What Is the Wellness Company Lawsuit?
The Wellness Company lawsuit is a California Proposition 65 enforcement case in which the nonprofit Environmental Research Center accuses TWC 2022 Inc., which does business as The Wellness Company, of selling four products without a required chemical warning. The case is captioned Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. TWC 2022 Inc.
The complaint alleges that the products contain lead, PFOS or PFNA at levels that require a warning for California consumers. The Environmental Research Center filed a 60-day notice on June 26, 2026 and sued in Alameda County Superior Court on September 8, 2026.
The case is not a class action and not an MDL. Some third-party websites describe a consumer fraud class action against the company, but none of the pages reviewed named a court, a docket number or a plaintiff for such a case.
“Plaintiff Environmental Research Center, Inc. (hereinafter 'Plaintiff' or 'ERC') brings this action as a private attorney general enforcer and in the public interest pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (d). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq.) also known as 'Proposition 65,' mandates that businesses with ten or more employees must provide a 'clear and reasonable warning' prior to exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”
Source: Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. TWC 2022 Inc., Case No. 26CV209336, Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Civil Penalties, paragraph 1, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (filed September 8, 2026)
Why Was the Wellness Company Lawsuit Filed?
The Wellness Company lawsuit was filed because the Environmental Research Center says four products contain listed chemicals and carry no Proposition 65 warning. The complaint says the company knew the products contained lead, PFOS or PFNA and did not disclose it to consumers.
The nonprofit sued as a private enforcer, which Proposition 65 allows once 60 days pass after notice and no public prosecutor files suit. The complaint says more than 60 days passed after the June 26, 2026 notice and no public enforcement entity filed a case.
The Environmental Research Center says on its own case page that it tested products from the company and found the violations it alleges. The test results themselves were not published in the pages reviewed.
What Harms Does the Wellness Company Lawsuit Allege?
The Wellness Company lawsuit alleges exposure to three listed chemicals, lead, PFOS and PFNA, across four products. The complaint alleges that people were exposed without a warning and does not allege that any named consumer was harmed.
Lead
Lead is a heavy metal that California lists under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity.
The complaint alleges that The Wellness Company Shield Hot Cocoa and Origin Series Natural Bee Pollen Pure Bee Pollen Granules expose consumers to lead. It cites California's listing of lead as a reproductive toxicant on February 27, 1987 and as a carcinogen on October 1, 1992.
The complaint also cites two regulatory thresholds, a maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms per day for reproductive toxicity and a no significant risk level of 15 micrograms per day for cancer. The sources reviewed do not publish the lead levels found in either product.
PFOS
PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonate, is a man-made PFAS chemical that California lists under Proposition 65 as causing cancer and developmental toxicity.
The complaint alleges that the two Wellness Farms bison products expose consumers to PFOS. It states that California listed PFOS as a developmental toxicant on November 10, 2017 and as a carcinogen on December 24, 2021.
The complaint says the exposure occurs when consumers use the products according to the directions or recommendations provided for them, a theory stated in paragraph 21.
PFNA
PFNA, or perfluorononanoic acid, is a man-made PFAS chemical that California lists, together with its salts, under Proposition 65 as causing reproductive toxicity.
The complaint alleges that the same two Wellness Farms bison products expose consumers to PFNA. It states that California listed PFNA and its salts as a reproductive toxicant on December 31, 2021.
Under Proposition 65, a warning duty begins 12 months after a chemical is listed, a point the complaint states in paragraph 15.
What Is the Current Status of the Wellness Company Lawsuit?
The current status of the Wellness Company lawsuit is that the case is pending in Alameda County Superior Court, with no ruling, hearing date, response from the company or settlement reported as of November 5, 2026. The sources reviewed did not include the court's own docket, so later filings may exist without press coverage.
Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. TWC 2022 Inc.
Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. TWC 2022 Inc. began as a 60-day notice of violation served on June 26, 2026 and became a court case on September 8, 2026. The California Attorney General lists it under notice number 2026-03038.
| Court | Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (the Attorney General listing places it in Hayward) |
| Case Number | 26CV209336 |
| Judge | Not located in the sources reviewed |
| Plaintiff | Environmental Research Center, Inc., a California non-profit corporation, represented by Lozeau Drury LLP |
| Defendant | TWC 2022 Inc., individually and dba The Wellness Company, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 100 |
| 60-Day Notice Filed | June 26, 2026 |
| Complaint Filed | September 8, 2026 |
| Claims | Failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning under Health & Safety Code section 25249.6, and declaratory relief |
| Relief Sought | Civil penalties, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, attorneys' fees and costs |
| Products Named | Wellness Farms Origin Series Bison Trifecta, Wellness Farms Origin Series Bison Liver Regenerative Freeze-Dried Liver, The Wellness Company Shield Hot Cocoa, The Wellness Company Origin Series Natural Bee Pollen Pure Bee Pollen Granules |
| Status | Pending; no ruling, response or settlement reported as of Nov. 5, 2026 |
A Proposition 65 notice is a warning letter that must reach the business and public prosecutors before a private party can sue. A complaint, by contrast, asks a court to order a remedy, and neither document decides who is right.
Did the Wellness Company Settle the Lawsuit?
No. The Wellness Company has not settled the lawsuit with the Environmental Research Center, and no settlement amount, consent judgment or penalty has been reported as of November 5, 2026.
The only dollar figure in the case is the statutory ceiling the complaint cites, a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. That figure is a legal maximum, not an estimate of what a court would award, and only a qualified attorney can assess what any Proposition 65 exposure might be worth.
A Proposition 65 settlement generally takes the form of a consent judgment that requires court approval, commonly with a civil penalty, an agreement to add warnings or reformulate, and payment of the enforcer's attorneys' fees. The Wellness Company has not reported any such agreement.
Consumers who bought the products generally do not receive payments from this kind of case. The complaint asks for penalties, an injunction, a declaratory judgment, fees and costs, and it does not ask for damages on behalf of purchasers or set up a claims process.
Latest Wellness Company Lawsuit Updates
Wellness Company lawsuit updates are limited to the public record: California's chemical listings, a 60-day notice, and a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court. Each entry names the proceeding it belongs to and is listed in date order, with no ruling, company response or settlement reported as of November 5, 2026.
Wellness Company Lawsuit Timeline
California Lists PFOS as a Developmental Toxicant
California officially listed PFOS under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause developmental toxicity on November 10, 2017, according to paragraph 17 of the Environmental Research Center complaint against The Wellness Company. That listing is one of the three chemical listings the complaint relies on.
PFOS Listed as a Carcinogen and PFNA Listed Days Later
California added PFOS to the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause cancer on December 24, 2021, and listed PFNA and its salts as a reproductive toxicant on December 31, 2021, both dates stated in the Environmental Research Center complaint. The complaint says warning duties begin 12 months after a listing.
The Wellness Company Is Founded
The Wellness Company was founded in June 2022 by Foster Coulson, according to Trial Site News as quoted by Science-Based Medicine in January 2024. The defendant in the Proposition 65 case, TWC 2022 Inc., is the Delaware corporation that does business under that name.
Environmental Research Center Serves a 60-Day Notice on TWC 2022 Inc.
The Environmental Research Center served a notice of violation of Proposition 65 on TWC 2022 Inc. on June 26, 2026, listed by the California Attorney General as notice 2026-03038. The notice names four products and the chemicals lead, PFOS and PFNA, and was sent through the law firm Lozeau Drury LLP.
The 60-Day Notice Period Ends With No Public Prosecutor Suit
The 60-day period that followed the June 26, 2026 notice ended in late August 2026, counted from the notice date, and the complaint states that no public enforcement entity had filed a case by the time it was filed. That left the Environmental Research Center free to sue as a private enforcer.
Environmental Research Center Sues in Alameda County Superior Court
The Environmental Research Center filed Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. TWC 2022 Inc. on September 8, 2026, assigned Case No. 26CV209336. The complaint pleads two causes of action and asks for civil penalties, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
No Ruling, Response or Settlement Reported
As of November 5, 2026, no court ruling, hearing date, response from The Wellness Company or settlement had been reported in the sources reviewed for Case No. 26CV209336. The Attorney General listing and the Environmental Research Center case page showed no settlement or judgment.
What Evidence Matters in the Wellness Company Lawsuit?
The evidence that matters in the Wellness Company lawsuit is laboratory proof of the chemical content of each named product and proof that the labels carried no Proposition 65 warning. The Environmental Research Center says it tested the products, and Proposition 65 requires a certificate of merit that rests on that kind of testing.
The complaint states that a certificate of merit and a certificate of service accompanied each copy of the notice. The test results themselves were not in the pages reviewed, so the lead, PFOS and PFNA levels are unknown.
The company could respond with its own testing, evidence that a warning was given, or an argument that actual consumption stays below the regulatory thresholds. No such response has been reported.
Who Is the Defendant in the Wellness Company Lawsuit?
The defendant in the Wellness Company lawsuit is TWC 2022 Inc., a Delaware corporation that does business as The Wellness Company. The notice of violation was addressed to its chief executive officer, Peter Gillooly, at offices in Boca Raton and St. Petersburg, Florida, and to its registered agents.
The company sells supplements, emergency medical kits and telehealth prescriptions. The complaint alleges that it employs ten or more people, which is the threshold that makes Proposition 65 apply to a business.
No statement from the company about the lawsuit was located. The table sets each allegation beside what the sources reviewed show.
| Issue | The Complaint Alleges | What Has Been Reported |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical content | Lead, PFOS or PFNA is present in all four named products | Test results were not published in the sources reviewed |
| Warnings | No Proposition 65 warning appeared on labels or elsewhere, before or after the notice | No company statement or label change was reported |
| Knowledge | The company knew the products contained the chemicals | No evidence of knowledge was reported beyond the allegation |
| Company response | Not applicable | No answer to the complaint or public response located |
These are allegations, not findings. A court has not decided whether any product exceeds a Proposition 65 threshold or whether a warning was required.
How Does the Wellness Company Lawsuit Compare to Other Disputes Involving the Company?
The Wellness Company lawsuit is the only court case against the company that the sources reviewed could verify, and other disputes tied to the company are distinct from it. The table separates them by what each one actually is.
| Dispute | Type | Status Reported | Same Case? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Research Center v. TWC 2022 Inc., Case No. 26CV209336 | Proposition 65 lawsuit in Alameda County | Pending as of Nov. 5, 2026 | This lawsuit |
| Consumer fraud class action described on some third-party websites | Alleged class action over health claims | No court, docket or plaintiff named in the pages reviewed | Not verified |
| Ethics complaint involving Calley Means (Politico, May 2025) | Complaint by the company's chief executive against a federal adviser, not a lawsuit | Outcome not confirmed in the sources reviewed | No |
| Baylor Scott & White v. Dr. Peter McCullough (2021 Dallas County suit) | Hospital system's suit against the company's Chief Scientific Officer | Dismissed with prejudice, per the company's own press release | No, the company was not a party |
Only the first row is the case this page tracks. The other rows are listed so a reader searching the company's name can tell them apart.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Wellness Company lawsuit about?
The Wellness Company lawsuit is about whether four products sold by TWC 2022 Inc. expose California consumers to lead, PFOS or PFNA without a Proposition 65 warning. The Environmental Research Center filed it on September 8, 2026 in Alameda County Superior Court.
Is the Wellness Company lawsuit a class action or MDL?
No. The Wellness Company lawsuit is neither a class action nor an MDL. It is a single nonprofit enforcement action under Proposition 65, and consumers cannot join it or file a claim in it.
What is the current status of the Wellness Company lawsuit?
The current status of the Wellness Company lawsuit is pending in Alameda County Superior Court under Case No. 26CV209336. No ruling, hearing date, company response or settlement had been reported as of November 5, 2026.
Did the Wellness Company settle the lawsuit?
No. The Wellness Company has not settled the lawsuit, and no settlement amount has been reported. The only figure in the case is the statutory ceiling of $2,500 per day for each violation that the complaint cites.
Can customers get money from the Wellness Company lawsuit?
Customers generally cannot get money from the Wellness Company lawsuit, because the complaint seeks penalties, an injunction, a declaratory judgment, fees and costs rather than damages for purchasers. No claims process exists for the case.
Which products does the Wellness Company lawsuit name?
The Wellness Company lawsuit names four products: Wellness Farms Origin Series Bison Trifecta, Wellness Farms Origin Series Bison Liver Regenerative Freeze-Dried Liver, Shield Hot Cocoa and Origin Series Natural Bee Pollen Pure Bee Pollen Granules. The complaint ties the two bison products to PFOS and PFNA and the other two to lead.