Hims & Hers Super Bowl controversy: What the ad left out about its 'alternative' weight-loss drugs
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
A Super Bowl commercial put out by the telehealth company Hims & Hers is drawing heat from critics who say the company's promotion of its weight-loss drugs misled consumers by leaving out key information.
At the center of the controversy are so-called compounded medications, which aren't regulated in the same way as brand-name or generic drugs are and aren't formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In an ad spot that positioned Hims & Hers against "Big Pharma" and a system "leaving Americans sick and stuck," the company advertised itself as a service offering inexpensive GLP-1 agonists or semaglutides — the class of medications that includes Ozempic and Wegovy. The brand-name versions of these medications are FDA-approved to manage Type 2 diabetes and obesity, as well as related conditions like cardiovascular disease.
Hims & Hers offers compounded versions of these drugs, which are not FDA-approved.
Related: Ozempic-like meds linked to higher risk of pancreatitis, 'stomach paralysis' than other weight-loss drugs
It took an eagle eye to spot that disclaimer on the Hims & Hers ad, however, as it was printed in small white font on a gray background. The ad also did not follow a practice required for FDA-approved medications, which is listing possible side effects of the drugs and contraindications — meaning medical conditions or treatments that might prevent a person from using the drug safely.
That's a problem, according to critics.
"By mass marketing and mass producing compound medications, we are devolving the safety of our drug supply," said Shabbir Imber Safdar, the executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines, a nonprofit coalition of stakeholders in the drug supply chain, from manufacturers to wholesalers to patient advocates. "We're not having a debate about it, and we're not even educating Americans about it."
It's a common misconception that what clinics like Hims & Hers sell — at a fraction of the cost of branded pharmaceuticals — are generic versions of drugs. But compounded medications aren't generics, which must be manufactured with the same ingredients and by the same processes as brand-name pharmaceuticals.
Instead, compounded drugs are manufactured with the same active ingredients as generics and brand-names, but without the same regulations to control their production and labeling.
There are two places where compounded medications are made. The first is in small or neighborhood pharmacies, where pharmacists can customize small batches of drugs for patients with special needs. This is why compounded medications exist, Safdar told Live Science: A pharmacist may need to make a medication that is in shortage, or might need to somehow modify the "official" version of the drug. For example, they might make a liquid version of a drug only available in pill form for a patient who can't swallow pills, or they might replace a non-active ingredient for a patient with an allergy to it. These pharmacies are regulated under state pharmacy boards.
Compounded drugs can also be made in what are called bulk outsourcing facilities, some of which are very large. These facilities are inspected by the FDA for safety, and manufacturers must buy their ingredients from FDA-approved suppliers. But the resulting drugs and the process by which they are made aren't clinically tested, which is why the resulting drugs are not FDA-approved.
They are also not subject to the same supply-chain tracking as FDA-approved drugs are. Any FDA-approved medicine, whether generic or branded, has a unique serial number that links it back to its manufacturer. Compounded medicines don't fall under this requirement.
"A big problem, if a compounding facility makes you a drug that was prescribed by a doctor you've never met in person, is you're now holding a vial you're expected to inject into yourself and there's actually no way to know where it came from," Safdar said.
If there's a problem, it's more difficult to pinpoint who's liable, and more challenging to investigate if more users of the drug might be impacted. Track-and-trace also prevents counterfeit drugs from entering the system.
Looser labeling requirements for compounded versions of GLP-1s can also lead to confusion about dosage, according to an FDA alert issued in July 2024. The agency had received reports of patients being hospitalized after accidental dosing errors with compounded weight-loss drugs. There have also been alarms about compounding pharmacies using different versions of the active ingredients in these medications, leading to adverse events.
Compounded medications have led to tragedy before. In 2012, unsanitary conditions at a compounding pharmacy caused a 20-state outbreak of fungal meningitis that killed 64 people and infected nearly 800 others.
Related: Childhood obesity should be treated early and aggressively, new guidelines say. Is that safe?
Hims & Hers uses compounded semaglutide only from FDA-regulated bulk outsourcing facilities, said Dr. Craig Primack, the company's senior vice president of weight loss. Patients can check the testing related to their batch of medication on the company's app, Primack told Live Science.
This testing covers bacterial and viral contamination, impurities, and whether the concentration of the drug is correct. Primack said that because Hims & Hers is not a drug manufacturer, the company is not subject to the FDA's doctrine of fair balance, which requires that product advertisements include information about risks and side effects alongside benefits. Patients get that information during the consultation and prescription process, he said.
However, the idea that providers of compounded medications don't have to list side effects or risks has gotten pushback from Senators Riachard Durbin (D-IL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS). They wrote a letter to the FDA Friday (Feb. 7) expressing concern that the lack of fair balance is a loophole for those selling compounded medications.
RELATED STORIES
–Ozempic-style drugs tied to more than 60 health benefits and risks in biggest study-of-its-kind
–Ozempic-like drugs may treat alcohol addiction
–Fat cells have a 'memory' of obesity
"To the extent this falls within a regulatory loophole for the FDA's authorities, we plan to soon introduce bipartisan legislation to close this gap," Durbin and Marshall wrote.
Companies like Hims & Hers are allowed to offer compounded versions of Ozempic and Wegovy because the brand-name drugs are in shortage and have been for years. For consumers, it's an appealing option: The company offers brand-name Ozempic for $1,799 a month, out of pocket, while their compounded semaglutide starts at just $165 a month.
But compounding was never meant to provide a cheaper, mass-market version of FDA-approved medications, Safdar said. Nor were patients ever meant to have to navigate the difference, he emphasized.
"We need compounding," Safdar said. "But the rules were designed [the way they were] because no one ever thought we would have wide-scale usage of these medications."
The Hims & Hers Super Bowl commercial signals a potential shift in this status quo — one that may soon get its moment for debate if Durbin and Marshall's bill moves forward.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Eating this Middle Eastern staple daily can lower your cholesterol: study
Give peas a chance! A little legume widely beloved in the Middle Eastern world can offer massive benefits to your heart, a new study has found. And the best part is that this versatile, beige gem is incredibly affordable and probably already in your pantry. Advertisement 3 A new study has found that a little legume widely beloved in the Middle Eastern world can offer massive benefits to your heart. Lorenzo Dottorini – The research — recently presented at the NUTRITION 2025 conference — identified chickpeas as the key to significantly lowering cholesterol and inflammation in people with pre-diabetes. More research would be needed to gain a larger sense of the health benefits, particularly in people who are not prediabetic. Advertisement The study included only 72 participants and lasted just 12 weeks, and the results were similar to eating white rice. However, the findings align with other research indicating chickpeas lead the way in heart-healthy foods. 3 The research identified chickpeas as the key to significantly lowering cholesterol and inflammation in people with pre-diabetes. – The hummus veg's high fiber content, particularly soluble fiber, is believed to bind with cholesterol in the digestive system and help flush it out of the body. Advertisement The fiber also promotes healthy gut bacteria and keeps the bowel moving, while chickpeas' low glycemic index can contribute to better blood sugar levels. Legumes in general can mimic the hunger-killing effects of drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, thereby promoting weight loss by keeping you fuller for longer. A cup of chickpeas can deliver over 12.5 grams of fiber and nearly 15 grams of plant-based protein — all for under 270 calories. Advertisement They're also a rich source of iron, potassium and magnesium — essential nutrients that support overall health. The new study found that black beans had a similar effect on heart health, which is no real surprise. 3 Black beans are rich in antioxidants that help fight inflammation and may reduce the risk of chronic diseases. jitanong714 – A cup of cooked black beans provides about 15 grams of protein and 15 grams of fiber at under 230 calories. They're also rich in antioxidants — particularly anthocyanins, the same compounds that give blueberries their health rap — which help fight inflammation and may reduce the risk of chronic conditions like heart disease and cancer. Plus, black beans boast key nutrients like folate, iron, magnesium and potassium, which support everything from brain function to healthy blood pressure. 'The soluble fiber in these legumes helps to lower cholesterol by reducing how much is absorbed into the bloodstream,' registered dietitian Maddie Gallivan, who was not involved with the new study, told Medical News Today. 'When eaten as part of a diverse, plant-rich diet, beans and chickpeas can support a healthy gut microbiome.'
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Domino's Pizza, McDonald's rating surprise tied to persistent consumer issue
Domino's Pizza, McDonald's rating surprise tied to persistent consumer issue originally appeared on TheStreet. Even the Hamburglar didn't see this one coming. Excessive weight has been a persistent problem in America, where at least one in five adults in each U.S. state is living with obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 💵💰💰💵 As obesity rates have risen, so have scientists' efforts to address this serious health issue, which can cause asthma, heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and even some cancers. Early attempts to treat obesity came to the market as early as the 1930s. Amphetamines were the prevalent treatment in the 1940s and 1950s and demand continued into the 1990s. Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, which mimic the action of the naturally occurring hormone GLP-1, have been available for about two decades. GLP-1 medications, including Ozempic, Wegovy, Zepbound and Mounjaro, have been used for years to treat Type 2 diabetes, and studies have found that they are also effective at encouraging weight loss. Wegovy and Ozempic are manufactured by Novo Nordisk () , while Eli Lilly () makes Zepbound and Mounjaro. One investment firm says increased use of these medications could have serious implications for two of the biggest names in the fast-food industry: McDonald's () and Domino's Pizza () . The market for anti-obesity drugs, particularly those using injectable versions of GLP 1-based drugs, is still new and continuously evolving, Goldman Sachs said in a May 22 report. More Restaurants Beloved Mexican restaurant closing iconic location after 63 years Major restaurant chain quietly closes several locations Iconic restaurant closing its doors after 32 years The investment firm lowered its projections for such medication and now forecasts the global market to reach $95 billion by 2030. That's down from the previous estimate of $130 billion to reflect trends influencing how the drugs are priced, how long patients stay on them, and how patient populations are segmented. Goldman lowered its U.S. market projections to a peak of $70 billion, but the firm sees room for greater penetration in markets outside the U.S. Goldman forecasts a market peak of $50 billion outside the US, compared with $35 billion previously. A survey of more than 50 doctors in the US found that lower doses of anti-obesity medications are working well for a majority of patients and insurance coverage is the most important factor in the decision-making process, Goldman Sachs wrote. 'But to be clear, even with this moderated forecast, we see a significant growth opportunity for both existing players as well as new entrants into this market,' said Asad Haider, head of the health-care business unit within Goldman Sachs Research. Demand for GPL-1 drugs could dramatically hinder the food and restaurant industries, according to a study from Cornell's SC Johnson College of Business and the data firm Numerator. The report, entitled "The No Hunger Games," found that households with at least one user of GLP-1 drugs reduced its grocery spending by about 6% within six months of starting the drugs. The spending cut was as much as 9% for higher-income households. "We also find an 8.6% decline in spending at fast-food chains, coffee shops and limited-service restaurants," the study said. "Our findings highlight the potential for GLP-1 medications to significantly change food demand, a trend with increasingly important implications for the food industry as GLP-1 adoption continues to grow." The study warned that common side effects of GLP-1 medications, such as nausea, vomiting and gastrointestinal discomfort, have reportedly led to reduced adherence or discontinued use for some patients."Moreover, their long-term efficacy and safety remain areas of ongoing investigation," the report said. Redburn Atlantic analyst Chris Luyckx focused on the growing adoption of GLP-1 in recent research reports. Luyckx double-downgraded McDonald's to sell from buy with a price target of $260, down from $319. The analyst expects the GLP-1 weight-loss drugs to suppress consumer appetites and says they present an underappreciated longer-term threat for McDonald's. A 1% drag on sales today "could easily build to 10% or more over time," particularly for restaurant brands skewed toward lower-income consumers, the analyst tells investors in a research note. McDonald's stock was down about 1.3% at last check and is up 18.5% from a year ago. Redburn Atlantic also initiated coverage of Domino's Pizza with a sell rating and $340 price target. Domino's, the world's largest pizza chain, faces the heaviest pressure from adoption of GLP-1 weight loss drugs, with high exposure to dinner occasions and lower-income consumers, the firm said. Redburn Atlantic said the company's organic traffic remains weak, with carry-out far outpacing delivery. Challenged system-sales growth and elevated consensus expectations present downside risk for Domino's, the firm said. McDonald's closed regular trading on June 10 down 1.4% at $300.43. Domino's shares were off 2.7% at $ Pizza, McDonald's rating surprise tied to persistent consumer issue first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 10, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 10, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Montana Supreme Court strikes down trio of abortion bills as unconstitutional
In this photo illustration, packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed at a family planning clinic on April 13, 2023 in Rockville, Maryland. A Massachusetts appeals court temporarily blocked a Texas-based federal judge's ruling that suspended the FDA's approval of the abortion drug Mifepristone, which is part of a two-drug regimen to induce an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy in combination with the drug Misoprostol. (Photo illustration by) A trio of abortion-related bills, passed in 2021, were declared unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Montana Supreme Court on Monday. Nearly, because Justice Jim Rice wrote both a concurring and dissenting opinion affirming again Montana's constitutionally protected right-to-privacy, which includes medical procedures and abortion. The laws were halted before they could even be practically enacted, so the hurdles to the procedure, including waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, a pile of documentation and banning abortion after 20 weeks, even before the point of fetal viability, never rippled throughout the state. Justice Beth Baker wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, which not only reaffirmed the state Constitution's right-to-privacy as unique and separate from federal cases on abortion, but also took the state to task for failing to support its claim that the State of Montana had a compelling interest in abortion, while not proving that any of the legislative hurdles were scientifically supported. The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood of Montana, and had a handful of other entities that wrote friends-of-the-court briefs, including a group of delegates to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention. The three laws that were challenged were House Bill 136, House Bill 140 and House Bill 171: HB 136 would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, even though expert opinion agreed that fetal viability is not possible until at least 22 weeks. HB 171 would have put paperwork and more requirements for healthcare providers who provide abortion via medication or telehealth, subjecting them to both civil and criminal penalties. HB 180 would have required healthcare professionals to provide both ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tones to those considering abortion, and requiring a patient to sign a form created by the state, demonstrating that the patient had been offered the choice, and yet declined. Because fetal viability — or the concept a child can survive outside the womb — is dictated by a host of factors, including medical science and approximate age of the fetus, the court rejected the state's attempts to prescribe a fixed number of weeks for viability. 'A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider's case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual's private medical decision,' the ruling said. 'Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends. 'We find no legal authority for the idea that the state's interest in preserving fetal life or the fetus' right to life takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother.' Attorneys for the state had argued that physical safety risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses, and that abortions lead to worse mental health outcomes, an argument that the Supreme Court dismissed and debunked. 'The record shows that abortion is safe,' the decision said. 'As the district court noted, there were zero deaths cause by abortion in Montana between 2010 and 2020 and only 25 of 8,402 (0.3%) reported abortions in Montana from 2016 to 2021 resulted in complications. This court cannot find a bona fide health risk simply based on a detailed step-by-step description of what the state defines as 'barbaric' and 'gruesome' procedure when the overwhelming evidence shows that procedural abortions are safe.' The ruling also said if the state wanted to address health outcomes or mental health issues, banning abortion was not the least restrictive way to do it. The court also pointed out waiting-periods and requiring multiple in-person visits, as outlined by HB 171, actually increased the odds of harm or complications, instead of avoiding them. 'The record demonstrates that compliance with the 24-hour wait period, the multiple in-person visits, and the telehealth ban serve only to delay access to abortion care — thus increasing the odds that the patient will not be able to obtain an abortion or increasing the odds of the very complications this state asserts it wishes to protect against,' the opinion said. The ruling also said in addition to violating the state's constitutional provisions for privacy, it also impacted physician's free-speech rights by requiring them to provide forms and documents, for example, information about a disputed abortion reversal procedure, that have not been medically verified or supported. They said HB 171 compelled healthcare professionals to give advice contrary to their training and conscience. Physicians and experts also raised concerns about the state's assertion abortion led to other health care concerns, for example, an increase in breast cancer, which has never been scientifically established. 'Forcing medical providers to give medical advice that they disagree with — like the safety and efficacy of abortion reversal — is a form of compelled-speech triggering protections,' the ruling said. '(Planned Parenthood) asserts that patients may mistakenly understand the consent form to indicate DPHHS's and their provider's approval of abortion reversal.' The ruling calls such compelled speech egregious because it 'favors one viewpoint over another — namely, the viewpoint that abortion reversal is safe and possible over the judgements and viewpoints of providers that it is unsafe, ineffective and undermines informed consent.' The court noted the state does not mandate documentation or consent that requires medical providers to discuss the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Finally, the court also called into question the real purpose of HB 140, which mandates ultrasounds and fetal heart tones before an abortion, something that providers said either happens during the course of pregnancy, but may not be medically necessary. 'The court stated it was 'left with the strong impression that the law aims to advance the ulterior motive of discouraging abortion,' which is unacceptable under the law,' the ruling said. Montana's highest court found that in the case of HB 140, it was exactly substituting the judgment of the state, and the lawmakers who supported it, with the views of the doctor. 'The court's decision further protects what Montanans need and deserve: Legal access to compassionate, timely abortion care, free from government interference. At the same moment as this win for Montanans, anti-abortion politicians continue to threaten to decimate access to care by 'defunding' Planned Parenthood via the reconciliation bill before Congress, in an effort to shut down health centers who provide abortion and other reproductive care. Montanans agree that abortion should remain legal and accessible, and Planned Parenthood of Montana will always do whatever we can to ensure that patients in Montana have access to abortion care,' said Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Montana Planned Parenthood, after the ruling in a statement. The case was active for several years of litigation, and had district court Judge Amy Eddy sitting in place of former Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who retired at the end of 2024, as well as Judge Shane Vannatta, who was sitting in for Dirk Sandefur, who also retired. McGrath has since been replaced by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and Sandefur was succeeded by Justice Katherine Bidegaray.