Dead Vendor Tracker: Peptide Shutdowns 2020-2026

The table below documents every verified major vendor closure or criminal prosecution between 2020 and mid-2026. Sources are DOJ press releases, court records, FDA enforcement databases, and verified reporting. Unverified claims and forum rumours are excluded.

Vendor	Date	Type	Outcome
Tailor Made Compounding	Oct 2020	Criminal prosecution	$1.79M forfeiture; 3 years probation
All American Peptide	2022	Criminal prosecution	$3M+ forfeiture; owners guilty of conspiracy
Royal Research	2025	Silent closure	Went offline; no public statement
Peptide Tech Labs	2025	Silent closure	Went offline; no public statement
American Research Labs	2025	Silent closure	Went offline; no public statement
Unchained Compounds	2025	Silent closure	Went offline; no public statement
Amino Asylum	Jun 2025	Federal raid	Warehouse raided; site offline; payment processing terminated; pending orders frozen
Paradigm Peptides	Dec 2025	Criminal prosecution	Founders guilty plea; sentencing pending
Science.bio	Jan 27, 2026	Voluntary closure	Orders fulfilled or refunded; orderly wind-down
Peptide Sciences	Mar 6, 2026	Voluntary closure	No warning; no refunds; no order status; $7.4M/mo in Dec 2025 revenue

Several smaller vendors also disappeared during this period without public announcements. The closures listed above are those with verified dates, documented circumstances, or public enforcement records.

The bottom line: Ten documented vendor closures or prosecutions between 2020 and mid-2026, with the concentration in mid-2025 to early 2026 representing an unprecedented contraction in the grey-market peptide supply chain.

Four criminal prosecutions between 2020 and 2025 established the legal precedent that selling peptides labelled “research use only” does not shield vendors from federal charges when products are marketed for human use or when mislabelling introduces controlled substances.

Tailor Made Compounding LLC (Oct 2020)

Tailor Made Compounding, a 503A compounding pharmacy based in Nicholasville, Kentucky, set the criminal precedent for peptide-industry prosecution. The company and its owner, Jeremy Delk, pleaded guilty to distributing unapproved new drugs including BPC-157, CJC-1295, Ipamorelin, LGD-4033, and other compounds. The company forfeited $1,788,906.82. Delk received 3 years probation, 4 months home incarceration, a $20,000 fine, and was barred from prescription drug distribution.

Critically, Delk had attempted to hide records from FDA inspectors during a 2018 inspection – conduct that escalated the federal response from civil to criminal. TMC subsequently issued a sterility recall in 2022. The company had been licensed in 46 states and NABP-accredited, demonstrating that regulatory credentials alone do not prevent enforcement action when underlying conduct is unlawful.

All American Peptide (2022)

Keith and Sylvia Kovaleski, the owners of All American Peptide, pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs. The company had operated from 2014 to January 2019, selling peptides, SARMs, tadalafil, and other compounds marketed primarily to bodybuilders. The couple forfeited over $3 million in criminal proceeds. The case demonstrated that the “research use only” disclaimer provided no legal protection when the products were marketed to consumers for human use.

Paradigm Peptides (Dec 2025)

Matthew Kawa and his sister Jennifer Stechkober, operators of Paradigm Peptides (Paradigm R.E. LLC, Michigan City, Indiana), both entered guilty pleas on December 10, 2025. Federal investigators determined that products labelled as SARMs actually contained testosterone – a Schedule III controlled substance under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. Additional charges related to selling unapproved drugs (peptides, hCG, and SARMs) without FDA authorisation. Kawa’s sentencing, originally scheduled for March 24, 2026, was rescheduled to June 3, 2026 (subsequently moved to July 30, 2026).

The Paradigm case added a critical dimension: not just selling unapproved drugs, but selling mislabelled controlled substances. Customers who believed they were purchasing SARMs were unknowingly taking testosterone – with all of the associated physiological effects, health monitoring requirements, and legal exposure that entails. For the broader context of SARM quality control failures, see our peptides vs SARMs comparison.

Beyond criminal prosecutions, the 2025-2026 period saw federal raids and voluntary closures that removed the largest remaining grey-market vendors from the US market, collectively displacing hundreds of thousands of customers.

Amino Asylum (Jun 2025)

Federal authorities raided Amino Asylum’s Memphis, Tennessee warehouse on or around June 18, 2025. The website went offline overnight. Payment processing was terminated. Pending orders were frozen with no refund mechanism established. Amino Asylum had been one of the top-five most-searched peptide vendors in the US, with an estimated 400,000+ monthly website visitors and a broad catalogue spanning peptides, SARMs, nootropics, and prescription medications.

The raid specifically targeted products labelled as SARMs that were found to contain testosterone – the same mislabelling pattern identified in the Paradigm Peptides prosecution. This connection between the two cases (and the roughly six-month raid-to-plea timeline) suggests coordinated enforcement across multiple jurisdictions.

The Amino Asylum raid was industry-shaping. Before June 2025, the e-commerce grey market operated on the assumption that FDA enforcement meant warning letters, not warrants. After June 2025, every vendor of meaningful scale had to price in the risk of physical raid and criminal prosecution. Within weeks, peer vendors began removing higher-risk products from their catalogues.

Science.bio (Jan 2026)

Science.bio announced its permanent closure on January 27, 2026. Unlike Amino Asylum or Paradigm Peptides, Science.bio was not raided or criminally charged. The founders chose to close voluntarily, stating the decision followed “careful consideration.” The company committed to fulfilling all outstanding orders or providing full refunds before shutting down – a notably better customer outcome than the other major closures.

Science.bio’s catalogue was broader than a pure peptide vendor, covering nootropics, SARMs, and general research chemicals. Its closure removed one of the most technically respected suppliers from the market and signalled that even vendors with strong quality reputations were reading the regulatory environment and choosing to exit.

Peptide Sciences (Mar 2026)

On March 6, 2026, at approximately 2:00 PM Eastern, visitors to the Peptide Sciences website were greeted by a three-sentence notice stating the company had “voluntarily decided to shut down operations and discontinue the sale of all research products.” There was no advance warning, no guidance on pending orders, and no explanation beyond the word “voluntary.”

The scale of the shutdown was significant. According to e-commerce analytics firm Grips Intelligence, Peptide Sciences was generating approximately $7.4 million in monthly online sales as of December 2025. The company had operated for over a decade and was widely considered the largest grey-market research peptide vendor in the United States. Its search term generated over 110,000 Google searches per month.

Finnrick Analytics testing data showed quality inconsistency behind the market-leading reputation: 129 tested samples with an average score of 6.6/10, an 85% identity pass rate, and a rating range spanning from 2.0 to 10.0. The retatrutide product line specifically received an E rating across multiple tests.

Before raids and prosecutions, the FDA’s enforcement tool of choice was the warning letter. The escalation pattern is clear in retrospect: warning letters preceded every major enforcement action, even when the vendors that ultimately shut down were not the direct recipients.

Date	Recipients	Significance
Dec 2024	Prime Peptides, Xcel Peptides, SwissChems, Summit Research	First wave targeting grey-market RUO vendors directly (rather than compounding pharmacies)
Sep 2025	50+ recipients (compounders, manufacturers, vendors)	Largest single-month enforcement action; confirmed DOJ involvement
Ongoing 2025-2026	30+ telehealth companies	GLP-1 marketing violations; separate enforcement track from RUO vendor actions

In the three months following the December 2024 warning wave, several vendors pre-emptively removed products from their catalogues. One vendor removed peptides and injectables entirely; another rebranded and restructured. The broader market began “pre-emptive catalogue trimming” ahead of the 2025 enforcement surge. For the full FDA enforcement timeline, see our US legality guide.

Across the documented closures, several patterns emerge that hold across three or more cases – enough to identify them as structural features of the enforcement cycle rather than isolated incidents.

Pattern 1: Scale attracts enforcement

The vendors that drew the most aggressive enforcement were the highest-volume operations. Peptide Sciences ($7.4M/mo revenue), Amino Asylum (400,000+ monthly visitors), and Paradigm Peptides (national customer base) were not marginal operations – they were scaled e-commerce businesses generating substantial revenue. The smaller, silent closures (Royal Research, Peptide Tech Labs, American Research Labs, Unchained Compounds) suggest that medium-scale operators read the environment and chose to exit quietly rather than wait for enforcement to reach them.

Pattern 2: SARMs and controlled substances escalate from civil to criminal

Both the Paradigm Peptides and Amino Asylum cases involved products labelled as SARMs that actually contained testosterone – a Schedule III controlled substance. This mislabelling elevated what would have been an FDCA civil enforcement matter (distributing unapproved new drugs) into DEA-adjacent controlled substance territory. The result was physical raids, criminal prosecution, and forfeiture. Vendors selling only research peptides with accurate labelling have not (so far) faced the same criminal escalation – but the precedent is established.

Pattern 3: GLP-1 exposure correlates with closure timing

Vendors that added semaglutide and tirzepatide to their catalogues during the 2023-2024 GLP-1 boom experienced the highest regulatory pressure. The ITC General Exclusion Order (January 2025) and Eli Lilly/Novo Nordisk lawsuits (April-August 2025) specifically targeted the GLP-1 supply chain. Peptide Sciences, which had added GLP-1 compounds to its catalogue, shut down shortly after the SAFE Drugs Act was introduced – legislation specifically designed to close the loophole that GLP-1 grey-market sales relied on.

Pattern 4: The raid-to-plea timeline is approximately six months

The Amino Asylum raid occurred in June 2025; the Paradigm Peptides/Amino Asylum guilty pleas were entered in December 2025 – a six-month interval that matched the Tailor Made Compounding timeline. This suggests a procedural cadence that vendors and their counsel can anticipate: once a physical raid occurs, plea negotiations typically conclude within months, not years.

The federal enforcement apparatus targeting peptide vendors consolidated significantly in late 2025. In November 2025, the DOJ created the Health and Safety Unit within the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, centralising criminal prosecution of FDCA violations that had previously been distributed across multiple divisions. The HSU’s 2025 activity included four individual charges, four convictions, and four corporate enforcement actions – a pace that suggests increased enforcement capacity in 2026.

State-level enforcement has also accelerated. Alabama obtained a temporary restraining order against GLP-1 distributors. Connecticut settled with a vendor for selling raw semaglutide powder with self-injection instructions. Over 40 state attorneys general formally petitioned the FDA about counterfeit peptides entering the US market.

For a comprehensive view of how this enforcement fits into the broader regulatory landscape, see our regulatory tracker hub and the 2026 market overview.

The closure of major vendors created a demand vacuum that fraudulent operators rushed to fill. Within hours of the Peptide Sciences shutdown, domains were registered using near-identical branding – “peptidesciences” with different TLDs, slight misspellings, or added words like “official” or “new.” The same pattern occurred after Amino Asylum and Science.bio. These clone sites typically lack any analytical testing infrastructure and ship degraded, under-dosed, or entirely counterfeit compounds.

No defunct vendor authorised a successor, transferred customer lists, or endorsed a replacement. Any website claiming to be the “official” continuation of Peptide Sciences, Amino Asylum, or Science.bio is fraudulent. The original shutdown notices were final and unconditional.

For how to evaluate any vendor claiming to fill the gap left by defunct suppliers, see our vendor evaluation guide and COA reading guide. For the broader US vendor landscape in 2026, see our US vendor comparison.

The bottom line: Every major vendor shutdown has been followed by a wave of fraudulent clone websites – the period immediately after a high-profile closure is when buyer vigilance matters most.