.png)
Judge Dismisses Eli Lilly’s Lawsuit Over Compounded Zepbound & Mounjaro
- Amber Bechthold
- Oct 9
- 2 min read
A major legal development has drawn the attention of the entire aesthetic and compounding industry. A federal court in Delaware has officially dismissed Eli Lilly & Co.’s lawsuit against Strive Compounding Pharmacy — a case centered on compounded versions of tirzepatide, the active ingredient used in Zepbound® and Mounjaro®.
What Happened
Eli Lilly had accused Strive Compounding of unlawful advertising and “copycat” promotion of compounded tirzepatide products. However, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction because Lilly did not establish a sufficient connection between Strive’s online marketing and the state of Delaware.
The ruling dismissed the case on procedural grounds, with the court suggesting that Lilly could refile the case in a state where jurisdiction is proper. Importantly, Lilly made clear that its lawsuit was focused on online statements and marketing claims, not the act of compounding or selling tirzepatide itself.
Why It Matters
This ruling represents an important procedural win for compounding pharmacies — and a reminder for the aesthetic and wellness sectors to stay alert. The case doesn’t decide whether compounding tirzepatide is legal, but it emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction and online advertising in pharmaceutical and aesthetic compliance.
Key Takeaways for Clinics and Compounders
1. Jurisdiction matters more than ever.
Just because marketing is online doesn’t mean a company can be sued in every state where a website is visible. This precedent highlights the limits of federal jurisdiction when it comes to nationwide online advertising.
2. Marketing claims are still under the microscope.
Even though the lawsuit was dismissed, the focus on Strive’s advertising language shows how easily marketing content can attract legal scrutiny. Phrases implying “identical” products or clinical equivalence to branded drugs may expose clinics or pharmacies to regulatory and legal risk.
3. Compliance and documentation are your defense.
Clinics should continue verifying that:
Prescriptions for compounded medications are patient-specific.
The compounding pharmacy uses FDA-registered sources.
All marketing materials include accurate, compliant disclaimers.
Records of Good Faith Exams, informed consent, and delegation protocols are maintained.
4. The broader GLP-1 debate continues.
This ruling doesn’t close the door on future lawsuits. Manufacturers like Eli Lilly may refile in other jurisdictions, and regulators could still issue additional enforcement guidance on compounded GLP-1 products.
ACE’s Perspective
At Aesthetic Compliance Experts (ACE), we see this case as a critical turning point. It reinforces that compliance isn’t just clinical — it’s legal and digital. The way clinics advertise, describe, and delegate compounded products online can determine their exposure in both civil and regulatory arenas.
ACE will continue monitoring every legal and regulatory update affecting compounded medications, weight-loss services, and aesthetic practices nationwide — translating each ruling into actionable compliance guidance for your clinic.
Reference:
Judge Drops Eli Lilly’s Suit Over Compounded Zepbound, Mounjaro — Bloomberg Law, October 8, 2025
Comments