Kirstie Alley ordered to pay $130k settlement for sham weight loss program

Do you remember how Kirstie Alley launched an “organic” weight loss line in 2010, lost a bunch of weight in 2011 from competing with DWTS but still credited her weight loss line? Kirstie’s juice and vitamin “weight loss” program, Organic Liaison, also bore a striking resemblance to the “Purif Rundown,” a detoxification regime developed by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology cult. Kirstie is a proud Scientologist, but she’s haughtily denied that her diet program is associated with Scientology at all, even though the overpriced vitamins she shills are the same as the ones used in Scientology rituals.

Last year, we heard that a dissatisfied customer was suing Kirstie for having an ineffective, inferior weight loss product and for not being honest about how she lost the weight. The Enquirer has the news that Kirstie just paid out a court-ordered $130k settlement to the woman, including the woman’s legal fees, and has to admit that she lost weight in 2011 after participating in Dancing with The Stars. Burn to Kirstie. Here’s more:

Court documents obtained exclusively by The Enquirer reveal that the former “Fat Actress” star paid out a hefty six-figure sum and quietly settled a lawsuit with a disgruntled customer who slammed Kirstie’s Organic Liaison diet products as nothing but a pricey fraud.

“This is a major setback not only to Kirstie’s profitable business enterprise, but also to her reputation” a source close to the star told The Enquirer. “Her expensive lawyers did everything in their power trying to dismiss the lawsuit, but the judge found Kirstie’s program misleading. Her claims that her products were proven to help lose weight were deemed false advertising.”

Dissatisfied weight watcher Marina Abramyan, who initially filed suit against Alley’s Florida-based company in July 2012, finally got her day in court, forcing the former DWTS finalist to make changes to her product claims…

According to legal documents filed in LA Superior Court on March 20, 2013, Alley must abide by the settlement agreement, which includes removing the term “Proven Products” and issuing a disclaimer on Organic Liaison’s website explaining that it’s a “calorie-based weight-loss product.”

The plus-sized star’s bio page on the promotional website must also include a statement that Kirstie appeared on DWTS in 2011. In a final blow, Alley, 62, will pay Abramyan and her attorneys a whopping $130,000.

[From The National Enquirer, print edition,

Kirstie is a yo-yo dieter and her weight fluctuates quite a bit. That wouldn’t be something to mock her for if she would just STFU about it. She brings it up constantly she launched a weight loss program before she’d even lost enough weight to show it worked, and she is completely delusional about her size. She’s claimed to be a size 4, she’s claimed she has a 22 inch waist and she’s credited it all to her diet program, even when she was working out for hours a day in DWTS practice. Someone called her on her crap and she had to pay up. It’s not going to change anything about her, anyone as deep in a cult as she is must live with near constant denial and justification.

Kirstie Alley is shown on 4-30-13. These are the most recent photos we have of her, I did not deliberately pick the worst ones. Credit:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

40 Responses to “Kirstie Alley ordered to pay $130k settlement for sham weight loss program”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lupe says:

    I’m not defending Kirstie by any means, I’m sure her diet is a scam and a half, but f*** these frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits.

    • Cassandra says:

      I am sorry, but how is this a frivolous lawsuit? She lied about her product and the results that would happen if one used said product. Judges throw frivolous lawsuits all the time and judges also have the right in these case to lower the awarded amount if they feel its too high. For the case to have made it this far it had to meet a burden of proof and it is our right to have a trail. Sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes I am typing this on my phone.

      • Kiddo says:

        I don’t understand how these cases only remain in the civil courts. In addition to settlements, it would be gratifying to see criminal charges of fraud.

      • Lupe says:

        In my opinion, you’re putting way too much faith in the American judicial system. Does everyone deserve an exorbitant amount of money after allowing themselves to be swindled?

        So you didn’t lose weight on some celebrity diet? Tough luck, maybe next time you won’t take advertisements at face value. Should be a learning experience, nothing more. I hope this woman uses the money for a good cause and doesn’t blow it all on crap from infomercials.

      • Amelia says:

        Lupe, the plaintiff didn’t allow herself to be swindled, she believed Alley’s false claims about the product. There are laws against deceptive advertising, and that’s why Kirstie lost the lawsuit.

    • Kiddo says:

      I don’t know whether the plaintiff deserves the amount that they received, but the defendant certainly deserves to pay the damages. See how that works? You make phoney claims, you don’t get to continue perpetrating snake oil sales without a penalty for your BS. That’s justice.

      • Lupe says:

        Obviously, I’m in the minority here, but when a woman gets paid because she believed Kirstie Alley could make her skinny, that’s hardly what I’d call justice.

        In this day an age, if you believe some magical pill is going to solve your problems, you are not a victim, you’re an idiot.

        And I’ll shut up now.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Lupe, but then anyone could sell anything and make false claims about it and the courts would throw it out because people were foolish to believe it. It can’t work that way. You aren’t allowed to knowingly make claims about a product that are false. Period. Not trying to jump all over you, I just don’t think some people should get away with false advertising and others not.

    • JennJ says:

      I agree Lupe.
      Also, taxpayers are paying for the salaries of the the court staff to hear this ridiculousness.

    • Kiddo says:


      It’s not against the law to be naive. The worst scams are often perpetrated against the elderly, who by no fault of their own, through time and age, lose their sense of cynicism. Look at all the victims of robocall scams.

      I’d rather pay the salaries of people in court who deal with cases of fraud than to pay for people in government who give an ear to lobbyists with questionable benefits to citizenry. At least this part of government provides some level of protecting the public.

      Further, if there is any connection to a cult profit in this, all the better the vitamin pushing gets pushed back.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Kiddo, please read what I said again because you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I agree with you.

      • Kiddo says:

        I agreed with you. Sorry I didn’t say that I was too busy riding my high horse. lol

      • Cassandra says:

        Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
        In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

        Sorry that you don’t agree with naivety, but in the end it is my right. I am tried of people saying frivolous when this person had the RIGHT to her trail.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Kiddo – Oh, sorry…thanks for the clarification.

    • Bridget says:

      Its called Truth In Advertising. There are loopholes for sure, but its still intended so that companies cannot make outright false claims.

  2. taxi says:

    Poor Kirstie. She is not aging well.

    • JudyK says:

      Agree, but I do love her outfit, bag and shoes.

      Kirstie, please run a brush through that nasty-looking mop of yours!

      • Rhea says:

        It’s not the first time she’s out and about with a hair like that and it’s always bugging me each time. Why is she going around with a hair like that? Brush it—or at least tied it—to make it look decent.

    • Me Three says:

      She’s 63 and looks make up free. I have never been a fan but she looks pretty darn good. Yeah her hair is a mess and she would look better styled and made up like the rest of H Wood types–Alba et. al– but for a woman who’s weight has fluctuated as much as hers has, who isn’t wearing much make up and was obviously not styled, this broad doesn’t look half bad!

      • jwoolman says:

        I think she looks pretty good here, too, who cares about her hair anyway? It’s obviously not exactly real. She’s a comic actress, not a runway model. She can look like a normal person.

    • mayamae says:

      I never say that celebrites should have work done, but this woman needs something done for that gizzard.

  3. Cats says:

    Underneath the photos of Kirstie there is a double negative – “I didn’t not pick the worst ones” – Freudian slip? 😉

  4. lisa2 says:

    I still think of her in North and South..

    not to be confused with North West.

    OK.. I tried 🙂

  5. Gina says:

    “She’s claimed to be a size 4, she’s claimed she has a 22 inch waist…” wait, is her manager PMK??

    Seriously she looks like she needs a bath and yes comb that friggin hair.

  6. Juliette says:

    I never really liked her but what sealed the deal for me is when she wrote in her book about Patrick Swayze and her being lovers or something (same w/ Travolta).

    I found that really disrespectful to his memory and to his wife. I just find her to be a really tacky, gross person.

  7. Sumodo1 says:

    She is a hideous toad. Sorry, but Kirstie Alley looks like an unmade bed. Always.

  8. Suze says:

    Honestly, is it so hard to brush your hair? Particularly when you know photographers are about.

  9. mommak918 says:

    She use to have the best hair on Cheers…

    Really tho, I dont get it with celebs and their hair. She got dressed? Why not brush ur hair? Or, wear a nice wig….idk. i just feel there is liittle to no good excuse for celebs and with their easy access to makeup artists and hair stylists…

    I do excuse for gym workouts …

  10. Bridget says:

    Considering that this is a woman who is constantly threatening to sue anyone that speaks ill of Scientology, I’ll admit that this is a bit gratifying.

  11. ladybert62 says:

    She needs a decent haircut, a decent hairbrush (and then use it!) and to lose about 50 pounds.

  12. Madriani's Girl says:

    Why doesn’t someone tell her that horrid blond hair ages her terribly?

    • jwoolman says:

      She’s an actress and obviously feels her professional options would be too limited if she let her hair go gray. And she’s most likely right. My mother dyed her hair to the original black when graying started for the same reason, she thought she needed to for her job. Kristie is in her sixties, right? She looks good and active.

  13. jwoolman says:

    She was very upfront about hoping DWTS would help her lose the final thirty pound or so she wanted to lose. And she was quite public about that. I don’t really see how that’s misleading. Not that I believe her product is effective- just that you’re allowed to incorporate exercise in any weight loss endeavor. The lawsuit really never made much sense to me. People do need to be wary about these weight loss products in general, though. There must not be much regulation about how they’re labeled.

  14. UsedToBeLulu says:

    Having a 22 inch waist and being a size 4 must be her ‘living her reality’. Isn’t that a CO$ precept?

  15. Belle Epoch says:

    I’m amazed that anyone can support false advertising! Yeah weight loss schemes are common, but you can’t pick and choose what “counts” as worthy of prosecution and what doesn’t. The laws apply across the board to protect people from unscrupulous thieves. What if they marketed a cancer drug that was useless, or unsafe car tires that blew out at 70mph? You want to live where they put plastic in milk and call it protein, go to China.