Dr. Berg Lawsuit: Class Action, Prop 65 & Board Discipline

Dr. Eric Berg and his supplement company have been named in several legal actions. The active one is a 2023 California class action lawsuit against Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC alleging that its “Original Keto Electrolytes” powder is falsely marketed as containing no artificial ingredients. His company previously paid $82,500 to settle a California Proposition 65 case over lead in four of its supplements, and Berg himself was reprimanded and fined $1,500 by the Virginia Board of Medicine in 2007 for practicing outside the scope of chiropractic care and running misleading advertisements.

The 2023 Electrolyte Powder Class Action

A California consumer named Scheibe filed a class action against Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC on January 17, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case, Scheibe v. Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC (Case No. 3:23-cv-00084-DMS-JLB), targets the company’s “Original Keto Electrolytes” powder, sold in seven flavors including raspberry and lemon, grape, orange, and strawberry lemonade.¹

The product’s front label states “No Artificial Anything!” and its Amazon storefront reads “Zero Artificial Ingredients.” The plaintiff says both claims are false because the powder contains DL malic acid, which the complaint describes as a synthetic substance manufactured from petrochemicals.² FDA regulations draw the same distinction the lawsuit relies on: L-malic acid occurs naturally in foods, while “racemic DL-malic acid does not occur naturally” and is produced commercially by hydrating fumaric acid or maleic acid.³

According to the complaint, the ingredient list says only “malic acid,” which the plaintiff contends hides that the synthetic DL form is being used, and the product lacks the “Artificially Flavored” disclosure that both federal and California law require when a synthetic flavoring is used to simulate a fruit flavor. The suit argues the “clean label” claims let the company charge a premium that consumers would not have paid had the labeling been accurate.¹

The complaint brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200), the False Advertising Law (§ 17500), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. The proposed class covers all California consumers who bought any flavor of the product in the four years before the complaint was filed.² Available records do not show a resolution.

The Proposition 65 Lead Settlement

In November 2021, the Environmental Research Center, a California nonprofit, sued The Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (doing business as Dr. Berg Nutritionals) in Alameda County Superior Court. The case (No. 21CV001657) alleged that four Dr. Berg supplements exposed California consumers to lead without the warnings required by Proposition 65, the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.⁴

The products named were:

Dr. Berg Cruciferous Superfood Phytonutrient Complex
Dr. Berg Estrogen Balance With DIM
Dr. Berg Keto Meal Replacement Shake (Chocolate Brownie Flavor)
Dr. Berg’s Instant Kale Shake Chocolate

The parties resolved the case by stipulated consent judgment. Dr. Berg Nutritionals agreed to pay $82,500 total: $38,325 in civil penalties split between a state environmental fund and the plaintiff, $28,728 earmarked for programs reducing toxic chemical exposure, roughly $15,400 in the plaintiff’s legal fees and costs, and the remainder as reimbursement. The settlement did not include any admission of a violation.⁵

The consent judgment also permanently bars the company from selling the four products in California if they expose a consumer to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day, unless the company provides a compliant Proposition 65 warning on the label and, for online orders shipping to California, on the checkout page. The company has to run independent third-party lead testing on the products annually for at least three consecutive years.⁵

The 2007 Virginia Board of Medicine Discipline

On September 13, 2007, the Virginia Board of Medicine entered a consent order against Eric Berg, D.C. (License No. 0104-001851) over conduct at his Alexandria, Virginia practice between 2000 and 2006.⁶

The Board found that Berg used four techniques that fell outside the scope of chiropractic practice and lacked scientific or medical evidence of effectiveness: Body Restoration Technique, Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Technique, Contact Reflex Analysis, and the Acoustic Cardiograph. It also found inadequate patient records, missing signed consent forms, lost records for three patients requested during the investigation, and misleading advertising about the effectiveness of these techniques for conditions including allergies, thyroid problems, infertility, and fibromyalgia.⁷ The Board also cited his failure to clarify in advertising that he was a chiropractor rather than a medical doctor, and flagged an advertisement that described his book Dr. Berg’s Body Shape Diets as a “medical textbook.”⁶

Berg received a formal reprimand and a $1,500 fine. He was ordered to stop using and advertising all four techniques, complete six hours of continuing education in medical recordkeeping within six months, and submit to an unannounced inspection of his practice within a year. The order warned that any violation could lead to license suspension. Berg did not admit or deny the findings but agreed not to contest them.⁶

A Copyright Case Berg Filed Himself

One case in the record has Berg as the plaintiff rather than the defendant. On February 27, 2017, he filed Dr. Eric Berg, D.C. v. Dr. Jacob Torres (Case No. 5:17-cv-00153) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging copyright infringement against Torres, the Institute for Functional Health, LLC, and UC4Life Wellness Center LLC. Available records do not describe what content was allegedly copied. The parties settled through mediation in July 2018, and the case was dismissed on an agreed motion on October 10, 2018.⁸

1
ClassAction.org. Scheibe v. Dr. Berg Holdings LLC Class Action Complaint
2
ClassAction.org. Dr. Berg Electrolyte Powder Naturally Flavored Not So Much Class Action Claims
3
eCFR. 21 CFR 184.1069 – Malic Acid
4
California Attorney General. Prop 65 Settlement – Environmental Research Center v. The Health and Wellness Center
5
California Attorney General. Prop 65 Consent Judgment – Environmental Research Center v. The Health and Wellness Center
6
Quackwatch. Eric Berg DC – Virginia Board of Medicine Consent Order
7
Quackwatch. Body Restoration Technique
8
CourtListener. Dr. Eric Berg DC v. Dr. Jacob Torres