Function Health alleges Superpower made misleading claims around biomarker testing and clinical support, and in social media advertising
Function Health has filed a false advertising lawsuit against Superpower, accusing the rival lab-testing startup of overstating what its membership includes and running comparative marketing that Function says misleads consumers about both companies’ offerings.
The complaint, filed January 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, centers around Superpower’s recurring marketing claim that its baseline membership includes “100+ lab tests” or “100+ biomarkers” annually.
Function alleges that Superpower consumers actually receive roughly 55 direct lab measurements as part of that package, with the remainder of the “100+” figure coming from calculated ratios or indices derived from the measured values rather than additional laboratory tests. The complaint argues that presenting those calculated metrics as “labs” or “biomarkers” can create a false impression about the breadth of testing, especially when Superpower uses those numbers in side-by-side comparisons with Function.
Function says its own membership includes prepaid access to 160+ lab tests per year, structured as 100+ tests upfront and 60+ follow-up tests later in the membership period.
Function’s complaint also devotes significant attention to Superpower’s comparative advertising, which it says is designed to position Superpower as an equivalent or superior option at a lower price.
As of early 2026, a Function membership costs $365 per year, while a baseline Superpower membership costs $199 per year, although that number is higher in some states.
The complaint makes several other allegations, including that Superpower made misleading marketing claims through social media video content, misleading claims around its clinical support and false statements around blood-testing access points.
In November, Function raised $298 million at a $2.5 billion valuation; Superpower raised $30 million in April.
The case surfaces a live fault line in consumer-facing biomarker testing: how companies describe what’s directly measured versus what’s calculated, how they define “clinical” support and how aggressively they can market against competitors without crossing into actionable misrepresentation.
If the court grants injunctive relief or the parties settle with changes to marketing language, the outcome could influence how preventive health platforms position “biomarkers,” concierge access and price-value comparisons as competition intensifies across health optimization.
Superpower’s legal team didn’t immediately respond to ATN’s request for comment for this story.
