Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop to pay out over vaginal eggs

Goop has agreed to pay $145,000 to settle allegations of unscientific claims

Goop, the new age lifestyle and publishing company founded by the actor Gwyneth Paltrow, has agreed to pay a substantial settlement over unproven claims about the health benefits of its infamous vaginal eggs.

Goop's website still claims that inserting the eggs into the vagina helps "cultivate sexual energy, clear chi pathways in the body, intensify femininity, and invigorate our life force".

Its $66 (¤73)Jade Egg and $55 Rose Quartz Egg are still offered for sale on the site, but the company has agreed to pay $145,000 to settle allegations that it previously made unscientific claims about the eggs, and a herbal essence that it had said helped tackle depression.

It also agreed to refund customers who purchased the products from January to August last year.


During that period it claims the eggs could balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse, and increase bladder control, according to officials in Santa Clara part of a group of California district attorneys who filed the lawsuit.

The Santa Clara district attorney, Jeff Rosen, said: "The health and money of Santa Clara County residents should never be put at risk by misleading advertising. We will vigilantly protect consumers against companies that promise health benefits without the support of good science."

Under the settlement Goop is banned from making any claims regarding the efficacy of its products without reliable scientific evidence.

Goop has defended unorthodox health practices in the face of legal challenges and concerns by consumer watchdogs about its products. But in July Paltrow announced that Goop had hired an in-house fact checker for its website.

In a statement to Bloomberg, Goop explained why it agreed to settle. Erica Moore, its chief financial officer, said: "Goop provides a forum for practitioners to present their views and experiences with various products like the Jade Egg.

“The law, though, sometimes views statement like this as advertising claims, which are subject to various legal requirements.” – Guardian