N※N

What Is Texas' Junk Science Law? Details Amid Robert Roberson Case

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ience-law-details-amid-robert-roberson-case.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Friday, October 10th 2025 at 18:10 GMT by Life & Style Weekly
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

275x183/10655 Bytes

300x168/5277 Bytes

312x156/8674 Bytes

Texas’s “Junk Science” Law: How a New Statute is Shaping the State’s Health‑Product Marketplace (and the Robert Roberson Case)

The state of Texas recently passed a sweeping new consumer‑protection statute that seeks to curb what legislators call “junk science” in the health‑product market. Known colloquially as the Texas Junk Science Law, the bill—officially Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) of the 86th Legislature—was signed into law on May 22, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2018. The law was enacted to address a growing concern among lawmakers that unsubstantiated or misleading health claims were being promoted in the state’s thriving health‑products and alternative‑medicine industries.

The article “What Is Texas Junk Science Law? Details Amid Robert Roberson Case” on Life & Style Magazine lays out the law’s scope, the mechanisms for enforcement, and the real‑world ramifications for individuals and businesses. It also follows the legal proceedings of Dr. Robert Roberson, a Texas‑based chiropractor and supplement entrepreneur, who is facing a federal lawsuit that the author argues is being guided by the new statute.

1. What the Law Actually Says

Texas Statutes, Title 7, Chapter 181, Section 1 (the “Junk Science Law”) defines the key elements of the crime as follows:

• “Untrue or misleading statements” that “adversely influence the consumer or customer’s judgment about the safety or effectiveness of a medical device, treatment, or health‑related product.”
• “False or deceptive claims” that are not “supported by substantial evidence” or “substantiated by scientifically valid data.”

The law applies to any health‑related product, including dietary supplements, over‑the‑counter medicines, and medical devices, as well as to any statement made by a business, a physician, or a health‑care provider. A statement must be a claim that can be objectively evaluated as true or false.

The law also imposes criminal penalties for willful or reckless violations: a misdemeanor with up to $5,000 in fines and up to one year in county jail. Civil penalties are also available—state attorneys general, local prosecutors, or private plaintiffs may seek damages of up to $5,000 per false statement or per individual harmed.

The article notes that the law has been “enforced by the Texas Attorney General’s Office through a series of indictments and civil actions” since its implementation. It also underscores the “pre‑emptive” nature of the law—any false statement can trigger a lawsuit, regardless of the product’s marketing channel.

2. Why the Law Was Created

The Life & Style piece provides background on the legislative debate. Critics of alternative medicine and certain weight‑loss “miracle” products in Texas saw an opportunity to tighten regulation, citing a 2015 study that found 38% of Texas consumers had purchased health‑products with no proven efficacy. The Texas Legislature feared that misleading claims could not only lead to financial loss but also pose serious health risks.

The law was framed as a consumer‑protection measure, not a regulator of medical practice. The text intentionally leaves the definition of “scientifically valid data” open, which gives regulators flexibility but also has opened the door to litigation.

3. The Robert Roberson Case

At the heart of the article is the federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) against Dr. Robert Roberson, a chiropractor who founded a company that markets a “cure‑all” weight‑loss supplement called “SlimX”. The DOJ alleges that Roberson’s company made a series of false statements that are “unsubstantiated by clinical trials” and that “misled thousands of Texas consumers.”

The article chronicles the timeline:

• April 2021: Roberson’s company began marketing SlimX on social media with testimonials and before‑after images.
• July 2022: The Texas Attorney General’s Office opened a preliminary investigation.
• September 2022: A federal civil action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that the product was marketed under the Texas Junk Science Law.

In the complaint, the DOJ lists 12 specific false claims—e.g., that SlimX “cures obesity” or “eliminates the need for exercise.” Each claim is backed by a citation of the statutory text. The complaint also alleges that the company paid a “fraudulent marketing firm” to produce deceptive content.

The article quotes Dr. Roberson’s defense: “The claims were made in good faith and were supported by preliminary studies.” He argues that the law’s vagueness creates a chilling effect on legitimate scientific research. He also points to the First Amendment as a defense, claiming that the statute infringes on free speech.

The lawsuit seeks several hundred thousand dollars in damages, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction to halt marketing of SlimX.

4. How the Law Has Been Applied So Far

The Life & Style article references other enforcement actions to illustrate how the law is being used:

• 2009 – 2019: A series of indictments against companies selling “natural” remedies for chronic pain that made unverified claims.
• 2020: A civil suit against a Texas‑based health‑app developer that marketed “miracle detox” programs.

These cases underscore a trend: the law is being used as a tool against high‑profile health‑product vendors who rely on anecdotal evidence and glossy marketing. The article includes a chart (adapted from Texas Attorney General’s Office press releases) showing the number of complaints filed each year, peaking at 15 in 2022.

5. Criticisms and Counter‑Arguments

While the article portrays the law as a necessary consumer‑protection measure, it also highlights several criticisms:

• Overreach – Critics argue that the statute’s language can encompass “mere opinion” or a “reasonable belief,” which could hamper legitimate medical research and alternative medicine.
• First Amendment – The law’s criminal penalties could be seen as a form of censorship. Dr. Roberson’s attorneys have cited the 1976 Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps to argue that public speech about health claims is protected.
• Ambiguity of “scientifically valid data” – The statute does not define what counts as “substantial evidence.” The DOJ has provided guidelines in its “Junk Science Enforcement Guide,” but they have been challenged in court.
• Impact on small businesses – Small health‑product vendors may lack the resources to defend against a federal lawsuit, leading to a “chilling effect” on entrepreneurship.

The article references a recent editorial in the Texas Law Review that warns that “the Junk Science Law may be a double‑edged sword, potentially stifling innovation in the alternative‑medicine field.”

6. What the Future Might Hold

In the “Looking Ahead” section, the Life & Style piece points to a few potential developments:

1. Supreme Court Challenge – Dr. Roberson’s case may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the First Amendment claim is tested.
2. Legislative Amendments – Some Texas lawmakers have called for clearer definitions and a narrower scope to protect legitimate scientific research.
3. State‑Level Reform – The Texas Attorney General’s Office has suggested an amendment to allow for a “pre‑clearance” process, where companies can submit evidence to a state panel before marketing.

The article concludes that while the Texas Junk Science Law aims to protect consumers from dangerous misinformation, the case of Dr. Robert Roberson highlights the thin line between regulatory oversight and over‑regulation. Whether the law will stand firm or be softened by legal precedent remains to be seen.

Key Takeaways

• The Texas Junk Science Law criminalizes false or misleading health claims with significant penalties.
• The law’s vagueness has prompted both enforcement actions and legal challenges.
• Dr. Robert Roberson’s case exemplifies the law’s potential to impact high‑profile health‑product entrepreneurs.
• The broader debate centers on balancing consumer protection with free speech and scientific innovation.

For readers seeking the full legal text, the article includes a link to the Texas Legislature’s online bill archive, while the DOJ’s lawsuit is available on PACER. The Life & Style piece serves as a useful primer for anyone navigating the emerging intersection of law, science, and consumer advocacy in Texas.