Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—D. Del.: GLP-1 marketing suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, (Oct 10, 2025)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A website and social media posts not targeted at a state plus commercial activity did not equal a strong connection sufficient to support jurisdiction.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware dismissed a false advertising suit brought by Ely Lilly & Co. against compounding pharmacy Strive Pharmacy LLC for lack of jurisdiction. Eli Lilly alleged that Strive falsely and deceptively advertised its compounded GLP-1 drugs online in violation of the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Lanham Act. The court dismissed the claims, holding that Lilly failed to connect Strive’s internet marketing to Delaware. Because the court found that Lilly may still be able to connect Strive’s advertising to Delaware, it dismissed the complaint without prejudice to let Lilly either allege more jurisdictional facts or sue Strive in Arizona (Eli Lilly & Co. v. Strive Pharmacy LLC, No 1:25-cv-00401-SB (D. Del. Oct. 8. 2025)).

Eli Lilly developed tirzepatide to be injected under the skin to treat chronic weight management and sleep apnea sold under the name brands Mounjaro and Zepbound. Lilly is the only seller of FDA-approved tirzepatide, and it owns all intellectual property associated with drugs that use it.

Strive Compounding Pharmacy sells what it calls a “personalized” combination of tirzepatide, vitamin B12, and glycine to providers across the nation. Strive advertises on its website and social media, and partners with local healthcare providers who prescribe GLP-1s. Patients can refill their prescriptions through Strive’s website. Compounding pharmacies like Strive can sell the same molecule as a name brand drug (here, tirzepatide) in combination with other ingredients in order to avoid intellectual property issues. Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and are not subject to the same labeling, testing, or manufacturing requirements as brand-name drugs.

Lilly alleged that Strive falsely advertised that its customized medications that are “specifically designed” for “one-of-a-kind needs”, are safer and “better for you” than the name brand drugs, and that Strive goes “above and beyond regulatory standards”.

Specific personal jurisdiction. Specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company can be established through the traditional minimum-contacts test or the effects test. The two-part minimum contacts test requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Delaware and that the claims arose out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with Delaware. The effects test requires an intentional tort by an out-of-state defendant who “expressly aimed” its conduct at Delaware.

The court found that Strive’s online posts were not “aimed” anywhere but the World Wide Web so the effects test did not apply. As to the minimum contacts test, the court noted that Strive is a Delaware-licensed pharmacy that sells drugs in the state, so it does purposely avail itself. However, Lilly failed to plead reasonably particular facts connecting Strive’s online statements to Delaware. Lilly did not plead a “strong relationship” among Strive, Delaware, and the online marking. There were no facts plead showing a connection of Strive’s statements on its website or in its social media posts to Delaware.

Lilly alleged that lawful shipping of products without an alleged injury created jurisdiction over online advertisements posted out-of-state, without any facts connecting the ads to Delaware. The court rejected the argument, stating that it did “not square with federalism—specific personal jurisdiction may not become ‘a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction.’” Other courts facing similar arguments have held that the national website of a business doing commerce in a forum is not enough targeting to support personal jurisdiction. In sum, a public website or social media post not targeted at a state plus commercial activity does not equal a “strong connection.”

Discovery. The court declined to grant jurisdictional discovery because it would not help Lilly, but dismissed Lilly’s complaint without prejudice to let Lilly either allege more jurisdictional facts or sue Strive in Arizona.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00401-SB.

Judge: Bibas, S.

Attorneys: Oderah C. Nwaeze (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) for Eli Lilly and Co. Jeremy Douglas Anderson (Baker & Hostetler LLP) for Strive Pharmacy LLC d/b/a Strive Compounding Pharmacy.

Companies: Eli Lilly and Co.; Strive Pharmacy LLC d/b/a Strive Compounding Pharmacy

Cases: Advertising DelawareNews