Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementMedium Risk

FTC Settles Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical for $103K Over False Health Claims

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.September 1, 2025Federal Trade Commission

Penalty Amount

$103,420

Summary

The FTC distributed refunds to consumers who purchased deceptively marketed treatment plans from Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical. The company and its medical director were barred from making unsupported health claims about curing COVID-19, cancer, and Parkinson's disease after a court order in September 2025. Over $40,700 was sent to 578 consumers, with additional claims possible until May 2026.

Remedy

Defendants were ordered to pay $103,420 in monetary penalties, barred from making unsupported health claims in the future, and required to provide refunds to affected consumers totaling over $40,700.

Monetary PenaltyInjunctionConsumer Refunds

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all customer-facing agreements (including sales contracts, terms of service, and marketing partnership agreements) and vendor agreements where marketing materials or product descriptions are provided. Focus on representations and warranties clauses regarding the accuracy of marketing claims, compliance with FTC Act Section 5, and product efficacy statements. Specific clauses to scrutinize include those governing marketing material approval processes, indemnification for regulatory actions, and termination rights for breach of compliance obligations. Changes may be needed to require pre-approval of any health-related claims, mandate documented scientific evidence for efficacy statements, and include explicit prohibitions against claiming products can cure specific diseases like COVID-19, cancer, or Parkinson's without FDA review and approval.

Contract Search Terms

health claims representation warrantyscientific substantiation requirementtreatment plan marketing clausecure claims prohibitionFTC compliance warrantyproduct efficacy disclaimermarketing material pre-approvalregulatory compliance indemnityfalse advertising clauseconsumer protection adherence

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.

Also known as: Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical

Industry

Healthcare

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc."
Fine Amount
"ordered to pay $103,420"
Violation Types
"deceptively advertising a $23,000 treatment plan as a scientifically proven way to treat COVID-19, and used false or unproven claims that other treatment plans could cure cancer and Parkinson’s disease"
Consumers Affected
"578 affected consumers"
Event Date
"In September 2025"
Remedy Types
"barred them from making unsupported health claims in the future"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.

FTC

Online platforms

The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.

FTC

Amazon.com, Inc.

$2.5B

A federal court approved a revised order in the FTC's Amazon Prime case under which Amazon will accelerate and expand redress payments under the September 2025 $2.5 billion settlement, which resolved allegations that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and knowingly made cancellation difficult. More consumers now qualify for refunds, the maximum payment cap rises from $51 to $200, and all future payments will be distributed automatically starting October 1, 2026, with potential supplemental $149 payments by April 2027. Amazon has already issued more than $845 million in redress payments as of September 2026.

FTC

Amway Corp.

$225.0M

The FTC and the state of Washington filed a joint complaint and proposed stipulated order requiring Amway Corp. and two affiliates—World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD)—to pay a $225 million judgment, the largest monetary recovery ever obtained from an MLM in an FTC action, over allegations that they used deceptive earnings claims and unfair tactics to recruit Independent Business Owners. The complaint alleges the companies falsely promised substantial income and recruitment success, pressured IBOs to buy products they could not resell, and instructed IBOs to falsely report sales. Nearly all of the judgment will be used as redress for IBOs who lost money, and the proposed order imposes structural reforms including a 70% resale requirement, independent audits of sales records, and a ban on approved providers charging new IBOs for first-year training.

FTC

FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.)

$100.0M

FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.) and its CEO Ronald Clarke agreed to pay $100 million to settle an FTC administrative action alleging the company charged small business customers hidden and unauthorized fees for fuel cards and misrepresented gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees. A federal district court granted the FTC summary judgment on all counts in 2023, and a federal appeals court upheld that judgment and the permanent injunction in 2026. The settlement funds will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers.

FTC

Automobile industry (auto dealers) - no named respondent; industry-wide guidance publication

FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.