A federal lawsuit against Amazon is intensifying questions around the extent to which e-commerce platforms can be held liable for marketing and selling dietary supplements that may not comply with federal labeling regulations.

The case, initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in January 2023, centers on the plaintiffs’ allegation that Amazon “‘systematically omit[s] and/or promote[s] and sell[s]’ dietary supplements in its online marketplace with structure/function claims that ”lack[] . . . mandatory disclaimers from [p]roduct labels,” as noted in the most recently filed case action.

A Washington judge has granted in part the plaintiffs’ joint motion for discovery filed in July, pushing the case forward through the litigation process.

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), retailers can be held liable “for introducing misbranded or adulterated products into interstate commerce—even if the retailer had no role in creating the product or crafting claims for it,” Katie Bond, partner at Keller and Heckman, told NutraIngredients. “Similarly, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, a retailer, like an e-commerce site, can be liable for deceptive advertising simply by placing the advertising into interstate commerce.”

Shifting legal landscape

Bond noted that enforcement trends have evolved.

“Historically, enforcement against retailers was pretty rare,” she said. “These days, though, the FDA, the FTC, states and plaintiff’s lawyers are targeting e-commerce sites more and more frequently.”

Courts have traditionally distinguished between manufacturers and retailers in assigning liability. However, in recent cases involving platforms like Amazon, courts have demonstrated a growing willingness to consider online marketplaces as integral players in the commercial chain.

“In the recent Amazon case, plaintiffs argue that Amazon is responsible for dietary supplement marketing that allegedly failed to provide with sufficient prominence the required ‘DSHEA disclosure,’” Bond said.

“The court didn’t stop there,” she continued. “It also pointed to the products being part of the ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ program… The court seemed more comfortable than courts in the past with a retailer being an integral part of the sales, even if different, separate companies created the products.”

Speaking on a panel at the 13th Annual Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Forum on Dietary Supplements in June 2025, Yifang Zhao, corporate counsel at Amazon, highlighted the company’s investments in product compliance and oversight.

“In 2024, Amazon invested more than $1 billion and employed thousands of people, including machine learning scientists, software developers, expert investigators,” she said. “We’re dedicated to protecting customers, brands, selling partners and our store from compliance, counterfeit, fraud and other forms of abuse.”

Increased pressure for stakeholder compliance

While attention is focused on Amazon, manufacturers and suppliers are not immune to the downstream implications. Bond emphasized that companies largely maintain control over product formulation and labeling, despite pressure from retailers.

“In general, manufacturers and suppliers still have a lot of control over how they formulate and market their products,” she said. “Even with the Amazon case, companies still could have chosen to follow the letter of the law and place the DSHEA disclosure on every panel bearing a structure/function claim.”

Bond noted that companies choosing not to include required disclosures may find themselves pulled into litigation as a result.

“They ultimately control what’s in their product and on their label—which is a lot of what ends up populating the retailer sites,” she said.

Compliance strategies and regulatory context

If the class action results in increased scrutiny, companies may be forced to reevaluate their compliance strategies, Bond advised.

“Companies may just have to undertake technical compliance with a disclosure regime that has never made a whole lot of sense,” she explained.

“Congress isn’t required to justify the laws it passes, and one wonders what a sound justification possibly could have been for the DSHEA disclosure other than protecting against the most unreasonable and unlikely consumer assumptions.”

She further expressed skepticism about the utility of the DSHEA disclaimer.

“FTC guidance… highlights the pointlessness in that the FTC has declined to force the use of the DSHEA disclosure in advertising given that it really has no bearing on whether a claim is misleading,” she said. “A disclosure simply cannot contradict the main claim. That’s Advertising Law 101.”

Despite these critiques, she acknowledged that mounting litigation and regulatory activity may leave companies with little choice but to intensify their compliance efforts.

A potential turning point for e-commerce oversight

Even without new legislation, the case may accelerate existing trends.

“Retailers have already been, in general, beefing up compliance standards in order to protect themselves as retailer liability expands,” Bond said. “I think that trend will definitely continue, particularly as to e-commerce sites.”

In Amazon’s case, this has meant pulling in additional resources to shape platform operations.

“We have dedicated teams and technology that are continuously innovating and identifying and improving products that are not at a high level,” Zhao said.