01
The FTC issued a $4M settlement for advertising claims the agency found to be false or unsubstantiated
In 2014, the FTC charged MusclePharm with making false and unsubstantiated claims about its Combat Protein Powder, Amino 1, and other products. The company agreed to pay $4 million and was placed under a 20-year consent decree prohibiting it from making unsupported advertising claims. This is not an allegation — it is a resolved federal enforcement action.
Red — Federal enforcement, not allegation
02
The SEC investigated CEO Brad Pyatt for insider trading — he subsequently resigned
The SEC launched an investigation into former CEO Brad Pyatt for alleged insider trading in MusclePharm stock. Pyatt resigned as CEO in 2015. The SEC investigation ran alongside the FTC matter. A separate shareholder class action was also filed alleging securities fraud during the same period. The company disclosed multiple material weaknesses in its financial controls in restatements filed after Pyatt's departure.
Red — SEC investigation + shareholder securities fraud action
03
A class action alleged protein spiking — adding free amino acids to inflate the protein reading on the label
A class action lawsuit alleged that MusclePharm added free-form amino acids — including creatine, taurine, glycine, and leucine — to its protein formulas specifically to inflate nitrogen readings on standard protein tests. Nitrogen content is how protein is measured. Adding free amino acids that are not protein passes the test while delivering less actual protein than the label implies. The suit alleged consumer fraud in protein quantity claims.
Red — Protein spiking class action (product integrity)
04
Multiple financial restatements flagged material weaknesses in internal controls
Following Pyatt's departure, MusclePharm filed multiple restatements of prior financial periods, disclosing material weaknesses in internal accounting controls. These restatements impacted revenue recognition and expense reporting. Auditors flagged going-concern doubt in subsequent annual filings. The company that produces nutrition products with health and scientific credibility claims could not produce accurate financial statements.
Red — Multiple restatements, going-concern language
05
No NSF certification, no batch COAs, no Informed Choice — the full certification stack is empty
Despite a history of FTC action specifically targeting advertising claims, MusclePharm does not hold NSF Certified for Sport, does not publish batch COAs, and does not carry Informed Choice certification. A brand with the most documented advertising enforcement history in the category also has the weakest current verification infrastructure. The two facts are related: third-party certification would create an independent check on claims.
Red — Zero third-party verification post-enforcement
06
Revenue down ~70% from peak — the market has repriced the brand, but the product remains on shelf
MusclePharm reported peak revenue of approximately $177M in 2014. Revenue has declined substantially since. The company has operated at a loss for multiple consecutive years, disclosed going-concern risk, and its market cap has been a fraction of peak value. The consumer market has effectively voted on the brand over time. The product remains available at GNC and Amazon, and continues to be marketed with athlete endorsements and clinical language.
Red — Ongoing operation despite sustained accountability record
The FTC Action:
What They Were Paid to Claim
In August 2014, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against MusclePharm Corporation alleging that the company had made false and unsubstantiated advertising claims about several of its products. The agency's core findings were that MusclePharm marketed products using performance and health claims that were not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence — the FTC's standard for substantiation.
The specific products named included Combat Protein Powder, Amino 1, and MusclePharm Assault. The claims cited included representations that the products would produce specific athletic performance outcomes, recovery benefits, and health results. The FTC found these claims to be either false or lacking the scientific support necessary to make them legally.
MusclePharm did not contest the charges. The company agreed to a $4 million settlement and entered a 20-year consent decree — meaning any future advertising claim for any MusclePharm product must be supported by competent scientific evidence, and the company is subject to FTC oversight and audit for two decades. The consent decree is publicly filed and remains in effect.
Consent Decree — Key Terms
MusclePharm is prohibited for 20 years from making any claim about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any covered product or program unless the claim is non-misleading and, if the claim requires substantiation, is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Violation of the consent order exposes the company to civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation per day. The decree was entered in 2014. It is still active.
What makes the FTC action structurally significant for Traced's purposes is not the settlement amount — $4 million is modest relative to MusclePharm's peak revenue. It is the temporal gap: the consent decree was entered in 2014. A decade later, the product is still marketed with athlete endorsements and scientific language, still without a third-party certification stack that would independently verify any of those claims. The mechanism the FTC required — competent scientific substantiation — is not independently audited by any currently active third-party. The consent decree creates a legal obligation. The verification infrastructure to check that obligation does not visibly exist.
$4M
FTC Settlement
2014 — false advertising claims on Combat Protein, Amino 1, Assault
20yr
Consent Decree
Runs through 2034 — FTC oversight of all advertising claims
$50K
Per-Violation Penalty
Per day, per violation — for any future breach of consent terms
0
Active 3rd-Party Certs
No NSF, no Informed Choice, no COAs published — post-enforcement
The SEC Investigation:
What the CEO Knew
In 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission launched a formal investigation into Brad Pyatt, the founder and CEO of MusclePharm, for alleged insider trading in the company's stock. Pyatt resigned as CEO in the same period. The investigation was disclosed in the company's SEC filings, making it a matter of public record for investors and the general public.
Simultaneously, a shareholder class action was filed alleging that MusclePharm and certain of its officers had made materially false and misleading statements about the company's business, financial condition, and prospects during the class period — resulting in artificially inflated stock prices that damaged investors when the truth emerged. The shareholder suit alleged securities fraud under the Exchange Act.
What followed was a period of significant financial disclosure problems. MusclePharm filed restatements of prior financial periods, disclosing that previously reported figures were incorrect and that the company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting. Material weakness is an auditing term for a deficiency significant enough that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement in the financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Material Weakness — What It Means
A company that sells products with scientific and health claims, markets them using clinical language, and asks consumers to trust its label accuracy — had auditors certify that its financial statements could not be trusted without material error. The company that could not accurately report its own revenue is the same company whose label accuracy you are being asked to accept on faith.
Protein Spiking:
The Nitrogen Reading Problem
Protein content on a nutrition label is not measured by testing for protein directly. It is measured by testing for nitrogen — and then calculating protein based on the assumption that all measured nitrogen came from protein. The standard method is the Kjeldahl test. This method has a known vulnerability: free-form amino acids and other nitrogen-containing compounds also register as protein in a Kjeldahl test, even when they are not complete proteins and do not provide the same nutritional value.
Protein spiking is the practice of adding cheap nitrogen-containing compounds — typically free amino acids like creatine, taurine, glycine, and leucine — to a protein formula specifically to inflate the nitrogen reading. A product that nominally contains 25g of protein per serving may actually contain significantly less functional protein if a portion of that reading comes from non-protein nitrogen sources.
The class action against MusclePharm alleged that the company had done exactly this: that its Combat Protein Powder and other products contained free amino acids added for the purpose of inflating nitrogen readings, such that consumers were receiving less actual protein than what the label represented. The suit alleged this constituted consumer fraud.
"The protein content was measured in a way that any competent formulator knows can be gamed. The question is why you would add those specific amino acids in those specific amounts."
Class action attorney summary — MusclePharm protein spiking litigation
Protein spiking is not unique to MusclePharm — it has been alleged against multiple supplement brands. What makes it more significant in this case is the accumulation: a company already under an FTC consent decree for advertising claim substantiation, under SEC investigation for insider trading, and now facing a product integrity claim about the accuracy of its label nutrition data. Each of these findings individually would warrant a watch. Together, they form a pattern.
No independent amino acid spiking test is currently published for MusclePharm products. Labdoor, which does test for this, has not included MusclePharm in its most recent published testing cohort. Without independent verification, the spiking allegation remains a litigation claim rather than a confirmed finding — but the mechanism is real, the vulnerability is real, and the brand's history of substantiation failures makes the null position (assume accurate) difficult to justify.
The Full Timeline:
One Company, Ten Years
2008
MusclePharm founded by Brad Pyatt in Denver, Colorado
Former NFL player. Built brand around athlete authenticity and science-based positioning. Listed on OTC markets, later Nasdaq.
2010–12
Aggressive growth phase — athlete endorsements, celebrity partners
Signed deals with Colin Kaepernick, Triple H, and other athletes. Launched multiple product lines. Revenue grew rapidly. Brand marketed as "Clinically Tested" and "Athlete Approved."
2013
Revenue reaches approximately $113M — peak trajectory underway
Available at GNC, Walmart, and major sports retailers. Combat Protein becomes flagship SKU. International expansion begins.
2014
FTC files complaint — false and unsubstantiated advertising claims
Specific claims on Combat Protein Powder, Amino 1, and Assault cited. MusclePharm does not contest charges. $4M settlement agreed. 20-year consent decree entered. Revenue reaches ~$177M — peak year.
$4M FTC Settlement + 20-year consent decree
2015
SEC investigation of CEO Pyatt — insider trading allegations
Brad Pyatt resigns as CEO. Shareholder class action filed for securities fraud. Company begins disclosing material weaknesses in internal controls. First of multiple financial restatements filed.
SEC investigation + shareholder class action + restatements
2015–16
Protein spiking class action filed
Class action alleges free amino acids (creatine, taurine, glycine) added to inflate nitrogen readings on Combat Protein. Suit alleges consumer fraud in protein quantity claims. MusclePharm disputes allegations.
Protein spiking — product integrity class action
2017–20
Extended period of operational difficulty and leadership instability
Multiple CEO changes. Revenue declining steadily from peak. Going-concern language appears in auditor reports. Continued loss from operations. Brand maintains retail presence but marketing spend reduced.
2021–23
Attempted turnaround — new management, reduced portfolio
New executive team attempts to right the company. Product line rationalized. Some revenue stabilization but no return to prior scale. Still no NSF certification, no published COAs, no Informed Choice.
2024–25
Still listed, still on shelf — the accountability gap continues
MusclePharm remains available at GNC and Amazon. Still marketed with athlete endorsements and clinical positioning. Zero active third-party certifications. Revenue remains a fraction of peak. SEC investigation status not fully resolved in public filings.
Ongoing: no verification infrastructure, continued commercial operation
The Full Legal Record:
Compiled From Public Filings
The following table compiles every significant legal and regulatory action against MusclePharm Corporation or its executives that appears in public records. All information is sourced from FTC filings, SEC filings, and court records.
Year
Authority / Party
Action & Finding
Outcome
2014
FTC
Federal Trade Commission
False and unsubstantiated advertising claims on Combat Protein Powder, Amino 1, and Assault. Claims including specific performance outcomes and health benefits found to lack competent scientific substantiation.
$4M settlement. 20-year consent decree. No admission of liability required but terms binding.
Resolved — decree active
2015
SEC
Securities & Exchange Commission
Formal investigation into CEO Brad Pyatt for alleged insider trading in MusclePharm stock. Disclosed in company SEC filings as a material legal proceeding.
Pyatt resigned as CEO. Investigation status not fully resolved in subsequent public filings.
Investigation — status unclear
2015
Shareholders
Class action
Securities fraud class action alleging materially false and misleading statements about the company's business, financial condition, and prospects during the class period, causing investors to purchase stock at artificially inflated prices.
Litigation. Settlement reached — amount not publicly disclosed in detail.
Settled
2015–16
Consumers
Class action
Protein spiking class action: alleged addition of creatine, taurine, glycine, and leucine to inflate nitrogen readings on standard protein tests, causing consumers to receive less protein than label represented.
Litigation. Outcome and settlement terms not fully publicly resolved.
Status unclear
2015–18
PCAOB Auditors
Financial restatements
Multiple financial restatements filed. Material weaknesses in internal controls disclosed. Revenue recognition and expense reporting errors corrected in restated filings. Going-concern language from auditors.
Restatements filed. Material weakness disclosures. Going-concern risk.
Structural — ongoing risk
What Would Change
This Assessment
MusclePharm is not permanently red. It is red because the accountability record is documented and the verification infrastructure does not exist to check against it. The following changes, independently verified, would meaningfully improve the assessment:
Change 1
Obtain NSF Certified for Sport on the flagship Combat Protein SKU
NSF certification would require independent contaminant testing and label accuracy verification. Given the protein spiking allegation, amino acid spiking testing would be a prerequisite. This is the single verification step with the most direct bearing on the product integrity claim.
Would move product formula to Yellow
Change 2
Publish batch-level COAs by lot number
Lot-specific certificates of analysis would provide independent, time-stamped verification of what is in each batch. Without COAs, the consent decree's scientific substantiation requirement cannot be independently verified by anyone outside the company.
Would move ingredient transparency to Yellow
Change 3
Conduct and publish independent protein spiking test via Labdoor or equivalent
Labdoor specifically tests for amino acid spiking in addition to total protein. A published, passing test for each SKU would directly address the core product integrity allegation. No such test is currently in Labdoor's public database for MusclePharm products.
Would address the protein spiking claim specifically
Change 4
Resolve SEC investigation status and disclose in plain language
The SEC investigation of Pyatt has been disclosed in company filings but its ultimate resolution has not been clearly communicated to the market or consumers. A clean resolution — with clear public disclosure — would close the most consequential open question about executive conduct.
Would change executive integrity from Red to Yellow