Listen to the article
In a significant development for the consumer health testing industry, Function Health has initiated a legal battle against rival startup Superpower, filing a false advertising lawsuit that challenges the marketing practices of its competitor.
The lawsuit, submitted on January 26 to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, primarily contests Superpower’s recurring claim that its baseline membership provides customers with “100+ lab tests” or “100+ biomarkers” annually.
According to Function Health’s complaint, Superpower’s service actually delivers approximately 55 direct laboratory measurements, with the remainder of the advertised “100+” figure consisting of calculated ratios or indices derived from those measured values rather than additional laboratory tests. Function alleges this presentation creates a misleading impression about the scope of testing services provided, particularly when Superpower uses these figures in comparative marketing against Function.
Function Health maintains that its own membership package includes access to more than 160 lab tests annually, structured as over 100 initial tests followed by more than 60 follow-up tests later in the membership period.
The legal filing also takes issue with Superpower’s comparative advertising strategies, which Function claims are designed to position Superpower as an equivalent or superior service at a lower price point. Currently, a Function membership is priced at $365 annually, while Superpower’s baseline membership costs $199 per year, though this price varies by state.
Beyond the biomarker counting dispute, Function’s complaint outlines several additional allegations, including misleading marketing claims distributed through social media video content, misrepresentations regarding clinical support services, and false statements about blood-testing access points.
The legal confrontation comes at a time when both companies have secured significant funding. Function Health raised $298 million in November, reaching a valuation of $2.5 billion, while Superpower secured $30 million in investment capital last April.
This case highlights a growing tension within the consumer biomarker testing industry regarding how companies define and market their services. Central questions include how to transparently distinguish between directly measured values versus calculated metrics, how to appropriately characterize clinical support offerings, and where the line exists between competitive marketing and actionable misrepresentation.
Industry analysts note that the preventive health testing market has experienced rapid growth in recent years as consumers become increasingly proactive about health monitoring. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated interest in remote and convenient health testing options, creating fertile ground for companies offering subscription-based testing services.
The outcome of this legal action could have broader implications for marketing practices throughout the health optimization sector. If the court grants injunctive relief or the parties reach a settlement that requires changes to marketing language, it could establish precedents for how companies in this space communicate about biomarkers, clinical support, and comparative value propositions.
Health technology attorney Regina Martinez, not affiliated with either company, commented on the case: “This lawsuit reflects the growing pains of an emerging industry where terminology isn’t yet standardized. What constitutes a ‘biomarker’ or ‘lab test’ in marketing materials versus scientific contexts is exactly the kind of definitional boundary that litigation helps clarify.”
As of publication, Superpower’s legal representatives had not responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
The case arrives as investment continues flowing into consumer health testing, with analysts predicting the global market for direct-to-consumer laboratory testing will reach $2.1 billion by 2025, highlighting the significant financial stakes underlying this legal confrontation.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This dispute between Function Health and Superpower highlights the need for tighter regulation and oversight in the health testing industry. Consumers should be able to easily verify the scope of services they’re purchasing.
You raise a fair point. More robust industry guidelines and enforcement could help ensure health tech companies are held to high standards of transparency and honesty in their marketing claims.
Interesting legal battle brewing in the health testing industry. It seems Function Health is alleging deceptive marketing practices by rival Superpower, claiming their ‘100+ lab tests’ figure is misleading. Curious to see how this plays out and whether Superpower will adjust their claims.
Transparency around the scope of services provided is crucial for consumers to make informed choices. I hope this lawsuit leads to more accurate and truthful marketing in the health testing space.
The lawsuit alleges Superpower is inflating their ‘100+ lab tests’ claim, which seems misleading. As a consumer, I would want clear, accurate information about the scope of testing services to make an informed decision. Kudos to Function Health for taking legal action.
Agreed. Clarity and truth in advertising are crucial, especially for sensitive health services. Lawsuits like this can push the industry in a more transparent direction, which benefits consumers.
False advertising claims in the health tech space are concerning. Consumers need to be able to trust that the services they’re paying for deliver what’s promised. Kudos to Function Health for taking legal action to hold their competitor accountable.
I agree, it’s good to see a company stand up against misleading marketing tactics. Hopefully this lawsuit encourages more rigorous truth-in-advertising standards across the industry.
This is an important issue that goes beyond just these two companies. Consumers deserve clear and honest information when selecting health testing services. I hope the court case sheds light on industry practices and leads to positive change.
You’re right, this case could have wider implications for consumer protection in the health tech sector. It will be interesting to see if it prompts a broader industry discussion around marketing claims and transparency.