By: Jeff Cohen, Co-Founder, APA
All eyes in the peptide industry turned to the Blome Research government raid this week, which resulted in product and property seizure and frozen bank accounts. Property seizures are generally easier than criminal indictments because the burden of proof is lower. In forfeiture actions like this one, the defendant is the seized property, not a human being. The industry should be aware of the following allegations, all of which are significant and relevant to this space:
- The Missouri Board of Pharmacy (BOP) began investigating Blome back in 2024, utilized undercover (UC) sources and was provided Facebook chat screenshots of chats between Blome and a pharmacist regarding their sale of tirzepatide if the pharmacist “was not the FDA;”
- Some of the disclosed content of the communications contained statements acknowledging that the product comes finished from China and is third party tested in California;
- The UC bought semaglutide, bac water, all of which was provided via the US Postal Service;
- The BOP issued Blome a cease and desist letter towards the end of 2024, and Blome agreed to stop all business;
- Blome began advertising the sale of semaglutide, tirzepatide and retatrutide via their website in June, 2025. Federal agents accessed the website, which stated that the name of the GLPs was being changed to GLP-Tir=Tirz,” etc;
- The homepage of the website showed vials bearing the words of the GLPs and pricing and was gated;
- In mid 2025, search warrants were executed, which allowed the agents to intercept packages shipped by Blome. They revealed misbranded items, including semaglutide, tirzepatide and retatrutide;
- One UC source told the Blome rep that he/she was looking to lose weight. The Blome rep (who is not a licensed healthcare professional) recommended retatrutide and gave dosing protocol. UC sources were also told by Blome reps that the product was safe for personal use;
The Complaint is clear that the conflict between the “research use only” labelling were [legally] “false and misleading” because purchasers were instructed on how to use them and were given assurances about human use outcomes is the foundation for the misbranding claim. As a legal matter, the misbranding allegation is the foundational offense which, when coupled with the interstate shipment of the products, triggers a mail fraud violation, creating the basis for the forfeiture action.
The case will likely light up the rumor mill that the RUO space is under attack and being shut down. Those rumors will also likely focus on one data point (e.g., importation of finished product from China) and conclude that that act alone is a violation of something. In truth, as in all such cases, the action is very fact driven. And each fact has a stacking effect. They have to be read together. And any such enterprise needs to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, understand the risks of each business decision and align that with their own risk tolerance. The good thing about the case is there is more to learn, more information to use. The bad thing is what inexperienced and uninformed people will do with it.