What Is the Mochi Health Lawsuit?
The Mochi Health lawsuit is a federal business dispute in which Eli Lilly accuses the telehealth company Mochi Health Corp. of selling compounded tirzepatide through deceptive and unlawful practices. Lilly filed it on April 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as Case No. 3:25-cv-03534.
Mochi Health is a telehealth platform that sells weight loss treatment. Lilly makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, the FDA-approved tirzepatide medicines. The complaint names five defendants: Mochi Health Corp., Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Mochi Medical P.A., Aequita Pharmacy LLC and Aequita Corporation.
The case is not a patient injury lawsuit, and no group of patients is suing. Two other suits also involve Mochi Health. Novo Nordisk sued in August 2025, and a former physician filed a proposed wage class and collective action in February 2026. Both appear below.
“Defendants’ scheme centers around tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly”) MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®. FDA approved MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®, after nearly a decade of development, to treat type 2 diabetes and help certain adults with weight management and obstructive sleep apnea, respectively.”
Source: Eli Lilly and Company v. Mochi Health Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-03534 (N.D. Cal.), Complaint, Document 1, paragraph 2 (filed April 23, 2025)
Why Was the Mochi Health Lawsuit Filed?
The Mochi Health lawsuit was filed because Lilly alleges Mochi Health used Lilly's name and drugs to sell unapproved compounded tirzepatide. The complaint calls the product a "knockoff" that has not been clinically studied.
Lilly makes three main allegations. First, it says the Mochi Health website shows a Lilly-branded Mounjaro pen and suggests patients receive Lilly's medicine, when most receive compounded tirzepatide. Second, it says Mochi Health advertised the "best weight loss treatment of 2025" while a Washington regulator had curbed its pharmacy. Third, it says Mochi Health's owners, who are not physicians, controlled prescribing at affiliated medical groups.
The complaint adds that Mochi Health changed patients' prescriptions in bulk at least five times in eight months. Lilly says corporate interests, not individual medical needs, drove those changes. Mochi Health moved to dismiss the case, and no court has found these allegations true.
What Harms Does the Mochi Health Lawsuit Allege?
The Mochi Health lawsuit alleges four distinct categories of harm, and the complaint pleads none of them as a patient's personal injury claim. Lilly frames them as risks to consumers and as injury to its own business.
All four are allegations. The court dismissed the first complaint in October 2025 for lack of standing, and no court has found any of these harms proven.
Unlawful Corporate Practice of Medicine
The corporate practice of medicine is the control of medical decisions by a company or unlicensed person instead of a licensed physician.
Lilly alleges California law requires doctors to make medical decisions and that Mochi Health exercised undue control over prescribing at Mochi Medical. The complaint says Myra Ahmad, the founder and CEO, and Abraham Chaibi, her husband, are not licensed physicians. Lilly pleads this as its first cause of action under California's Unfair Competition Law.
On September 8, 2026, the court found Lilly plausibly alleged that the Aequita defendants joined a conspiracy to violate that law through the corporate practice of medicine.
False Advertising
False advertising is a commercial statement that is untrue or likely to mislead consumers about a product or its source.
The complaint lists five statements Lilly calls misleading: that patients receive Lilly medicines, that the compounded drug is proven safe and effective, that it is "personalized," that Aequita Pharmacy "voluntarily stopped operations," and that Ms. Ahmad founded Mochi Health "as a doctor."
Lilly pleads these statements under California's False Advertising Law and the federal Lanham Act, both against Mochi Health Corp. alone.
Risks of Compounded Tirzepatide
Compounded tirzepatide is a version of the drug mixed by a pharmacy that regulators have not reviewed for safety and effectiveness.
Lilly alleges compounded drugs are unapproved, unstudied and riskier than FDA-approved medicines. The complaint says Mochi Health changed additives among niacinamide, pyridoxine and glycine, and moved some patients from a 10 mg dose to an 8.8 mg dose that has never been studied.
The October 2025 order noted that the complaint alleged no facts showing the compounded medication fails to work as promised. The pharmacy findings behind the safety allegation appear in the accountability section below.
Reputational Harm to Lilly
Reputational harm is damage to the public trust that consumers place in a company or its product.
Lilly says consumers who fail to lose weight on Mochi Health's product may conclude that tirzepatide itself does not work. It also says injured patients could draw unwarranted conclusions about Lilly's approved medicines.
Judge Corley found on October 24, 2025, that Lilly pleaded no facts showing that harm and dismissed for lack of Article III standing. After Lilly amended, the April 20, 2026 order dismissed only the conspiracy allegations, so the other claims continued.
What Is the Current Status of the Mochi Health Lawsuit?
The current status of the Mochi Health lawsuit is active, with Lilly's main claims proceeding toward a jury trial that docket summaries place in January 2028. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California presides.
No patient class action against Mochi Health has been verified in the sources reviewed. The only proposed class in the Mochi Health matters is a group of physicians in the wage case.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Mochi Health Corp.
Lilly sued on April 23, 2025, through Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and demanded a jury trial. Judge Corley dismissed the first complaint with leave to amend on October 24, 2025. The case then continued on amended pleadings.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division |
| Case Number | 3:25-cv-03534 |
| Filed | April 23, 2025 |
| Judge | Jacqueline Scott Corley |
| Claims | Unfair competition, false advertising, Lanham Act false advertising, civil conspiracy |
| Latest Order | September 8, 2026 (Document 146) |
| Trial | January 10, 2028, per docket summaries |
The September 8, 2026 order granted the motion to dismiss the Lanham Act conspiracy theory against the Mochi Medical and Aequita defendants. It denied the motion on the UCL conspiracy claim against the Aequita defendants. Lilly may ask to amend if discovery reveals new facts.
Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Mochi Health Corp.
Novo Nordisk filed a separate suit against Mochi Health on August 4, 2025. News reports describe it as one of 14 suits Novo announced over compounded semaglutide and corporate practice of medicine. The complaint text and current status were not confirmed in research.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Case Number | 5:25-cv-06563 |
| Filed | August 4, 2025 |
| Plaintiff | Novo Nordisk A/S and affiliates |
| Subject | Compounded semaglutide, per news reports |
| Status | No ruling confirmed |
Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C.
A former physician filed a proposed class and collective action on February 11, 2026, according to Law360. The suit alleges Mochi misclassified its healthcare providers as independent contractors, which denied them full wages and expense reimbursement.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, as filed |
| Case Number | 26-cv-01260 (sources differ on the division prefix) |
| Filed | February 11, 2026 |
| Claims | Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification, proposed class and collective action |
| Status | One MLex headline reports a transfer to South Carolina, unconfirmed |
Has Mochi Health Settled the Lawsuit?
No. Mochi Health has not settled the Lilly lawsuit as of November 5, 2026, and no settlement or payout has been announced in the sources reviewed.
Lilly's complaint states no dollar figure. It seeks an injunction, corrective advertising, damages including Mochi Health's profits, treble damages and attorneys' fees, with damages to be determined at trial.
Lilly is a drug manufacturer, not a patient, so the case has no claim form or consumer payout. A recovery in the physician wage case would go to physicians, and no settlement there has been reported.
Latest Mochi Health Lawsuit Updates
The latest Mochi Health lawsuit updates and news, including new filings, rulings, and case-count reports, are tracked below as they're confirmed. The Eli Lilly case against Mochi Health continues in active pretrial proceedings as of November 2026, with no global settlement reached. See the full timeline below for every confirmed development since the litigation began.
Full Mochi Health Lawsuit Timeline
Washington regulator curbs Aequita Pharmacy
The Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission issued a Limited Stop Service on Aequita Pharmacy LLC, the compounding pharmacy that supplied Mochi Health patients. Lilly's complaint cites the order and says it found deficient sterile compounding practices.
Lilly files its complaint against Mochi Health
Eli Lilly and Company filed Case No. 3:25-cv-03534 in the Northern District of California against Mochi Health Corp., two Mochi Medical groups and two Aequita entities. The complaint pleads four causes of action and demands a jury trial.
Novo Nordisk sues Mochi Health
Novo Nordisk A/S and affiliates filed Case No. 5:25-cv-06563 against Mochi Health Corp. and others in the Northern District of California, according to Law360's docket listing. The suit is separate from Lilly's case.
Judge Corley hears Mochi Health's motion to dismiss
The Northern District of California held oral argument on Mochi Health's motion to dismiss Lilly's original complaint. The court later raised Article III standing on its own and ruled on that ground.
Court dismisses Lilly's first complaint with leave to amend
Judge Corley dismissed Lilly's complaint without prejudice because it did not plausibly allege Lilly had standing to sue in federal court. Lilly received leave to cure the defect.
Former physician files wage class action against Mochi
A former physician filed Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C. in the Northern District of California, alleging the Mochi entities misclassified healthcare providers as independent contractors. The suit seeks class and collective status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Court lets most of Lilly's amended claims proceed
Judge Corley granted Mochi Health's motion to dismiss only as to civil conspiracy, finding Lilly alleged no more than association among the defendants. Lilly's unfair competition and false advertising claims continued.
Pretrial order sets a January 2028 trial
A docket summary reports that Pretrial Order No. 1 set a seven-day jury trial in San Francisco beginning January 10, 2028. The order itself was not reviewed, so the date should be checked against the docket.
Court trims Lilly's conspiracy theory in the second amended complaint
Judge Corley dismissed the Lanham Act conspiracy theory against the Mochi Medical and Aequita defendants without leave to amend, but without prejudice to a later motion. She let the UCL conspiracy claim against the Aequita defendants continue.
What Did Mochi Health Allegedly Know About Its Pharmacy?
Lilly alleges Mochi Health kept steering patients to Aequita Pharmacy after a Washington regulator found deficient compounding practices. The Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission issued a Limited Stop Service on March 13, 2025. Lilly quotes its finding that the pharmacy allowed "untrained and unqualified staff to perform sterile compounding."
The complaint says Mochi Health told patients that Aequita "voluntarily stopped operations." Lilly argues Washington law required the pharmacy to stop, so the word "voluntarily" was false.
In the September 2026 order, the court described further allegations from the second amended complaint. They include that Washington health officials found the pharmacy's listed owner was an "owner in name only," and that Ms. Ahmad and Mr. Chaibi controlled it. These remain allegations, and Mochi Health has not been found liable.
| Allegation | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacy ordered to stop for deficient sterile compounding | Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission, March 13, 2025 | Cited in Lilly's complaint |
| Mochi Health told patients the pharmacy stopped voluntarily | Lilly complaint, paragraph 151 | Allegation, not found true |
| Owners controlled the pharmacy while another person was listed as owner | Second amended complaint, as described in the September 8, 2026 order | Allegation, not found true |
How Does the Mochi Health Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Mochi Health lawsuit is one of several cases that share the Mochi Health name but raise different claims. Searchers often mix them together, so the differences matter.
Lilly sued four telehealth companies on April 23, 2025, according to STAT. Mochi Health and Fella Health faced corporate practice of medicine claims in separate suits. Novo Nordisk later filed its own suit over compounded semaglutide, and a former physician filed the wage case.
| Matter | Plaintiff | Core claim | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eli Lilly and Company v. Mochi Health Corp. (3:25-cv-03534) | Eli Lilly | Compounded tirzepatide sold through unfair and false practices | Active; trial reported for January 2028 |
| Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Mochi Health Corp. (5:25-cv-06563) | Novo Nordisk | Compounded semaglutide, per news reports | Status not confirmed |
| Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C. (26-cv-01260) | A former physician | Worker misclassification, proposed class and collective action | Reported moved to South Carolina, unconfirmed |
No patient-led class action against Mochi Health has been verified. Third-party sites that describe one did not cite a docket, so treat those claims as unconfirmed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Mochi Health lawsuit about?
The Mochi Health lawsuit is a federal case in which Eli Lilly alleges Mochi Health and related entities sold compounded tirzepatide using unfair competition, false advertising and the unlawful corporate practice of medicine. Lilly filed Eli Lilly and Company v. Mochi Health Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03534, on April 23, 2025.
Is the Mochi Health lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
The Mochi Health lawsuit is neither a class action nor an MDL. Lilly sued as a single company, and the only proposed class is a group of physicians in a separate wage case.
Has the Mochi Health lawsuit settled?
The Mochi Health lawsuit has not settled as of November 5, 2026. Lilly seeks an injunction, corrective advertising and damages to be set at trial, and no settlement has been reported.
Was the Mochi Health lawsuit dismissed?
The Mochi Health lawsuit was dismissed once, but only in part and with leave to amend. Judge Corley dismissed Lilly's first complaint on October 24, 2025, for lack of standing, and the case continued on amended pleadings.
Can patients join the Mochi Health lawsuit?
Patients cannot join the Mochi Health lawsuit, because Lilly is the only plaintiff and no patient class exists. The case seeks no refunds, and a lawyer can advise anyone with a separate complaint about Mochi Health.
Is the Lilly case the same as the Novo Nordisk case against Mochi Health?
The Lilly case and the Novo Nordisk case are separate lawsuits. Lilly's case concerns tirzepatide in Case No. 3:25-cv-03534, while Novo Nordisk filed Case No. 5:25-cv-06563 on August 4, 2025, over compounded semaglutide.