Background
Eli Lilly, maker of the blockbuster GLP-1 drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound (tirzepatide), sued telehealth company Mochi Health Corp., two affiliated medical groups, and compounding pharmacy Aequita Pharmacy in April 2025. Lilly alleged that Mochi was engaging in a scheme to mislead consumers about compounded versions of tirzepatide—marketing them as comparable or equivalent to Lilly’s branded products while allegedly failing to disclose material differences in safety, efficacy, and regulatory oversight.
In October 2025, Judge Corley dismissed Lilly’s original complaint, finding the pharmaceutical giant had not demonstrated adequate Article III standing or sufficiently alleged concrete harm. The court gave Lilly leave to amend, and Lilly responded with a substantially expanded First Amended Complaint that nearly tripled the original’s detail, adding screenshots, whistleblower material, regulatory records, and new factual allegations.
Mochi filed a renewed motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. At a hearing on April 9, 2026, Judge Corley pressed Lilly’s counsel hard on standing and evidentiary support, at one point stating, “What I hear you saying is that you don’t have anything,” in response to arguments about certain claims.
The Court’s Holding
On April 20, 2026, Judge Corley granted in part and denied in part Mochi’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The mixed ruling means that while some of Lilly’s Lanham Act false advertising claims survived this second round of pleading challenges, others were dismissed—likely those where Lilly still could not demonstrate concrete competitive injury or where the alleged misrepresentations were not sufficiently specific.
The court’s scrutiny focused on whether Lilly could show that Mochi’s marketing caused or was likely to cause direct competitive harm to Lilly—a critical standing requirement under the Lanham Act. The judge remained skeptical of claims based on general concerns about compounding pharmacies and demanded documented, specific instances of consumer deception.
The surviving claims likely center on Mochi’s most specific alleged misrepresentations—including claims about the comparability of compounded tirzepatide to branded Mounjaro and Zepbound—where Lilly’s amended pleading provided more granular evidence of misleading statements.
Key Takeaways
- Brand-name pharmaceutical companies face a high bar when suing telehealth compounders under the Lanham Act—they must show specific competitive harm, not merely general concerns about the compounding industry.
- Article III standing remains a significant hurdle in pharmaceutical false advertising cases, particularly where the branded and compounded products contain the same active ingredient.
- The court signaled that overly broad claims about the compounding industry will not survive a motion to dismiss, but sufficiently specific allegations of misleading marketing may proceed.
- This ruling is part of a growing wave of litigation by Big Pharma against telehealth compounders of GLP-1 medications, with a parallel case (Novo Nordisk v. Fella Health) also working through the courts.
Why It Matters
This case sits at the intersection of pharmaceutical trademark law, telehealth regulation, and one of the most in-demand drug categories in the country. With GLP-1 medications generating tens of billions in annual revenue, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly using Lanham Act claims to target the growing compounding industry. The court’s mixed ruling sets an important early benchmark: generic claims about compounders won’t cut it, but specific evidence of misleading marketing can state a viable claim. For telehealth companies and compounding pharmacies marketing GLP-1 alternatives, the ruling highlights the importance of carefully distinguishing their products from branded versions. For pharmaceutical companies, it underscores the need for concrete evidence of consumer confusion and competitive harm when bringing false advertising claims.