Joint Juice is a popular “joint health” drink/supplement marketed around ingredients like glucosamine, a compound often promoted for supporting cartilage and easing joint discomfort. While glucosamine is widely sold in the U.S. as a dietary supplement, evidence for its benefits can be mixed and product marketing is constrained by how supplement claims must be framed. Because supplements are regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), companies generally cannot claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease, and advertising must not be misleading—standards enforced through a combination of FDA oversight (especially for labeling and safety) and consumer-protection/false-advertising laws at the state level. The class action over Joint Juice alleges that purchasers were misled by the way the products were marketed during various periods between 2009 and 2022, leading consumers to buy something they otherwise might not have or to pay more than they should have. The settlement—reported as $7.5 million with claims open until 5/15/26 and no proof of purchase required—matters because it reflects a common consumer-law theory: even without proving physical harm, buyers can seek reimbursement if advertising or labeling allegedly created a false impression about expected benefits. Cases like this also signal broader implications for the supplement industry, where “structure/function” claims (e.g., “supports joint health”) must be carefully substantiated and presented, and where similar class actions have targeted everything from probiotic and “immune support” claims to “clinically proven” language when the underlying studies are disputed or not representative of the product as sold.