Key Points
In 2026, business strategies and deal activity in the dietary supplement space will be framed by these major factors at play across the industry:
- The growing patchwork of state regulations.
- Regulatory uncertainty surrounding hemp, CBD and the impact of FDA’s decision on nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN).
- The FDA’s relaxation of rules about disclaimers on labels, and its more discretionary approach to enforcement.
- The growing role played by national retailers in setting standards for supplements, in response to consumer expectations.
__________
As we enter 2026, the dietary supplement industry faces a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by regulatory developments, shifting consumer expectations, and heightened scrutiny from both state and federal authorities. These changes are poised to significantly influence business strategies, M&A activity and day-to-day operations for supplement manufacturers, marketers and investors. Below are our predictions for the issues and trends that will define the year ahead for the dietary supplement market.
State-Level Age Restrictions: A Patchwork of Compliance Challenges
A major trend gaining momentum is the proliferation of state laws imposing age restrictions on the sale of certain dietary supplements, particularly those marketed for weight loss and muscle building. Supplement manufacturers have been dealing with the impact of New York’s law, which become effective in April 2024.
That requires retailers and any e-commerce businesses that ship into New York supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to verify that the purchaser is 18 or over. Similar proposals are advancing in Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey. These laws typically prohibit sales of certain supplements to consumers under 18 and are often drafted broadly, potentially sweeping in a wide range of products beyond their intended targets.
To date, legal challenges from industry groups, such as the Council for Responsible Nutrition, have failed to overturn these restrictions, with federal courts upholding states’ authority to regulate sales based on marketing and labeling rather than specific ingredients. The result is a growing patchwork of state-level age restrictions, increasing both compliance costs and operational complexity for national brands and retailers. Companies must now invest in robust compliance systems and be prepared for ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty, which may impact valuations and due diligence in M&A transactions. If a transaction involves a supplement company that sells in restricted categories, buyers must focus on the strength of a target’s compliance program to better understand the risk that a target faces as a result of these laws.
Hemp, CBD and NMN: Regulatory Uncertainty and Market Implications
Despite the booming market for hemp-derived products, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to prohibit the use of hemp and CBD as dietary ingredients or food additives. The FDA bases this restriction on its prior approval of hemp and CBD as drug ingredients, and also claims that, because they are subject to separate regulations, it does not have the authority to regulate them in supplements. While Congress has addressed some THC-related concerns, the core issue of CBD being approved as a drug and therefore excluded from being a dietary supplement remains unresolved. The FDA has signaled that only formal rulemaking or new legislation can change this status, leaving the industry in a state of limbo.
However, there are signs of potential regulatory flexibility. A recent FDA response to a citizen petition regarding nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) suggests that the agency may be open to considering whether an ingredient may be used in supplements if its original marketing as a supplement predated its study as a drug. This may be the case even if the product’s original marketing as a supplement was not “lawful” under FDA regulations at the time. This nuanced position could open the door for future regulatory pathways for hemp, CBD and other contested ingredients.
The regulatory landscape for hemp and marijuana shifted further in December 2025 with President Trump’s executive order to deregulate marijuana at the federal level. This move, while significant for the broader cannabis industry, does not automatically resolve the FDA’s preclusion of hemp and CBD as dietary ingredients, as the agency’s position is rooted in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s drug approval provisions.
In another important development, Congress enacted new statutory THC limits, tightening the definition of lawful hemp by excluding any THC or other cannabis derivatives with intoxicating or psychoactive properties above 0.3% by dry weight, and capping total tetrahydrocannabinols in any product container at 0.4 milligrams.
These changes, effective in late 2026, are intended to address concerns about intoxicating hemp derivatives and synthetic cannabinoids, but they also introduce new compliance burdens for supplement manufacturers: Hemp producers will need to ensure that all hemp-derived ingredients and finished products strictly adhere to these thresholds, or risk enforcement action and product removal.
The combination of federal deregulation of marijuana and stricter THC limits for hemp products creates both opportunities and challenges: While the market for cannabis-related products may expand, dietary supplement companies must navigate a more complex regulatory environment, balancing evolving federal and state-level policy.
Evolving regulatory frameworks can be a challenge when conducting M&A due diligence, because the business impacts of these types of regulatory changes are often difficult to quantify or predict. Indeed, on the hemp and THC front, the industry has been on a rollercoaster ride in 2025, from the highs of marijuana deregulation to the lows of THC restrictions. Not to mention that state-level requirements for CBD in dietary supplements vary widely, with some states permitting the sale of CBD-containing supplements under specific labeling and testing standards, while others maintain stricter prohibitions or additional compliance obligations.
The rapid shifts in the regulatory environment could have significant implications for product portfolios and investment.
FDA Labeling Requirements and Enforcement Discretion
The FDA’s recent decision to exercise enforcement discretion regarding the placement of disclaimers on dietary supplement labels marks a significant shift and opportunity for supplement manufacturers to further modernize labeling.
For nearly 30 years, the agency informally allowed the use of asterisks to direct consumers to disclaimers, but a recent uptick in litigation prompted the FDA to formalize this approach. This is a positive step toward reducing unnecessary litigation risk, which can be an overhang for dietary supplements and other consumer products that make health claims. Clarification from the FDA on the requirements and placement of disclaimers may dampen the plaintiffs’ bar’s efforts to file lawsuits over missing disclaimers.
However, operating in an environment of enforcement discretion requires a high risk tolerance. It can be difficult to discern how risky certain practices are, and acquirers will need to assess the risks relative to the size of a transaction. Ultimately, deals in this space will turn on how well each side understands the risk of regulatory enforcement and associated business impact and whether the parties’ risk tolerance lines up.
Retailers as De Facto Regulators: Navigating Private Standards and State Laws
In the absence of clear federal guidelines — particularly around sustainability, “clean” labeling and ingredient safety — major retailers have stepped in as gatekeepers, establishing proprietary standards that determine which products gain shelf space and consumer trust.
To comply with these retailer programs, supplement companies often undertake comprehensive internal reviews and reformulations to ensure their products meet the required standards. This may involve removing restricted ingredients, investing in sustainable packaging solutions, and providing third-party certifications or detailed documentation to validate claims. Achieving and maintaining compliance can require significant investment in quality control, supply chain management and ongoing collaboration with retailers to stay ahead of evolving standards.
Brands that successfully navigate these requirements not only secure better shelf placement and increased consumer trust, but also mitigate legal risks and better position themselves in a market increasingly driven by health-conscious and sustainability-focused consumers.
The need to navigate both retailer requirements and a patchwork of state laws adds further complexity, making regulatory expertise and agile compliance systems critical assets in M&A transactions and ongoing operations.
Conclusion: Strategic Implications for Business and M&A in the Dietary Supplement Space
Layered on top of these specific changes, the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement is intensifying regulatory and consumer scrutiny of supplement ingredients, prompting companies to reformulate products and remove artificial dyes in anticipation of policy changes and shifting consumer demand. This trend is reshaping the competitive landscape, with brands that quickly adapt to “clean” and “healthy” expectations poised to capture greater market share and investor attention, while those that lag risk reputational harm and reduced visibility at retail. Industry leaders caution that some MAHA-driven reforms may overlook scientific nuance, but the business imperative to align with evolving consumer demand for wellness products is clear.
The convergence of state-level regulation, federal enforcement discretion, cultural movements like MAHA, and retailer-driven standards is creating a complex and dynamic environment for the dietary supplement industry. Companies must be proactive in monitoring regulatory developments, investing in compliance infrastructure, and aligning with both consumer expectations and retailer requirements.
For investors and acquirers, due diligence must now encompass not only traditional financial and operational metrics but also a deep understanding of regulatory risk and litigation exposure, and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing standards. Those who can navigate this landscape effectively will be well-positioned to capitalize on growth opportunities in 2026 and beyond.
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.