Codeage LLC, a Los Angeles dietary supplement company, has been the subject of several legal actions in recent years. The most significant are two California Proposition 65 settlements over lead in its supplements; the company has also faced a New York website accessibility lawsuit, and its parent entity lost a World Intellectual Property Organization domain case in which the panel found it had filed in bad faith. Codeage denied wrongdoing in the Prop 65 matters, and neither settlement is an admission of liability.
Two Proposition 65 Lead Settlements
California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to chemicals the state has identified as causing cancer or reproductive harm. Private nonprofits can enforce the law by filing a 60-day notice of violation and, if the matter does not resolve, pursuing litigation. Codeage has settled two such enforcement actions, both alleging lead in its supplements without the required warning.
Full Spectrum Binder+ (2024)
In May 2024, Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. served a 60-day notice alleging that Codeage’s “Full Spectrum Binder + Codeage Supplement” contained lead without a Prop 65 warning. The notice also named retailers Spartacus Brands LLC and Amazon.com.1California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2024-02057
Codeage and EHA signed a settlement on August 14, 2024. Codeage agreed to pay $20,000 in total: $2,000 in civil penalties split between the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and EHA, and $18,000 in attorney fees and costs to EHA and its counsel, Entorno Law, LLP.2California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, EHA v. Codeage LLC
Starting 30 days after the agreement took effect, Codeage was required to either reformulate the product so it exposes consumers to no more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per serving, or provide a clear Prop 65 warning on packaging and on any website selling the product into California. The warning must appear in a box, in at least six-point type, and must reference the state’s Prop 65 information page. Codeage denied all allegations and maintained its products comply with applicable law.2California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, EHA v. Codeage LLC
Liposomal Moringa+ (2025)
On August 22, 2025, CalSafe Research Center, Inc., represented by Manning Law, APC, filed a 60-day notice alleging that Codeage’s “Liposomal Moringa+” supplement contained lead and lead compounds without a required warning.3California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2025-03259
The matter settled on October 31, 2025, for $16,500 in total: a $1,650 civil penalty and $14,850 in attorney fees and costs. As with the earlier settlement, Codeage was permanently prohibited from selling the product in California if it exposes a consumer to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per serving without a compliant warning. Codeage again denied the allegations.4California Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement, CalSafe Research Center v. Codeage LLC
A Third, Unresolved Notice
A separate Prop 65 notice was filed in July 2024 by an individual named Ema Bell, alleging the presence of diethanolamine in Codeage’s “Eternal Platinum NAD Serum.” The notice also named Spartacus Brands LLC and several Macy’s entities.5California Department of Justice. 60-Day Notice, AG Number 2024-02930 Available records do not show a settlement or other resolution of this notice.
What Codeage Says About Prop 65 Warnings
Codeage maintains a Proposition 65 disclosures page on its website acknowledging that some products may contain chemicals on the Prop 65 list, and stating that it provides warnings to California consumers when a listed chemical appears above the established threshold, unless the chemical is naturally occurring in an ingredient. The company’s stated position is that a Prop 65 warning “does not signify that a product is unsafe,” and that the thresholds triggering these warnings are “much lower than the safety levels set by other agencies such as the FDA, EPA, WHO, and other health organizations.”6Codeage. Prop 65 Disclosures Products
Website Accessibility Lawsuit
On May 30, 2023, a plaintiff named Janelys Hernandez filed suit in New York alleging that Codeage’s website, codeage.com, was not sufficiently digitally accessible. A scan of the website shortly after the filing detected an AccessiBe third-party accessibility overlay.7Accessibility.com. Janelys Hernandez vs Codeage LLC Available records do not include a final ruling or settlement.
WIPO Domain Case and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Finding
Codeage’s parent entity, Spartacus Brands LLC, holds several U.S. trademark registrations for “Codeage” and “Code Age.” In 2025, Spartacus Brands filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization challenging an Indian company’s ownership of the domain “decodeage.com.”
A WIPO panel denied the complaint on May 16, 2025, finding that the respondent, an Indian firm called Centenarians Life Sciences that markets products under the “Decode Age” brand, had its own legitimate trademark registrations. The panel went further, ruling that Spartacus Brands had engaged in “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” by filing the complaint in bad faith. The panel cited the company’s failure to disclose the respondent’s trademark rights and what it called misleading statements about the respondent’s responsiveness to legal communications. Spartacus Brands had also filed separate U.S. trademark infringement proceedings against the Indian company in May 2024, after which the respondent stopped marketing products in the United States.8WIPO. Spartacus Brands LLC v. Parth Amin, WIPO Case No. D2025-1023
A separate Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding brought against Codeage LLC by Wunderwerks, Inc. in April 2021 has since terminated.9Law360. Wunderwerks Inc v Codeage LLC