced challenges in determining which products fall under its restrictions. Olsen noted that the vague wording and ambiguous nature of the law have created uncertainty, leading to a chilling effect on product sales and marketing strategies.

Commentary by SuppBase Columnist Alice Winters

This case is a pivotal moment for the dietary supplement industry, underscoring deeper legal and regulatory tensions. The crux of CRN’s argument is rooted in commercial speech protections, a hotly debated area in First Amendment jurisprudence. If the appellate court rules in favor of CRN, it could set a precedent limiting state-level interventions on supplement marketing and sales. Conversely, a ruling upholding New York’s law may embolden other states to introduce similar restrictions, tightening regulatory oversight on supplement advertising and sales practices.

One of the most contentious aspects of this case is the definition of “weight-loss and muscle-building” products. The ambiguity in the law creates compliance challenges, forcing companies into a precarious position where they must navigate uncertain regulatory waters. If such laws proliferate without clear definitions and guidelines, businesses may face increased legal exposure, regulatory fines, and operational burdens.

Another key concern is whether restricting minors’ access to these supplements is justified from a public health perspective. While the intent behind the law may be to protect young consumers from potentially harmful substances, existing FDA regulations already govern ingredient safety and labeling requirements. The question remains: Is New York’s approach a necessary safeguard, or an overreach that disrupts lawful commerce and limits consumer choice?

From a market standpoint, this legal battle reflects broader shifts in regulatory attitudes toward supplements. It signals a growing willingness among policymakers to scrutinize supplement marketing claims and impose tighter controls, particularly on products perceived as high-risk. Brands that depend heavily on youth-oriented messaging and aggressive marketing strategies should closely watch this case, as its outcome could redefine industry best practices.

In conclusion, the Second Circuit’s ruling will have profound implications not only for New York but also for the national supplement market. Regardless of the decision, supplement companies should proactively refine their compliance strategies, anticipate regulatory shifts, and engage in policy discussions to shape a fair, science-backed framework for industry regulation.