Psychologist Aditya Sarao
Mitch Gould founded NPI in 2008. His son Brian Gould founded Trulife Distribution in 2019. Both companies do the same thing, they help health and wellness brands get into the US retail market. Both operate out of Florida. And by 2022 they were suing each other in federal court.
The lawsuit has generated hundreds of articles online, most of them treating it as an active, unresolved case with dramatic implications for the supplement industry. The actual court record tells a shorter story. NPI filed, NPI voluntarily dismissed, the parties settled, and no court ever found fraud.
Two separate federal cases exist on the docket. One was filed under RICO in 2021 and settled within four months. The other was terminated three days after filing in 2025. Neither produced a written opinion or a finding against either party.
What NPI Alleged in May 2022
NPI filed its complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:22-cv-60943, on May 4, 2022. Judge Raag Singhal was assigned.
The allegations were specific and, if proven, serious:
- Stolen case studies and testimonials. NPI claimed Trulife took client success stories, case studies, and testimonials directly from NPI’s website and presented them as Trulife’s own work. A potential client reportedly grew suspicious and discovered through online research that the case studies on Trulife’s site actually belonged to NPI, not Trulife.
- Fraudulent email address. The lawsuit alleged Trulife displayed the email address [email protected] on its own website, creating the impression that NPI and Trulife were affiliated or that Mitch Gould was involved with Trulife.
- Fabricated credentials. NPI alleged Trulife claimed to have worked with over 150 brands in the US market and to have over 100 years of combined industry experience, claims NPI said were outright fabrications for a company founded in 2019.
- False celebrity endorsements. According to NPI, Trulife listed endorsements from public figures and media outlets that did not actually endorse the company.
NPI presented screenshots of Trulife’s website and marketing materials as evidence.
What Trulife Said Back
Trulife denied everything and came out swinging with its own counterclaims.
The company acknowledged that incorrect information, including the NPI email address, had appeared on its website. But Trulife called these inadvertent IT errors, not intentional misrepresentation. Temporary mistakes during website setup, not a scheme to deceive potential clients.
Trulife also argued the lawsuit itself was anti-competitive, that NPI filed it not because the allegations were genuine but to damage a legitimate competitor. In September 2022, Trulife filed counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference against NPI.
In November 2022, Trulife brought an anti-SLAPP motion arguing the lawsuit infringed on its commercial free speech rights. The judge denied that motion.
Two Federal Cases, Neither Produced a Fraud Finding
This is where the actual court record diverges from what most articles online describe.
The first federal case was filed by Trulife against Gould and related parties on April 15, 2021, under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). It settled and was dismissed within four months. No written opinion.
The 2022 NPI complaint (the one most articles focus on) was voluntarily dismissed by NPI itself in June 2022 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). NPI, the party that brought the suit, chose to walk away from it before trial. The court issued no finding of fraud, no fine, and no sanction against Trulife.
A 2025 filing (Case No. 9:2025cv80488, Trulife Distribution Inc. v. Gould et al) appeared on the Southern District of Florida docket and was terminated three days after filing.
The parties reached a full resolution by 2024 with no public admission of fault by either side.
Does “no admission of fault” mean Trulife was cleared?
Not exactly. A settlement with no admission of fault is not an exoneration. It means the parties agreed to resolve their dispute privately without either side formally conceding wrongdoing. The court never ruled on whether the allegations were true or false because the case never went to trial. Trulife has publicly stated it was “cleared of charges,” but the legal record is more precise than that, the case was settled and dismissed, not adjudicated.
NPI has not publicly commented on why it voluntarily dismissed its own complaint.
The Family Angle Is Real and It Shaped Everything
Most business disputes between competing distribution companies do not generate this much online attention. This one did because of who is on each side.
Mitch Gould built NPI over more than 30 years in the natural products industry. He has placed over 100 brands into US retail, including names like Muscle Milk. His son Brian worked in the same industry and then started a competing company in the same state offering the same services to the same category of clients.
That sequence, a son launching a direct competitor to his father’s business, is the reason the allegations hit as hard as they did. Stolen case studies and client testimonials are serious accusations in any context. When the accusation is that your son took your work and presented it as his own, the personal dimension changes how the entire dispute gets perceived.
Whether Brian actually took anything from NPI or whether the website issues were genuinely accidental IT errors is something the court never determined. The settlement resolved the dispute without answering the question publicly.
What the Online Narrative Gets Wrong
Search “Trulife Distribution lawsuit” and you find articles published as recently as mid-2026 describing the case as “active,” “ongoing,” and “pending resolution.” Several reference a discovery period running through 2023 and speculate about a trial date that never materialized.
The case was resolved by 2024.
Some articles cite specific financial figures, “$150,000 in legal costs” for NPI, “$300,000 in claimed losses,” without sourcing where those numbers come from. They may have appeared in early filings, but they get repeated across dozens of articles as established facts when they were allegations in a complaint that was voluntarily dismissed.
The “implications for the industry” sections that appear in most of these articles, predicting higher fees for brands, reduced competition, industry-wide chilling effects, are speculative. Both companies continue to operate. Trulife is still in business under Brian Gould. NPI is still in business under Mitch Gould. The supplement distribution market did not consolidate or contract because of this lawsuit.
What actually happened was a family business dispute that played out in federal court, produced no finding of wrongdoing, settled privately, and generated a disproportionate amount of online content most of which is outdated or inaccurate.
Where Both Companies Stand Now
Trulife Distribution continues to operate from Florida, focused on health, wellness, and natural products distribution in the US market. The company works with brands in dietary supplements, functional foods, organic personal care, and natural products, helping them with retail placement, distribution logistics, and brand development.
NPI continues to operate under Mitch Gould, offering similar distribution and brand management services for health and wellness companies entering the US market.
Both companies survived the litigation. Both continue to compete in the same space. The court record is closed and neither side came away with a public finding that vindicated their position or condemned the other.
References
- NPI v. Trulife Distribution, Case No. 0:22-cv-60943, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Filed May 4, 2022. Voluntarily dismissed by NPI under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
- Trulife Distribution Inc. v. Gould et al, Case No. 9:2025cv80488, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Docket retrieved August 8, 2025 via Justia. Terminated three days after filing.
- Trulife Distribution Inc. v. Gould et al (2021), filed under RICO framework, settled and dismissed within four months.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), voluntary dismissal by plaintiff.
- Law News UK, “The TruLife Distribution Lawsuit Story: Two Federal Cases, Two Outcomes” (May 2026).
- Classaction24.com, “Trulife Distribution Lawsuit: What the Court Records Show” (June 2026).
- Bralad.com, “Decoding the Trulife Distribution vs. NPI Lawsuit” (March 2026).
