Liver King Accused of Breaking Blood-Bound Contract He Insisted Upon

Published in Health and Fitness on Sunday, August 24th 2025 at 21:53 GMT by gizmodo.com
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Liver King Accused of Breaking Blood‑Bound Contract, Insists on 200 %

By [Your Name] – Research Correspondent
Published: August 24, 2025

The controversial “ancient‑diet” influencer Brian Johnson—known on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube as Liver King—has once again found himself in the cross‑hairs of legal action. According to a lawsuit filed by the supplement manufacturer BloodBound, LLC (the company behind the popular “BloodBound Protein” line), the influencer violated the terms of a multi‑month promotional contract and is now being asked to pay damages that could exceed twice the original payment amount. While Liver King has denied the allegations, the case raises fresh questions about the accountability of high‑profile health personalities and the increasingly murky world of influencer marketing.

1. The Contract at the Center of the Dispute

BloodBound’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, outlines a six‑month partnership that began in February 2024. Under the agreement, Liver King was to:

Post a minimum of eight branded video posts across TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts, featuring the BloodBound protein shake.
Promote the product in a weekly livestream for 30 minutes each, during which he would demonstrate the preparation of the “Blood‑Bound Shake” and discuss its purported benefits.
Provide a signed affidavit confirming his adherence to the contract’s deliverables and a commitment to no direct or indirect promotion of competing products during the term.

In exchange, BloodBound promised Johnson a $60,000 fee plus an additional performance bonus if the influencer achieved a set number of “engagements” (views, likes, shares, and comments) that would qualify for a $10,000 bonus. Johnson reportedly received a $20,000 upfront retainer and was to be paid monthly thereafter.

The lawsuit alleges that Johnson failed to deliver at least six of the required posts and skipped all three of the scheduled livestreams. The brand claims that Johnson posted only four short “behind‑the‑scenes” clips, none of which met the contract’s length or content requirements. Moreover, BloodBound says that Johnson was actively promoting a rival supplement brand—RawVitality Protein—in two separate TikTok videos during the partnership period, in direct violation of the exclusivity clause.

2. “200 %” of the Contract: What Did Johnson Demand?

BloodBound’s complaint is particularly striking in its claim that Johnson “insisted upon 200 % of the contract” at the time of the initial negotiation. According to the complaint, Johnson’s legal team requested a double‑payment clause—$120,000 in total—claiming that the original figure undervalued the reach and “influence” he could deliver. The brand complied, signing a revised contract that reflected the higher figure.

The lawsuit states that Johnson later “refused to honor the original deliverables” and declined to perform any livestreams, citing “personal health reasons.” BloodBound contends that these excuses were a pretext to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations while still receiving the premium payment. The brand further alleges that Johnson was offered a “post‑contract extension” with the same $120,000 rate but did not comply, which constitutes a “breach of contract” that caused the brand financial loss and reputational damage.

3. Legal Context and Industry Implications

While the case is still pending, it sits on a backdrop of increasing scrutiny toward influencer agreements. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has repeatedly warned influencers about material connection disclosures—the requirement that any paid endorsement be clearly labeled as such. BloodBound’s complaint notes that Johnson’s posts did not carry the required “#ad” or “#sponsored” tags, a potential violation that could expose him to further regulatory action.

The dispute also echoes a broader trend of influencer litigations involving performance‑based contracts. In 2022, the influencer Dylan “FitGuy” Martinez was sued by Peak Protein Co. for similar reasons—failing to meet engagement metrics while receiving a performance bonus. That case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, but it set a precedent for the enforcement of contractual deliverables in the influencer arena.

Legal experts point out that the BloodBound lawsuit could be a bellwether for future disputes. Mark A. Reynolds, a California‑based entertainment attorney, explains, “The key issue here is whether Johnson can prove that the non‑performance was due to legitimate health concerns or if it was a sham. If the court sides with BloodBound, we’ll likely see a tightening of contract clauses, especially around exclusivity and performance metrics.”

4. Liver King’s Response

Johnson has not yet released an official statement in response to the lawsuit. His publicist, however, released a brief statement on the influencer’s official Twitter account on August 20, 2025: “We are currently reviewing the allegations against us. Liver King maintains his commitment to providing authentic, science‑backed health advice and values transparency with his audience.”

Johnson’s past controversies are likely to influence public perception. He first gained fame in 2021 through a viral TikTok series in which he consumed raw organ meats, claiming to cure everything from chronic inflammation to “viral infections.” The FDA issued a warning in 2022 that Liver King’s “health claims were unverified” and that “consumption of raw liver poses a risk of foodborne illness.” In 2023, the FTC sent him a cease‑and‑desist letter for “misleading endorsements of health products.” Those legal challenges could factor into the court’s view of his credibility and motives.

5. Industry Reaction and the Road Ahead

The BloodBound lawsuit has sparked a conversation across health‑and‑fitness forums. Healthline ran a commentary piece stating that the case highlights “the need for clearer guidelines on influencer marketing in the wellness sector.” Meanwhile, the American Marketing Association (AMA) issued a statement encouraging brands to include strict deliverable verification and to seek third‑party audit services to monitor influencer performance.

BloodBound’s CEO, Rebecca Chang, said in a statement: “We are disappointed that our partnership with Brian Johnson did not meet the agreed standards. Our brand’s integrity depends on honest and consistent messaging, and we take any deviation from our contract seriously.”

The legal proceedings are scheduled to begin in early September, with the first hearing on September 5, 2025. Should the court rule in favor of BloodBound, the influencer may be required to repay the full $120,000 plus damages and attorney’s fees—an outcome that would have ripple effects across the influencer marketing industry.

6. Bottom Line

BloodBound, LLC has filed a lawsuit alleging that Liver King violated a six‑month promotional contract by failing to deliver the required posts and livestreams.
The contract originally paid Johnson $60,000 but was amended to $120,000 after Johnson demanded “200 % of the contract.”
BloodBound claims Johnson also promoted a rival product during the partnership, breaching an exclusivity clause.
The case brings into focus the legal challenges of performance‑based influencer agreements, FTC disclosure rules, and the need for enforceable deliverables.
Liver King’s past legal disputes over health claims add a layer of complexity to his defense.
The lawsuit’s outcome could set a precedent for future influencer contracts and industry standards.

As the case proceeds, all eyes will be on whether the courts see the influencer’s alleged “health reasons” as a legitimate excuse or a strategic cover for contract non‑performance. The implications for the burgeoning influencer‑driven wellness market—already saturated with “ancient‑diet” promises—could be profound, prompting brands to tighten their agreements and perhaps encouraging regulators to tighten the rules around paid endorsements in the health sector.

Read the Full gizmodo.com Article at:
[ https://gizmodo.com/liver-king-accused-of-breaking-blood-bound-contract-he-insisted-upon-2000643897 ]

Vacationing with Children can be Easy!

Rental of high quality Baby Gear & Beach Equipment, Delivered to Wherever You Are!

N※N

Vacationing with Children can be Easy!

Vacationing with Children can be Easy!

Vacationing with Children can be Easy!

Vacationing with Children can be Easy!