LifeWave Lawsuit: FTC Action, Distributor Earnings, and Settlement Terms

The LifeWave lawsuit most people are searching for is the Federal Trade Commission’s April 2026 case against Steven and Gina Merritt, two of the company’s highest-ranking distributors, over deceptive claims about how much money recruits could earn. The FTC filed the complaint on April 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and the case was resolved the same day through a stipulated order that permanently bars the Merritts from making misleading earnings claims.¹

Who Was Sued and What They Promised

The FTC sued the Merritts individually, not LifeWave Inc. The couple held the rank of Elite Senior Presidential Director within LifeWave’s distributor hierarchy and, according to the complaint, used social media posts, Zoom calls, and live seminars from 2023 to 2025 to recruit people into the business with promises that had little grounding in reality.²

The complaint quoted the pitches directly. The Merritts told prospects they could earn “$25,000 a week” and “unlimited income,” and that signing up as few as three to six people was enough to build wealth. Steven Merritt described the income as “a spigot full of $100 bills throwing at you” that “keeps coming, even if you don’t show up.” In May 2025, Gina Merritt told a group, “We’re going to make you a buttload of money…I cannot wait to help you guys get to the top rank and make $25,000 or more a week.” The couple also claimed to have helped “237 people become millionaires” through LifeWave.²

The FTC alleged this violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Written disclaimers occasionally accompanied the pitches, but the agency argued they were too small or obscured to correct the impression the pitches left.²

What LifeWave Distributors Actually Earn

The FTC’s case rested heavily on LifeWave’s own income disclosures. In 2024, 79 percent of active U.S. Brand Partners received no commission payments at all. Average annual earnings across all active Brand Partners were $651 before expenses.²

Some 92.48 percent of active Brand Partners were stuck at the lowest rank, where the median annual income was zero and the average was $36. Fewer than 0.035 percent earned $1 million or more. Even at Senior Presidential Director, the same top tier the Merritts occupied, median annual earnings were around $239,000, far short of the seven-figure results the couple advertised.²

The 2023 disclosure was similar: only 23 percent of active Brand Partners earned any commission, averaging $557 before expenses, with 93 percent at the lowest rank where the average was $40.³

What the Settlement Requires

The Merritts entered into a stipulated order for permanent injunction approved by the court on April 27, 2026. They neither admitted nor denied the FTC’s allegations.⁴

The order permanently prohibits the Merritts from:

Overstating how much participants are likely to earn, including through images of expensive homes, cars, or vacations.
Making any future earnings representation that is not truthful, backed by written evidence showing the earnings are typical, and provided to any interested prospective recruit on request.
Falsely blaming participants for not earning money, or misrepresenting the costs, restrictions, or limitations of the business.

Within seven days, the Merritts had to email every Brand Partner in their downline a notice explaining the FTC’s allegations and the order’s prohibitions. The order also imposes a ten-year compliance and recordkeeping regime, allowing the FTC to use discovery, interviews, and even undercover representatives to check the Merritts’ conduct.⁴

No monetary penalty was disclosed in the order. The Merritts agreed to bear their own costs and attorney fees.⁴ The Commission authorized the filing by a 2–0 vote.¹

Why LifeWave Itself Was Not a Defendant

An important limit of this case: LifeWave Inc. was not named. The action targets two individual distributors for their own pitches, not the company or its compensation plan. Anyone looking for a ruling against LifeWave itself will not find one here.¹

The Regulatory History Behind the Lawsuit

The FTC’s 2026 filing followed years of warnings from consumer watchdogs and the agency itself.

In November 2016, Truth in Advertising (TINA.org) notified LifeWave that an investigation had found the company was marketing supplements with illegal health claims, including assertions that products could treat or cure cancer, autism, Parkinson’s disease, and heart disease.⁵ TINA.org followed up in December 2017 with a second letter focused on false and unsubstantiated income claims used to promote the business opportunity.⁶

In October 2021, the FTC sent LifeWave a formal Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities, one of more than 660 such notices delivered to direct-selling companies. The notice put LifeWave on record that misrepresenting typical earnings and failing to disclose participant expenses are considered unfair or deceptive practices. Once a company has received the notice, the FTC can seek civil penalties per violation if it later proves the conduct occurred.⁷

The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council, run by the Better Business Bureau’s national programs, issued two decisions on LifeWave in the year before the FTC suit. In March 2025, the DSSRC identified seven misleading earnings claims and two unsubstantiated health claims coming from LifeWave’s sales force, including promises of “residual income of 7 figures per year” and X39 patch claims of “Rapid Wound Healing,” “Reduced Inflammation,” and “Mental Clarity.” LifeWave did not defend the claims; it had the posts removed, suspended one repeat offender for three months, and reported resolving over 2,000 incidents of improper online content.⁸ A second DSSRC decision on April 1, 2026, less than a month before the FTC filing, reached the same conclusions.⁶

Related Health Claims and Other Cases

The FTC lawsuit addressed income claims, not the science behind LifeWave’s phototherapy patches. Product claims have drawn separate scrutiny. A stem cell biologist reviewing the X39 patch in 2023 found no relevant clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and concluded the studies LifeWave cites were small, unblinded, and not published in rigorous peer-reviewed journals.⁹ McGill University’s Office for Science and Society reviewed 11 studies of LifeWave products dating back to 2005 and found the independent ones showed no health improvements, while company-funded research was of “shockingly bad quality.” That analysis also noted the patches did not appear in the U.S. FDA’s device listing database.¹⁰

In January 2024, Israel’s Ministry of Health issued a public warning against buying or using the X39 patches, stating they were being marketed without established research on efficacy and lacked approval for any medical indication. The Ministry cautioned that advertising the patches as treatments for stem cell therapy, aging, anxiety, depression, and PTSD created an “illusion of a treatment” that could lead people to skip necessary care.¹¹

Separately, a private breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by La Laurel LLC and Onyx Lauren Coale against LifeWave in the Northern District of Georgia in September 2025 was sent to arbitration in May 2026; the plaintiffs’ appeal to the Eleventh Circuit is pending.¹² That dispute is unrelated to the FTC action.

1
FTC. FTC Takes Action Against High-Level MLM Participants Who Deceived Workers About Amount of Money They Could Earn
2
FTC. FTC v. Merritt, Complaint for Permanent Injunction
3
LifeWave. 2023 U.S. Earnings Disclosure Statement
4
FTC. FTC v. Merritt, Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief
5
Truth in Advertising. LifeWave Health Claims Database
6
Truth in Advertising. LifeWave
7
FTC. Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities
8
BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case Closure – LifeWave
9
The Niche. LifeWave X39 Stem Cell Patch Story Has Holes
10
McGill University Office for Science and Society. Patchy Science – LifeWave’s Mysterious Patches
11
Israeli Ministry of Health. Ministry of Health Warning Regarding LifeWave X39 Patches
12
PACER Monitor. La Laurel LLC et al v. LifeWave, Inc.