Novo Nordisk has filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, accusing its rival of using false and misleading advertising to promote its obesity and diabetes medicines. The Danish drugmaker alleges that Lilly’s nationwide advertising campaigns for Zepbound and Mounjaro present comparisons that do not accurately reflect the currently available approved doses of Novo’s competing products, Wegovy and Ozempic.
According to the complaint, Novo claims Lilly compared the highest approved doses of its medicines against lower doses of Novo’s treatments while omitting newer, higher-dose versions that later received approval. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state false advertising and unfair competition laws, including the Lanham Act.
A central issue in the case involves advertisements comparing Lilly’s obesity treatment Zepbound with Novo’s weight-loss drug Wegovy. One television advertisement cited by Novo stated that patients taking Zepbound lost an average of 50 pounds, while patients taking Wegovy lost an average of 33 pounds. The Wegovy figure was based on data from patients receiving a 2.4-milligram dose. Novo noted that a 7.2-milligram dose of Wegovy was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March and that patients taking the higher dose lost an average of 47 pounds.
Lilly’s advertisement included a footnote stating that the 7.2-milligram dose was not evaluated in the study comparing Zepbound and Wegovy but had since been approved. Novo argues that the disclaimer was insufficient and failed to adequately explain the significance of the newer dose.
The lawsuit also challenges Lilly’s advertising for diabetes medicine Mounjaro in comparison with Novo’s Ozempic. Novo said a national television advertisement highlighted data from a study comparing Mounjaro 15 milligrams with Ozempic 1 milligram. Novo pointed out that a 2-milligram dose of Ozempic was approved after that study was conducted and that Lilly only referenced the higher dose in a footnote.
In its complaint, Novo stated, “the ads are maliciously and deceptively false because Lilly knowingly cites outdated clinical trials that compare the highest doses of the Lilly medicines to lower doses of Novo Nordisk’s medicines.” The company contends that consumers are not receiving complete and current information when viewing the advertisements.
Novo said it sent Lilly a cease-and-desist letter in April after approval of the higher Wegovy dose. According to Novo General Counsel John Kuckelman, Lilly did not respond to the letter and instead added what Novo considers an inadequate disclaimer to the advertisements. Kuckelman also said no head-to-head trial has compared the highest approved doses of Zepbound and Wegovy. He noted that separate late-stage trials of the highest doses showed average weight loss of about 48 pounds for Zepbound and 47 pounds for Wegovy.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Lilly to stop using the disputed advertisements and launch a corrective advertising campaign. Novo is also seeking damages, including profits it alleges are attributable to the advertisements. The company said it plans to seek a preliminary injunction if Lilly does not voluntarily remove the ads.
Novo argues that the scale of Lilly’s campaign increases the impact of the disputed claims. According to the lawsuit, the revised Zepbound television advertisement has generated more than 700 million impressions since late April and has appeared on major broadcast and cable networks as well as social media platforms including TikTok and Facebook.
Lilly rejected Novo’s allegations and said its advertising is supported by results from the SURMOUNT-5 trial. According to Lilly, the study compared patients receiving 10-milligram or 15-milligram doses of Zepbound with patients receiving 1.7-milligram or 2.4-milligram doses of Wegovy. A company spokesperson said Lilly stands by the advertisements and will defend itself against the lawsuit.
The dispute comes amid ongoing competition between the two companies in the GLP-1 market. Novo was first to market with Wegovy, while Lilly later gained the sales lead with Zepbound. During the first quarter, Mounjaro generated $8.7 billion in sales, while Ozempic recorded 27.8 billion Danish kroner, equivalent to about $4.2 billion. Zepbound also outsold Wegovy during the same period.
Novo Nordisk has initiated legal action against Eli Lilly over advertising claims related to GLP-1 medicines, adding a new chapter to the intense competition within the rapidly growing obesity and diabetes treatment market. The lawsuit centers on allegations regarding promotional statements and marketing practices, with Novo Nordisk seeking legal review of claims it believes could influence healthcare providers and patients.
Novo Nordisk Files Lawsuit Against Eli Lilly
According to the legal filing, Novo Nordisk argues that certain advertising claims made by Eli Lilly concerning its GLP-1 therapies are misleading or unsupported. The company is asking the court to evaluate whether the promotional materials comply with applicable advertising standards and fair competition laws.
The dispute reflects the increasing commercial importance of GLP-1 therapies as demand for innovative obesity and diabetes treatments continues to grow worldwide.
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
