Is your longevity doctor breaking the law?
I asked the medical boards of California, Massachusetts, Texas & Ohio if Dr. Mark Hyman's promotion of supplements violates state regulations. Here's what they said.
Several weeks ago I wrote an article, “Is your longevity doctor scamming you?” that looked at the practices of Mark Hyman, a high-profile physician and entrepreneur who regularly encourages newsletter subscribers to buy longevity supplements. The article examined Hyman’s specific promotion of an expensive supplement that A) has not been clinically shown to work in humans and B) he is paid by the manufacturer to promote—though he doesn’t disclose that fact in his pitch.
This article goes beyond the ethical questions to examine the legality of licensed medical professionals promoting supplements in which they have an undisclosed financial interest:
Are these doctors breaking state or federal laws or regulations?
If so, do government agencies charged with disciplining state-licensed longevity chiselers ever take action against them?
lon·gev·i·ty chis·el·er, n. someone who intentionally promotes unproven anti-aging products, claims or research for personal or professional gain.
What did the state medical boards of California, Texas, Massachusetts and Ohio, where Hyman is licensed to practice, have to say in response to my specific questions about his email promotions of supplements in exchange for payments from the companies that sell them?
But first, a brief backgrounder on the rules and laws that govern how doctors practice medicine and conduct themselves, clinically and professionally.
In case you missed it:
How states regulate doctors
Every U.S. state regulates doctors and issues regulations governing what and how doctors may conduct themselves. State medical boards enforce punishments when licensed professionals disobey the rules. States typically give their medical boards powers to suspend or revoke licenses, issue censures or, in cases of extreme wrongdoing, recommend criminal or civil charges against a doctor. Medical boards typically don’t seek out wrongdoing but, rather, rely on complaints from patients and clinicians to determine whether to investigate a doctor for any alleged wrongdoing. Investigations are usually not made public. But if a board determines that a doctor violated state laws or regulations, it may issue enforcement actions, which are public record.
Dr. Hyman’s misstatements about unproven supplements
EDITOR’S NOTE: I reached out to Dr. Hyman and his website’s support staff by email last week, indicating I was planning to write about his email claims about fatty15 and Mitopure, and asking whether he believed his marketing of supplements violated laws in states where he is licensed to practice medicine. He did not respond.
fatty15
My previous article, from February, described how one of Hyman’s email newsletters had urged his readers to buy a supplement, fatty15, that he described as backed by rigorous research. He didn’t disclose that the majority of the research he cited was done by the company selling the supplement, that the research showed no evidence that fatty15 worked in humans, and that Hyman was paid by the company to promote the supplement.
Mitopure
Two months later, on April 21, Hyman sent out an email pushing another supplement, Mitopure, that he also has an undisclosed financial interest in promoting (he sells the supplement on his website, drhyman.com, and is featured prominently on Mitopure’s own website). That email also misrepresents the science behind the supplement and its efficacy in humans:
it claims supporting evidence from “25 gold-standard human clinical trials.” In fact, the webpage of the consumer brand behind Mitopure lists only five published peer-reviewed randomized clinical trials of the supplement. The “25” refers to ClinicalTrials.gov registrations, which include unpublished, ongoing and methodology studies.1
every study of Mitopure on its branded webpage was funded by Amazentis, the company that sells it, and was authored by its employees, board members or scientific advisors.2
the two muscle trials behind the strength claims both failed the main test the studies were designed to answer. Namely, that Mitopure boosts your “peak power output” during exercise. In fact, the placebo worked just as well. Hyman’s email presents Mitopure’s evidence as settled science when the research reports describe themselves as only proof-of-concept studies needing confirmation.3
Consumers may be forgiven for noticing a pattern in Hyman’s product endorsements: A personal testimonial followed by misleading marketing cloaked as settled science, with an unmentioned financial connection between doctor and the supplement maker.
Four state medical boards respond to my questions
I asked the state medical boards in California, Texas, Massachusetts and Ohio if Hyman’s promotions of supplements are violations of their laws or professional codes of conduct.
Each state medical board responded to my questions with varying levels of specificity and transparency. Two states—California and Ohio—indicated outright that they regarded my inquiry as an official complaint that they would investigate. Texas and Massachusetts didn’t explicitly say they took my questions as a formal complaint, but the language of their replies indicated that they likely did.
Here’s how each state replied to questions about Hyman’s actions in regard to their laws.
California
California law prohibits physicians from receiving any compensation as an inducement for referring customers to any person or entity, under Business and Professions Code §650(a). A 2001 California Attorney General Opinion concluded that a clinician's profit-sharing arrangement to promote a third party's nutritional products to patients violates that statute. B&P §17500 separately prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the sale of goods.
California’s response to my questions: The Medical Board of California said it could not, from my email alone, make a preliminary determination on whether Hyman’s conduct violates the Medical Practice Act but said it regarded my questions about Hyman’s fatty15 and Mitopure emails as a complaint. “Your message has been forwarded to the Central Complaint Unit for review,” a spokeswoman for the board wrote in an email reply. (The Board accepts complaints via any medium, including email, mail, telephone, website form, or in person.)
California’s Department of Justice, similarly, responded to a separate set of questions I’d asked by writing, in email, that “we’re unable to comment on complaints received by our office as they are considered confidential law enforcement records.” In response, I told the agency that I understood its answer as an acknowledgment that it regarded my email as a complaint to be investigated, and that I would be reporting that fact. I asked that the office correct my understanding if it was inaccurate. I heard nothing back in response.
Ohio
Ohio law uniquely allows its medical board to discipline physicians for violating the AMA’s own ethics code, incorporated into state law under ORC §4731.22(B)(18). AMA Opinion 9.6.4 expressly defines “selling” health-related products to include “endorsing a product that the patient may order or purchase elsewhere that results in remuneration for the physician” — and requires full disclosure of the financial arrangement with the manufacturer. Ohio also separately bars false or misleading advertising under ORC §4731.22(B)(5), which the statute defines to include any statement that misleads “because of a failure to disclose material facts” or that creates “false or unjustified expectations of favorable results.”
Ohio’s response to my questions: “If the board is made aware of allegations, it has a legal responsibility to follow its formal investigatory process,” a spokeswoman for the State Medical Board of Ohio said in an email. That means Ohio’s medical board also regarded my questions about Dr. Hyman’s practices as a complaint that it is required to investigate, as the spokeswoman indicated in a follow-up email.
Anyone can file a complaint to Ohio’s medical board. There is no statute of limitations.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts law includes the most targeted rule in the country governing physicians selling outside products. The state’s Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM) Policy 05-01 "Sale of Goods from Physicians' Offices," prohibits physicians from selling products "in a manner that has the potential to exploit patients, including but not limited to exclusive distributorships or personal branding." The policy also bars physicians from using "their office or their professional relationship with patients to promote any business venture." The policy explicitly cites and quotes AMA Code of Ethics Section 8.063—now renumbered Opinion 9.6.4—the same AMA opinion Ohio incorporates into its disciplinary statute. A separate anti-kickback statute, M.G.L. c. 175H, makes it unlawful to receive compensation as an inducement for recommending goods, although its applicability to consumer-paid supplements is limited because the statute is tied to goods reimbursable by health insurers.
Massachusetts’s response to my questions: It appears as if the state board may have also regarded my email as a complaint to be at least evaluated for investigation. But the two officials who replied to my queries wouldn’t say so explicitly. In fact, in the first response to my questions, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Health wrote that “the Board investigates allegations but does not provide responses based on hypotheticals.” When I asked what was hypothetical about my questions of Hyman’s fatty15 email and compensation arrangement with the supplement manufacturer, a second spokeswoman said the state board “cannot make a determination based on a complaint alone”—an indication that my email was, indeed, taken as a complaint—and that the board receives complaints from a variety of sources, including “media reporting,” and that if a preliminary screening finds that an investigation is warranted, an investigation will occur. If the board finds a violation, well, it’s a process of New England proportions.4
Texas
Texas law regulates physician advertising under 22 TAC §164.3, which deems an advertisement false or misleading if it fails to disclose that it is a paid-for presentation, or contains a testimonial without required disclaimers as to the credentials of the person giving it. The Texas Medical Board has confirmed in writing to this reporter that emails constitute advertisements under those rules.
Texas’s response to my questions: The Texas Medical Board confirmed in an email that newsletters, websites, and flyers constitute advertising subject to its rules. That means that Hyman's emails and website, drhyman.com, are subject to Texas's advertising rules — including the prohibition on undisclosed paid-for presentations. The board’s spokesman, Spencer Miller-Payne, wouldn’t say whether my email constituted a complaint it would investigate. “If a complaint was received regarding a licensee’s advertising in violation of board rules, we would follow our standard process, which may include informal resolution, dismissal, or formal disciplinary action,” he said in email.
Anyone can file a complaint to the Texas Medical Board.
That webpage lists 11 items under "Clinical studies," of which 5 are completed published peer-reviewed RCTs on Mitopure (Andreux 2019, Singh 2021, Liu 2022, Singh/ATLAS 2022, Denk 2025). The "25" comes from Timeline's own October 2025 press release, which uses the phrase "25 registered human trials" to refer to ClinicalTrials.gov registrations.
The MitoImmune study (Denk 2025) is the closest to independent; it was investigator-initiated by an academic group at Goethe University. But according to the study’s ethics disclosure, Amazentis, the Swiss maker of Mitopure, funded the study, supplied the product, contributed four co-authors and paid the senior academic author consulting fees.
To quote the 2022 research report, in Cell Reports Medicine, by Singh, et al, “One of the main limitations of the study is that the primary endpoint of the study, [peak power output], was not significantly different between the [Urolithin A] groups versus the placebo group.“ Also: “Another limitation of the study is the finding that some biological pathways were not significantly modulated by UA at all doses.” In other words, the supplement didn't reliably change the biological processes it was supposed to change.
From the Massachusetts medical board spokeswoman: “If, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that the physician violated the Board’s regulations or policies, counsel will prepare a Statement of Allegations. A Statement of Allegations contains the facts and bases of discipline that Complaint Counsel feels can be provided at an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA). If the Board issues the Statement of Allegations, the matter is referred to DALA for litigation. After the matter is adjudicated at DALA, the DALA Magistrate will issue a Recommended Decision for the Board’s consideration. It is at this point the Board can move forward with findings.”