Subject: Lilly Flags New Court Ruling as Telehealth GLP-1 Lawsuits Begin to Converge
From: Dave Knapp from On The Pen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:29:55 +0000
List-Id: <onthepen.substack.com>

View this post on the web at https://onthepen.substack.com/p/lilly-flags-new-court-ruling-as-telehealth

Eli Lilly quietly filed a Statement of Recent Decision this week in its lawsuit against Mochi Health, pointing the judge to a recent federal ruling that could influence how the case proceeds. The move is procedural but strategic, and it signals that the pharmaceutical companies bringing these lawsuits are closely watching each other’s court battles for any precedent that might help their arguments.
A Statement of Recent Decision is essentially a way for lawyers to tell the court that a judge somewhere else has just ruled on a similar legal question. Lilly’s filing highlights a recent decision issued in Novo Nordisk v. Aios (Fella Health), where a federal judge declined to dismiss Novo’s lawsuit against a telehealth company accused of promoting compounded GLP-1 medications using marketing language tied to branded drugs.
The reason Lilly believes that ruling matters is simple. The core allegations in the Novo case closely resemble the claims Lilly is pursuing in its own lawsuit against Mochi Health.
Both cases revolve around how telehealth companies market compounded versions of GLP-1 medications. Pharmaceutical companies have argued that certain marketing practices blur the line between compounded medications and FDA approved products by referencing clinical trial data from branded drugs or using phrases that imply equivalence with those products.
That issue has been quietly building for months, and it is exactly the type of behavior federal regulators have begun scrutinizing closely over the past few weeks.
Three weeks ago, On The Pen exclusively reported that the FDA had sent a large wave of letters to telehealth and compounding related companies operating in the GLP-1 space. The letters questioned a range of marketing practices, including companies labeling medication vials with telehealth brand names and promotional language suggesting compounded medications contained the “same active ingredient” as drugs like Ozempic.
The scope of that enforcement effort became clearer shortly afterward. A follow up report identified 29 telehealth and compounding related companies that had received letters from the FDA, many of which operate in the same ecosystem now being challenged in pharmaceutical lawsuits.
That regulatory backdrop is important because federal courts have historically been cautious about stepping into disputes that fall within the FDA’s enforcement authority. In several previous cases involving pharmaceutical marketing claims, judges have ruled that questions about drug labeling and promotional language are issues that regulators, not courts, are typically responsible for policing.
The emerging overlap between these lawsuits and FDA enforcement raises a natural question. If the FDA is already examining how compounded GLP-1 medications are being marketed, could that strengthen the arguments pharmaceutical companies are making in court?
It is not a simple answer. On one hand, the existence of regulatory scrutiny could reinforce the pharmaceutical companies’ claim that certain marketing practices are problematic. If federal regulators are questioning the same types of language appearing in telehealth promotions, plaintiffs could argue that it supports their broader concerns about how compounded medications are being positioned in the marketplace.
On the other hand, the same enforcement activity could cut the opposite direction. Defendants in these lawsuits have repeatedly argued that disputes about drug marketing and labeling belong with the FDA, not with private companies filing lawsuits under advertising or competition laws. Courts will ultimately decide where that boundary sits.
For now, Lilly’s filing signals that the legal battles unfolding across the GLP-1 ecosystem are beginning to intersect. Regulatory actions, pharmaceutical lawsuits, and telehealth business models are all colliding in a way that could shape how compounded obesity medications are marketed in the future.
The next major test in this battle arrives on April 9th, when a federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments on Mochi Health’s motion to dismiss. Lilly’s new filing makes one thing clear. The company wants the court to look closely at the Novo ruling and conclude that the Mochi case should move forward as well. Whether the judge agrees could determine whether this fight stays procedural or enters the far more revealing phase of litigation.
IF YOU BELIEVE IN OUR WORK, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT IT BY BECOMING A FOUNDING MEMBER TODAY. FOUNDING MEMBERS AT THE $250  LEVEL WILL HAVE THEIR NAMES PLACED ON “THE PEN WALL” IN OUR NEW STUDIO WE ARE BUILDING. EVERY DOLLAR MADE BETWEEN NOW AND OUR LAUNCH WILL GO TOWARDS HELPING US TURN THIS INTO THE FIRST EVER PRODUCTION STUDIO DEDICATED TO OBESITY MEDICINE NEWS. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, CONSIDER “PUTTING YOUR NAME ON IT” TODAY!

Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vbnRoZXBlbi5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU56TTJNakl6T1Rnc0luQnZjM1JmYVdRaU9qRTVNRGc0TVRneU9Dd2lhV0YwSWpveE56Y3pORE0zTkRBNExDSmxlSEFpT2pFNE1EUTVOek0wTURnc0ltbHpjeUk2SW5CMVlpMDBPREE0T1Rreklpd2ljM1ZpSWpvaVpHbHpZV0pzWlY5bGJXRnBiQ0o5LlF6VGhUWXBLbGd5TlVMWmhFSUZTdHBJZXlIR2tmWjlIaHZ4cS1jN0VkQ28iLCJwIjoxOTA4ODE4MjgsInMiOjQ4MDg5OTMsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjI3MzYyMjM5OCwiaWF0IjoxNzczNDM3NDA4LCJleHAiOjIwODkwMTM0MDgsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.WsT-rH001nrOXjr33ecA0wpGGF45OyWFWWK-yWJxiok?