Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING NEWS: Novo Nordisk sues Eli Lilly for false advertising of Lilly drugs Zepbound® and Mounjaro®, (Jul 27, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The Novo Nordisk motion for preliminary injunctive relief asserted that Lilly’s false superiority message operates at multiple levels by shaping patient demand, the clinical conversation between patient and prescriber, and ultimate prescriber decisions.

Novo Nordisk, Inc. (Novo) has brought a false advertising lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co. (Lilly) over Lilly’s nationwide, direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising campaigns for GLP-1 medicines for weight loss and type 2 diabetes. Novo alleges Lilly’s messages to consumers are “deliberately simple and deliberately false.” For weight loss, Novo alleges Lilly’s ads falsely told consumers they will lose more weight using Lilly’s Zepbound® over Novo’s competing Wegovy® medicine. For type 2 diabetes, Novo alleges that Lilly’s Mounjaro® ad falsely told consumers that its Mounjaro® brand reduces the A1c blood sugar measurement significantly more than Nordisk’s competing Ozempic®. Novo said Lilly referenced “outdated clinical trials” that compared the highest doses of the Lilly medicines to lower doses of Novo’s medicines. Moreover, Novo said there were no head-to-head trials of the drugs to draw a comparison. In its motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Lilly “from disseminating false and misleading direct-to-consumer advertisements for its GLP-1 weight-loss and type 2 diabetes medicines,” Novo argued it has a likelihood of success on the merits because the Lilly ads were literally false, such that Novo does not have to prove consumer confusion. In any event, Novo said it could prove consumer confusion with surveys already conducted. Novo seeks damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief (Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 3:26-cv-09027-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J. Jul. 24, 2026)).

The 53-page Novo complaint articulated three claims in three counts: (1) false advertising and unfair competition under Section 43(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) unfair competition under N.J.S.A. § 56:4-1; and, (3) unfair competition under New Jersey common law. Novo filed the complaint on July 21, 2026. Novo then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on July 24, 2026.

Novo said the disputed Lilly advertising harmed both Novo and consumers by driving patient demand and prescriptions from Novo’s medicines to Lilly’s medicines. In Novo’s view, the Lilly product “false superiority message[s]” are likely to deter patients from the broader Novo Wegovy and Ozempic product families. Novo also alleged reputational and goodwill harm, notably inflicted through national television and commercial content, which Novo said cannot be fully remedied through money damages.

The Novo complaint alleged there are “no head-to-head clinical trials comparing the highest doses of the respective medicines,” therefore, Lilly had “no basis” to make comparative claims. The complaint alleged the harm is particularly acute because the GLP-1 market is at an “inflection point” with millions of new patients entering the market and making first-time treatment decisions based on the information available to them. Consumers, meanwhile, are making “consequential decisions about their health.”

In the Novo motion for a preliminary injunction, Novo argued its suit is likely to succeed on the merits because Lilly advertising is “literally false by necessary implication” insofar ss underlying clinical trials allegedly did not test the highest and most effective doses of Novo’s competing approved products. According to Novo, the “unavoidable and false takeaway” is that the Lilly drugs are superior. Novo added that the ads that promote the message that Wegovy patients only lose 33 pounds on average and that patients on Ozempic only reduce their A1c by 1.9% are false.

Novo argued in its motion for preliminary injunction that literal falsity as a matter of law entitles it to relief without any showing of actual consumer confusion. However, Novo added it intends to present evidence in the form of “commissioned consumer perception surveys” to confirm Lilly’s ads in fact misled consumers into believing the highest doses of Zepbound and Mounjaro were fairly compared as dramatically more effective than the highest doses of Wegovy and Ozempic. Novo said the competitive relationship between the parties confirmed materiality.

Novo prayed for judgment on its three claims; damages; treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); an award of Lilly profits; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including a “corrective” advertising campaign; costs and attorney’s fees; pre- and post-judgment interest; and any other proper relief. Novo demanded a jury trial.

The Case is No. 3:26-cv-09027-ZNQ-RLS.

Judge: Quraishi, Z.

Attorneys: Vikas Khanna (Sills Cummis Gross, PC) for Novo Nordisk Inc. Carla Carter (Davis & Carter LLC) for Eli Lilly and Co. and Lilly U.S., LLC.

Companies: Novo Nordisk Inc.; Eli Lilly and Co.; Lilly U.S., LLC

News: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices NewJerseyNews