Competing Biomarker Providers Clash: Function Health Sues Superpower Health Over Allegedly Deceptive Advertisements

On January 26, Function Health, Inc. filed a complaint in California federal court against rival platform Superpower Health, Inc., alleging false advertising and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act and California state law. The lawsuit centers on a series of marketing claims by Superpower regarding the scope of its biomarker testing services and comparative claims about Function’s competing platform. 

At its core, the dispute raises a fundamentally important question for longevity companies: What counts as a “biomarker”? More broadly, the case illustrates the risks that come with the intensified marketing campaigns being waged as competition among biomarker testing providers increases.

The Rise of Consumer Biomarker Platforms

Biomarker testing has become one of the defining features of the modern preventive health and longevity movement. Historically, laboratory testing was largely reactive — ordered by physicians in response to symptoms or suspected disease. A new generation of companies is attempting to shift that paradigm by giving consumers direct access to large panels of laboratory tests designed to track biological markers associated with metabolic health, cardiovascular risk, hormone balance, inflammation, environmental exposure, and other indicators of healthspan.

These platforms generally combine:

• Large biomarker testing panels performed through national laboratory networks.

• Digital dashboards that track health data over time.

• Algorithmic or clinician-assisted interpretation of test results.

• Personalized recommendations for nutrition, lifestyle, supplements, or additional testing.

Within the longevity ecosystem, this model is often referred to as longitudinal biomarker testing — the idea that regularly measuring biological signals over time can help individuals detect disease earlier, optimize physiological function, and extend healthy lifespan.

Function Health has emerged as one of the most prominent companies in this space. Founded in 2021, the company offers a membership platform providing access to extensive laboratory testing panels combined with digital health analytics and clinician-reviewed insights. In November 2025, the company announced a $298 million Series B financing round, underscoring the growing consumer demand for proactive health monitoring and the substantial investor interest in platforms that sit at the intersection of diagnostics, consumer health, and longevity science.

Superpower, founded in 2023, operates a competing biomarker testing platform that offers prepaid access to laboratory testing and digital health insights through a subscription-based model. As competition has escalated, Superpower has directly compared its offerings to Function’s in online ads and social media.

The Alleged ‘Campaign of Deception’

Function’s complaint alleges that Superpower built its marketing strategy around “an illusion of market-leading service offerings” while “grossly underdelivering on its promises.” According to Function, Superpower’s advertising repeatedly misrepresented both the capabilities of its own platform and the features of Function’s competing service.

Inflated Claims About ‘100+ Biomarkers’

The centerpiece of Function’s allegations concerns Superpower’s repeated claims that its membership includes access to “100+ lab tests” and “100+ biomarkers.” Function alleges this representation is misleading because Superpower’s membership actually includes approximately 55 direct laboratory measurements, with the remaining figures derived from calculated metrics. As the complaint explains, many of the additional “biomarkers” referenced in Superpower’s advertising are “simply derivative data that are created by recombining existing lab values into ratios or indices without performing any new tests or measuring any new biological signals.” 

This allegation raises a fundamental definitional question that extends beyond the immediate dispute: whether calculated health metrics should be treated as biomarkers for marketing purposes, or whether that term should be reserved for direct biological measurements. In an industry built on biomarker-driven insights, the answer could have significant implications for how companies describe their testing capabilities.

Claims About Clinical Support

Function also challenges Superpower’s advertising that members can speak with a “real clinical team” available “24/7.” According to the complaint, consumer inquiries are routed through a messaging system where responses are typically provided “within 24 hours on weekdays.” Function further alleges that the individuals responding to questions are not physicians or registered nurses, but rather dieticians, health coaches, or “longevity advisors.”

Alleged Misrepresentations About Testing Locations

The complaint also disputes Superpower’s claim that members can access testing at “3,000+” laboratory locations. Function alleges that Superpower’s testing partner, Quest Diagnostics (which Function also uses), operates approximately 2,250 patient service centers in the United States, suggesting that the advertised figure materially overstates the availability of testing sites.

Comparative Advertising Targeting Function Health

Function’s complaint further alleges that Superpower engaged in aggressive comparative advertising directly targeting its platform. According to the complaint, these advertisements claimed that Superpower offered more extensive testing, required fewer blood draws, and provided superior clinical support compared with Function. Function alleges that many of these comparisons were inaccurate or misleading, including claims regarding pricing, the availability of personalized action plans, and the scope of testing offered through each platform. The complaint also alleges that Superpower used edited consumer review content in marketing materials in a way that created the appearance of a product endorsement.

Requested Relief

Function asks the court to order a range of remedies, including:

• An injunction preventing further dissemination of the challenged advertisements.

• Corrective advertising to address allegedly misleading statements.

• Monetary damages and disgorgement of profits associated with the advertising campaign.

• Attorneys’ fees.

As of this writing, Superpower has not yet filed its answer to the complaint.

Key Takeaways

This lawsuit offers several important insights for founders, operators, and investors building businesses in the biomarker testing and longevity spaces:

• The definition of a “biomarker” matters. Perhaps the most significant issue raised by the case is definitional: what qualifies as a biomarker? If calculated health metrics derived from existing laboratory values are marketed as biomarkers, competitors — or regulators — may challenge those representations as misleading. As biomarker-driven platforms become central to the longevity ecosystem, companies must carefully consider how they describe their testing capabilities.

• Competition in the biomarker testing market is intensifying. The dispute highlights the growing commercial stakes in consumer diagnostics. Platforms offering longitudinal biomarker testing are competing to meet increasing consumer demand for proactive health insights and personalized health optimization. Function’s large Series B financing round illustrates the substantial capital flowing into this sector and the corresponding pressure on platforms to differentiate their offerings.

• Marketing practices in the longevity ecosystem are likely to face increasing scrutiny. As longevity-focused technologies move from niche biohacker communities into mainstream consumer markets, traditional advertising and consumer protection laws will increasingly shape the marketing of these products. For companies in the biomarker testing space, careful evaluation of service descriptions, comparative claims, and the use of testimonials or user-generated content is essential.

The Function–Superpower dispute may ultimately turn on the technical details of laboratory testing and health metrics. But at a higher level, it underscores that the longevity economy is maturing — and with that maturation comes legal accountability for how businesses market emerging health technologies to consumers.

The case is Function Health, Inc. v. Superpower Health, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00810-JFW-DSR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026), ECF No. 1.