FOLLOW US

A federal judge in Washington refused to dismiss major claims in a high-stakes lawsuit accusing Thesis “smart drugs” maker Outliers Inc. of concealing amphetamine ingredients, ruling that the former Army nurse who sued the company can proceed with her consumer protection and product liability allegations.

U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright issued a mixed order Tuesday, allowing the core claims against Outliers Inc. to move forward while dismissing charges against two of its top executives — CEO Daniel Freed and Head of Supply Chain Matt Rubin — for lack of specific evidence linking them to the alleged misconduct.

Former Army Nurse Says “Smart Drugs” Ruined Her Career

The plaintiff, Joann LeDoux, filed the suit in September 2024, alleging her military nursing career collapsed after she tested positive for amphetamines during a random drug screening. She says the result was triggered by her use of Thesis supplements, marketed as a “natural alternative” to stimulant-based medications like Adderall.

LeDoux maintains that she never would have purchased or consumed the nootropics had she known they contained amphetamine substances, asserting that Outliers’ advertising was deceptive and omitted crucial warnings.

The products, sold under the Thesis brand, are promoted for focus and cognitive enhancement — a booming “biohacking” niche that blends Silicon Valley-style ambition with pharmaceutical precision.

Judge Splits the Ruling, Keeps the Case Alive

While Judge Cartwright found no direct evidence tying Freed and Rubin to the formulation or labeling decisions, she held that LeDoux’s claims against Outliers itself were sufficiently pled under both the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).

The Outliers defense team had argued that the CPA claims should be dismissed because they were “personal injury” rather than “property injury” claims. But the court disagreed, noting that LeDoux’s CPA allegations involve economic harm — money spent under false advertising — separate from her physical injury claims.

“That some factual overlap exists between plaintiff’s WPLA and CPA claims does not doom the latter,” Judge Cartwright wrote, emphasizing that LeDoux’s financial losses from purchasing the products were distinct from her personal injuries.

The ruling also rejected the defendants’ argument that fraud and misrepresentation claims could not be brought under the WPLA, holding that LeDoux’s pleadings met federal standards.