Amare Global Lawsuit: FTC Charges, Contempt Motion, and 2005 Order

The Federal Trade Commission sued Amare Global Holdings in June 2026, and the Amare Global lawsuit accuses the multilevel marketing company and three of its leaders of falsely selling dietary supplements as treatments for depression, anxiety, and ADHD in children and adults, and of misleading the people it recruited as distributors about how much money they could expect to make. The case was filed on June 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and ten days later the FTC filed a separate motion asking the court to hold several defendants in contempt of a 2005 order. Both matters are pending as of mid-June 2026.¹

What the FTC Says Amare Told Customers

The complaint focuses on products including “Kids Happy Juice,” “Kids Mood+,” and the “Happy Juice Product Pack.” According to the FTC, Amare and its brand partners promoted these supplements as capable of curing, treating, or reducing the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and ADHD, and claimed they could lower cortisol while raising serotonin, dopamine, and GABA. Distributors described the products as “scientifically backed” and “clinically proven,” and some claimed the supplements could reduce the risk of suicide in children.¹ The FTC alleges these claims appeared on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook.²

The agency says the defendants had no competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up any of these representations. Where the company pointed to studies, the FTC calls them “deeply flawed,” citing sample sizes as small as ten participants, missing placebo control groups, no baseline measurements, and conflicts of interest among study authors who included Amare’s own former chief science officer, members of its medical advisory board, and a brand partner with a financial stake in the results.³

What the FTC Says Amare Told Distributors

The second half of the case concerns recruiting. According to the complaint, Amare and its recruiters told prospective brand partners they could earn at least $500 a month regardless of prior multilevel marketing experience or the size of their social media following.⁴

Amare’s own income disclosure statement painted a very different picture. Data covering January 2021 through December 2024 show that the typical brand partner brought in about $25 per month before expenses.⁵ An earlier version of the disclosure, covering May 2021 through April 2022, showed that 86.35 percent of active members held the lowest rank of “Brand Partner” and averaged $25.04 per month, and that nearly 59 percent of everyone earning any compensation made between one cent and $200 per month.⁶

One boundary is worth noting: the FTC has not challenged the legality of Amare’s multilevel marketing structure itself. The agency is going after the earnings representations tied to that model, not the model as such.⁴

The Contempt Motion and the 2005 Order

On June 12, 2026, the FTC filed a motion asking the court to hold Amare Global, former chief science officer Shawn Talbott, former CEO Hiep Tran, and founding brand partner Patrick Hintze in contempt of a court order that has been in place for more than twenty years.³

That order came out of a 2004 FTC case known as Window Rock, which involved supplements called CortiSlim and CortiStress. The FTC had alleged that Talbott and his co-defendants falsely claimed CortiSlim caused rapid and permanent weight loss and that CortiStress could prevent cancer, diabetes, and other serious diseases. In September 2005, Talbott agreed to a stipulated order that permanently barred him, and anyone acting in concert with him, from making health or efficacy claims about dietary supplements without competent and reliable scientific evidence. Three defendants in that case gave up a combined $4.5 million; Talbott’s share was $1.12 million.⁷⁸

Hintze carries a separate 2013 court order from FTC v. Green Foot Global, LLC, which similarly prohibits him from making unsubstantiated health and efficacy claims and from misrepresenting scientific studies.⁹

The contempt motion alleges that Talbott, Tran, Hintze, and Amare Global worked together to systematically violate the Window Rock order by selling Amare supplements with the same kind of unsubstantiated claims the order was meant to stop. The FTC also says Amare’s leadership knew about the order, hired Talbott anyway, understaffed compliance, and told distributors to use “coded language” to duck liability while spreading the same claims.⁹ Through the motion, the agency is seeking compensatory damages equal to the full amount consumers paid for the products at issue.³

Who Is Named, and For What

Four people and the company itself are named across the two filings, and their exposure is not the same.

Shawn Talbott holds a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry from Rutgers and served as Amare’s founder and chief science officer from 2017 to November 2024, overseeing product formulation, research, and claims substantiation.¹⁰ He is the central figure in the contempt motion because the 2005 Window Rock order is his.

David Chung acquired a majority stake in Amare Global in January 2024 and is the current CEO and majority shareholder. He is named in the FTC’s complaint but not in the contempt motion, which focuses on those alleged to have acted in concert with Talbott under the Window Rock order.¹¹

Patrick Hintze, described as Amare’s founding brand partner, built the distributor network that spread the product claims. The FTC says he has been aware of the Window Rock order since at least February 2018. He is named in both the complaint and the contempt motion, and his own 2013 Green Foot Global order adds a second layer of legal exposure.⁹

Hiep Tran founded Amare and was its CEO until 2021, then chairman until Chung’s acquisition in January 2024.¹¹ He is not named in the main complaint but is named in the contempt motion, where the FTC alleges he enabled the Window Rock violations during his time leading the company.

The Regulatory History Behind the Case

Amare and its predecessor Kyäni had been drawing scrutiny for years before the FTC filed suit.

The advertising watchdog Truth in Advertising began investigating Kyäni in 2016, documenting more than 200 examples of unsubstantiated health and income claims by distributors, including claims that the products could treat cancer, diabetes, and ADHD. TINA.org reported that nearly 70 percent of Kyäni distributors earned “nothing or close to nothing,” and after the company did not respond, filed formal complaints with the FTC and the Idaho Attorney General in April 2016.¹² TINA.org continued tracking the company after Amare acquired Kyäni in 2022, maintaining a 2023 database of Amare income claims.¹³

In November 2017, plaintiffs Yan Guo and Ju Jin Guo filed a class action in the Central District of California alleging that Kyäni operated as an illegal pyramid scheme. The complaint, Guo et al v. Kyäni Inc. et al (Case No. 17-cv-8257), named Kyäni, CEO Michael Breshears, and founder Kirk Hansen, and brought claims under RICO, federal securities fraud statutes, and the California Seller Assisted Marketing Plan Act. The plaintiffs alleged that Kyäni’s compensation plan rewarded recruiting over product sales and that distributors paid $600 to $1,299 to participate.¹⁴ The case was ultimately pushed into arbitration, and the Ninth Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed in November 2020.¹⁵

In December 2022, the Environmental Research Center filed a California Proposition 65 notice of violation against Amare over two products, GBX Seedfiber Microbiome-Boosting Seed Powder and GBX Superfood Sweet Apple Berry, alleging they contained lead, mercury, and cadmium at levels requiring consumer warnings.¹⁶ The matter settled in April 2023 for $26,000, and Amare was permanently enjoined from selling covered products in California above specified exposure levels without the mandated warnings.¹⁷

Most recently, in 2025 the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council, a program of BBB National Programs, opened an inquiry into income claims made by Amare’s brand partners between July 2023 and April 2025. The inquiry found social media posts promising “financial freedom” and specific monthly incomes of $500 to $3,000 or more. Amare cooperated, facilitated removal of the non-compliant claims, and the case was administratively closed in June 2025.¹⁸

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-June 2026, both the main FTC lawsuit and the contempt motion are pending. Summonses have been issued to all defendants and the court has scheduled proceedings, but no temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or asset freeze has been publicly reported.¹⁹ The FTC has proposed that the contempt hearing be held at the same time as the trial on the underlying complaint.⁹ Amare’s business meanwhile continues at scale; third-party estimates place its annual revenue at roughly $175 million.²⁰

1
FTC. FTC Sues to Stop Amare Global Holdings Misrepresenting Health Benefits of Its Dietary Supplements for Children and Adults
2
ConsumerLab. Amare Global Sued for Supplement Claims for Depression, Anxiety and ADHD
3
FTC. FTC Files Contempt Motion Against Amare Global and Three Individuals Over Unsubstantiated Health Claims
4
NutraIngredients. FTC Sues Amare Over Mental Health Supplement Claims
5
FTC. FTC v. Amare Global Holdings Complaint
6
Amare Global. Amare Income Disclosure Statement
7
FTC. Stipulated Final Agreement and Order – Shawn M. Talbott, Window Rock
8
Quackwatch. Window Rock Enterprises FTC Settlement
9
FTC. FTC Contempt Motion – Amare Global
10
Shawn Talbott. Shawn Talbott Resume
11
PR Newswire. Entrepreneur David C. Chung Acquires Amare Global Holdings
12
PR Newswire. Investigation by Ad Watchdog TINA.org Reveals What You Should Know About Kyäni
13
Truth in Advertising. Kyäni Brand Page
14
vLex. Yan Guo v. Kyäni, Inc.
15
Truth in Advertising. Kyäni Pyramid Scheme Claims
16
California Attorney General. Proposition 65 Notice of Violation 2022-02931
17
California Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice 2022-02931
18
BBB National Programs. Amare Global Holdings DSSRC Closure
19
PACER Monitor. Federal Trade Commission v. Amare Global Holdings, Inc. et al
20
Business For Home. Amare Global Company Profile