Notice2026-07333
TruHeight; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 15, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Trade Commission
Abstract
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle these allegations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20165-20168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07333]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 242 3093]
TruHeight; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public
Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged
violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or
practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid
Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the
terms of the consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that
would settle these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Please write ``TruHeight; File
No. 242 3093'' on your comment and file your comment online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by following the instructions on the web-based
form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, please mail your
comment to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex T), Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Van Someren Greve (phone: 202-
326-2523), Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34,
notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement
containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with
and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been
placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following
Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent
agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of
the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions</a>.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 15, 2026.
Write ``TruHeight; File No. 242 3093'' on your comment. Your comment--
including your name and your State--will be placed on the public record
of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website.
We encourage you to submit comments through the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Postal mail addressed to the Commission
will be subject to delay because of heightened security screening. If
you prefer to file your comment on paper, write ``TruHeight; File No.
242 3093'' on
[[Page 20166]]
your comment and on the envelope, and send it via overnight service to:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex T), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible
website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, you are solely responsible for
making sure your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential
information. In particular, your comment should not include sensitive
personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security
number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number;
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also
solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include
sensitive health information, such as medical records or other
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial
information which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided by
section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2),
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including competitively sensitive information such
as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices,
manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular,
the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and
must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from
the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in
accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has
been posted on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website--as legally
required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)--we cannot redact or remove your comment
from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that
meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and
the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the FTC website at <a href="https://www.ftc.gov">https://www.ftc.gov</a> to read this document
and the news release describing the proposed settlement. The FTC Act
and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of
public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate.
The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments
it receives on or before May 15, 2026. For information on the
Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, see <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy">https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy</a>.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') has accepted, subject
to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Vanilla
Chip LLC, which does business as TruHeight (``TruHeight''), Eden
Stelmach, and Justin Rapoport (collectively, ``Respondents''). The
proposed consent order (``proposed order'') has been placed on the
public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested
persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the
public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final
the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns TruHeight's marketing and sale of a line of
dietary supplements (the ``TruHeight Products''). The complaint alleges
that Respondents deceptively advertised the TruHeight Products, in
violation of sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act and the Reviews and
Testimonials Rule. It alleges that Respondents made unsubstantiated
claims that TruHeight Products cause increased height and height growth
in children and teenagers, and that clinical studies showed that
TruHeight Products were effective. The complaint also alleges that
Respondents used fake consumer reviews and fake social media profiles
to market TruHeight Products and offered consumers incentives
(including discounts and free products) in return for leaving positive
reviews of TruHeight Products on Respondents' website and on third-
party platforms.
The proposed order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these
alleged violations and fences in similar and related conduct. The
provisions of the order apply to any dietary supplement, food, or drug
marketed or sold by Respondents.
Provision I prohibits representations about increased height and
height growth unless they are non-misleading and substantiated by
competent and reliable scientific evidence. Provision II prohibits
representations about the health benefits, performance, efficacy,
safety, or side effects of covered products other than those covered by
Provision I, unless they are non-misleading and supported by competent
and reliable scientific evidence.
Provision III sets forth document preservation obligations
regarding any competent and reliable scientific evidence proposed
respondents would rely on to satisfy their obligations under Provisions
I and II of the order. Provision IV contains a standard carve-out to
Provisions I and II for FDA-approved claims.
Provision V prohibits misrepresentations about the existence of
reviewers and testimonialists, and their experience with covered
products. Provision VI prohibits providing compensation or other
incentives to consumers in return for writing a consumer review
conditioned on expressing a particular sentiment.
Provision VII requires Respondents to pay the Commission $750,000,
to be paid in three installments. Upon making the required payment, the
remainder of Respondents' liability will be suspended. Provision VIII
sets out additional requirements related to the monetary relief.
Provision IX requires the respondents to provide customer information
to facilitate consumer redress.
Provisions X through XIII of the proposed order contain reporting
and compliance provisions. Provision X mandates that Respondents
acknowledge receipt of the order, distribute the order to principals,
officers, and certain employees and agents, and obtain signed
acknowledgments from them. Provision XI requires them to submit
compliance reports to the Commission one year after the order's
issuance and submit notifications when certain events occur. Under
Provision XII, they must create certain records for ten years and
retain them for five years. Provision XIII provides for the
Commission's continued compliance monitoring of the respondents'
activity during the order's effective dates.
Finally, Provision XIV provides the effective dates of the order,
including that, with exceptions, the order will terminate in 20 years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any
way the proposed order's terms.
[[Page 20167]]
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Mark R.
Meador
Today, the Commission approves the filing of an administrative
complaint and proposed consent order for public comment \1\ resolving
allegations that respondents \2\ violated section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act \3\ and the Reviews and Testimonials Rule.\4\ We
applaud staff for their energetic resolution of this matter and write
separately only to reinforce the importance of the Commission's
enforcement efforts here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission proceeds through administrative proceedings
by respondents' choice.
\2\ Respondents are Vanilla Chip or TruHeight, a Nevada limited
liability company, and individual respondents Eden Stelmach and
Justin Rapoport, who are both co-founders, co-owners, and co-Chief
Executive Officers of TruHeight. Compl. ]] 1-3 (alleging that
Stelmach and Rapoport have each ``formulated, directed, controlled,
had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and
practices . . . described in the complaint'').
\3\ Id. ]] 25-31.
\4\ Id. ]] 32-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents TruHeight and the individual respondents \5\ create,
develop, and sell TruHeight Products,\6\ which respondents have
advertised to ``cause increased height of, and increase height growth
in, children and teenagers.'' \7\ They sold, for example, a ```Max
Height Kit' for $120 per bundle'' that contains ``one bottle of
TruHeight Growth Gummies, one bottle of TruHeight Sleep Gummies, and
one container of TruHeight Protein Shake.'' \8\ To induce consumers to
purchase those products, respondents made several representations,
including that their products ``[h]elp your child grow taller,''
produce ``Real Results,'' and are ``clinically'' or ``scientifically
proven to help height growth.'' \9\ Respondents' website also contained
positive reviews and testimonials from children or teenage users of
TruHeight's Products (or parents of those users) who claimed those
products helped children grow as much as six inches in just one
year.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Supra n.2.
\6\ TruHeight Products are sold in bottles or containers of
TruHeight Growth Capsules, TruHeight Growth Gummies, TruHeight Sleep
Gummies, TruHeight Protein Shake, TruHeight Plant Protein Shake,
TruHeight Kids Brain Gummies, TruHeight Kids Bone Gummies, TruHeight
Appetite Booster Gummies, TruHeight Prebiotic Gummies, TruHeight
Sleep Tincture, and TruHeight Toddler Advanced Formula+, which cost
consumers between $25 to $45 per bottle or container. Compl. ] 6.
\7\ Id. ] 9.
\8\ Id. ] 6.
\9\ Id. ] 10 & Exhibits 1-3.
\10\ Id. ] 10 & Exhibits 4-6; see also id. ]] 17, 20, 22-25
(alleging that respondents also farmed fake social media comments
and interaction by fake Facebook and Instagram profiles for their
social media pages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 5, all advertising claims must have a reasonable
basis before being disseminated.\11\ Health claims are no different.
Claims about products' health benefits must be substantiated by
competent and reliable scientific evidence, as has been routinely
expected by the Commission in past enforcement actions and
investigations.\12\ This is particularly true when those health claims
involve children's health, as they do here.\13\ As ``the Trump
Administration has made . . . clear,'' ``the health and flourishing of
our children is not a bargaining chip'' \14\ and we must ``ensure that
children are protected.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation,
104 F.T.C. 839 (Nov. 23, 1984) (appended to Thompson Med. Co., 104
F.T.C. 648 (1984)).
\12\ See, e.g., Pom Wonderful LLC v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478, 504-05
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (affirming Commission holding that competent and
reliable scientific evidence consisting of RCTs is needed for
disease-related claims); FTC v. COORGA Nutraceuticals Corp., 201 F.
Supp. 3d 1300 (D. Wyo. 2016) (final judgment and order requiring
human clinical testing for claims that product reverses or prevents
formation of gray hair); FTC v. Nat'l Urological Grp., 645 F. Supp.
2d 1167, 1202-03 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (accepting undisputed expert
testimony that erectile dysfunction claims require well-designed,
placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trials for
substantiation); FTC v. Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d
185, 303 (D. Mass. 2008) (``[I]t seems well-accepted that double-
blind, placebo-controlled studies are necessary to substantiate
health-related efficacy claims.''); Removatron Int'l Corp., 111
F.T.C. 206 (1988), aff'd, 884 F.2d 1489, 1498 (1st Cir. 1989)
(requiring ``adequate and well-controlled clinical testing'' to
substantiate claims about hair removal product); Thompson Med. Co.,
104 F.T.C. at 826 (requiring well-controlled clinical studies to
substantiate certain analgesic drug claims).
\13\ Specifically, in this matter, respondents' claims about
their products' ability to cause increased height of and increase
height growth in children and teens are claims related to pediatric
endocrinology, the medical specialization that typically treats
growth issues in children and teenagers. E.g., What is a Pediatric
Endocrinologist?, Pediatric Endocrine Society (last visited Apr. 8,
2026), <a href="https://pedsendo.org/patient-resources/what-is-a-pediatric-endocrinologist/">https://pedsendo.org/patient-resources/what-is-a-pediatric-endocrinologist/</a>.
\14\ Cf. Keynote Speech of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson at 4, The
Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt
Families (June 4, 2025), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/andrew-n-ferguson-keynote-attention-economy-06-04-25.pdf">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/andrew-n-ferguson-keynote-attention-economy-06-04-25.pdf</a>.
\15\ Cf. Exec. Order No. 14365, Ensuring a National Policy
Framework for Artificial Intelligence, 90 FR 58499 (Dec. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint alleges, however, that respondents failed adequately
to substantiate their height-related claims. Instead, they ``rel[ied]
on a single, company-sponsored study . . . [with] substantial flaws''
to substantiate their claims about TruHeight Products.\16\ ``Among
other things,'' the Commission alleges, ``the study is of insufficient
size and duration, lacked proper randomization, [and] failed to control
for [potentially confounding factors, such as] participants' sleep and
nutritional intake.'' \17\ While respondents relied on that single
study for their representations as to all TruHeight Products, in
reality that study ``only evaluated a single TruHeight Product.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Compl. ] 12. While here the Commission alleges this single,
company-sponsored study was insufficient to substantiate
respondents' health claims, the Commission today takes no
dispositive position on whether any single, company-sponsored study
can ever provide the legally required substantiation. Nor should
anyone read this statement as taking such a position. Even so,
potential conflicts of interest and whether a study is replicable or
has been successfully replicated are factors the Commission may
consider when evaluating the sufficiency of a health claim's
substantiation. See Conflicts of Interest, RCR, HHS (last visited
Apr. 8, 2026), <a href="https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/columbia_wbt/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index.html">https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/columbia_wbt/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index.html</a> (explaining the issues with
conflicts of interest, such as ``a situation in which financial or
other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or
bias professional judgment and objectivity,'' when it comes to
medical and health research); F. Alahab, et. al., Are these results
trustworthy? A guide for reading the medical literature, NIH (Apr.
2017), <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5398002/">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5398002/</a> (explaining
that certain health decisions ``should be based on a body of
evidence'' but single studies can and should be evaluated for
trustworthiness).
\17\ Compl. ] 12.
\18\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is more, the complaint alleges the consumer testimonials and
reviews respondents placed on their website were fake or purchased
without proper disclosure. Some ``were not written or created by
actual, existing consumers, but instead by Vanilla Chip employees.''
\19\ While others may have come from actual consumers, at least some of
those consumers received ``incentives'' to ``le[ave] . . . requested 5-
star reviews,'' such as ``reimburse[ments]'' for TruHeight Products or
``10 percent discount[s] on their next order,'' on third-party sites
like Amazon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. ] 19.
\20\ Id. ]] 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is deeply concerned about the use of unsubstantiated
health claims used to induce consumers into paying hard-earned money in
the hopes of obtaining health benefits for their children. Tricking
parents and children to fall (and thus pay money) for unsubstantiated
health claims about products that have no effect on children is bad
enough. But it is even worse when the unsubstantiated health claims are
for products, services, or treatments that harm children, either
temporarily
[[Page 20168]]
or permanently. In such cases, families suffer not only financial harm,
as here, but also harm to their children's physical safety and
development, mental well-being, and ``health and flourishing.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Keynote Speech of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, supra n.14
at 4; see Chairman Andrew. N. Ferguson, Directive Regarding
Healthcare Task Force (Mar. 20, 2026), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Memorandum-Ferguson-re-Healthcare-Task-Force.pdf">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Memorandum-Ferguson-re-Healthcare-Task-Force.pdf</a>
(explaining the importance of quality, access, and transparency in
our healthcare markets to consumers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed consent order announced today would obtain all the
consumer redress that respondents are able to pay and forbid
respondents from continuing their allegedly unlawful conduct. The
Commission looks forward to hearing from the public about the proposed
administrative order resolving those allegations.
[FR Doc. 2026-07333 Filed 4-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 15, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.