Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Ohio: Pharmaceutical company failed to establish standing in ‘compounded semaglutide’ case, (Mar 24, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The maker of GLP-1 medications for treating obesity failed to show injury from a rival company’s “personalized” advertisements.

In a lawsuit brought by Novo Nordisk A/S for alleged violations of the Lanham Act over advertisements with compounded semaglutide medications to treat obesity against Amble Health, Inc., a competitor that sells medicines from compounding facilities, the federal district court in Akron, Ohio has dismissed the claims based on lack of standing. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that Novo Nordisk—which markets the medicines under the trademarks Ozempic®, Wegovy®, and Rybelsus®—failed to established standing under both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Lanham Act. The court concluded that Novo Nordisk failed establish a direct causal link that advertisements using the term “personalized” caused harm (Novo Nordisk A/S v. Amble Health, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-01048-JRA (N.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2026)).

Novo Nordisk manufactures three medications to treat diabetes and obesity. Each of the drugs is prescription-only and contains semaglutide as the primary ingredient. To date, the FDA has not approved any generic versions of semaglutide medicines, although certain companies have created “compounded drugs” that purportedly contain semaglutide as an active ingredient. However, compounded drugs are not FDA-approved nor evaluated by the FDA as to safety or effectiveness. Novo Nordisk filed suit in the district court in Ohio against Amble Health, Inc., a telehealth company that sells drugs purportedly containing semaglutide, but unlike Novo Nordisk’s FDA-approved medicines, are produced at compounding facilities. The complaint alleging violations of the Lanham Act contends that Amble Health’s compounded drug products are mass produced, but the advertising claims its drugs are “tailored to you” and personalized. Amble Health moved to dismiss the complaint based on lack of standing.

Article III standing. The court first concluded that Novo Nordisk lacked constitutional standing to sue under Article III over the alleged false advertisements. Novo Nordisk contends the alleged false advertisement may divert patients and may harm its reputation. To show injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, the court held that the plaintiff must allege a factual basis to support its conclusion that its reputation has been damaged by the competitor referring to its medications and treatments as “personalized.” While the complaint referred to dosing errors when the patient does not take the medication as prescribed, this does not support the conclusion that the term “personalized” in and of itself has led to any patient diversion. The complaint failed to allege facts to plausibly support an inference of reputational harm or the diversion of patients due to the term “personalized” with the advertising. Because Novo Nordisk failed to establish any injury, the pharmaceutical company could not show Article III standing.

Lanham Act standing. The court also found that Novo Nordisk failed to establish standing under the Lanham Act. The heightened standing test under the Lanham Act has both a “zone of interests” and a “proximate cause” requirement. The court concluded that Novo Nordisk failed to establish that the alleged false advertising through use of the term “personalized” caused the harm in question. The medications at issue are prescription medications. Compounded medications are prescribed by licensed healthcare providers and made in licensed pharmacies. Personalized GLP-1 products are available as compounded injectables and have not received FDA approval, the court found. The pharmaceutical company failed to establish a direct causal link that the advertisements using the term “personalized” caused any harm. Thus, the court dismissed the complaint.

Similar litigation—opposite result. In similar litigation brought by Novo Nordisk against Liferxmd, another manufacturer of compounded semaglutide medications, the federal district court in New Jersey concluded that the claims could move forward and that Novo Nordisk had plausibly alleged an injury-in-fact arising from Liferxmd’s advertising claims (Novo Nordisk A/S v. Liferxmd, No. 24-9018 (MAS) (JBD) (D. N.J. Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished decision)). Allegations of consumer confusion, loss of goodwill, and reputational harm were sufficient to establish injury-in-fact for the purposes of standing in that case.

The Case is No. 4:25-cv-01048-JRA.

Judge: Adams, J.

Attorneys: Alexandra Widas (Covington & Burling LLP) for Novo Nordisk. Erica L. Calderas (Hahn, Loeser & Parks LLP) for Amble Health Inc.

Companies: Novo Nordisk; Amble Health Inc.

Cases: Advertising OhioNews