What the Done Global Prosecution Means for Telehealth Operators

The lesson of the Done Global case is that product and growth decisions can be prosecuted as drug distribution. Prosecutors did not only point to individual bad prescriptions. They pointed to the visit length the platform allowed, the auto-refill feature, the pressure on clinicians, the refusal to discharge patients and the advertising, and argued those choices were designed to distribute stimulants. A jury agreed, and the founder and the clinical president both went to prison. Any telehealth company that prescribes controlled substances should audit its own design against that record.

How did the case unfold?

• June 2024: the Justice Department charged Done Global's founder and CEO, Ruthia He, and its clinical president, David Brody, with others.
• November 2025: a federal jury in San Francisco convicted He and Brody of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, four counts of distribution of controlled substances, and conspiracy to commit health care fraud; He was also convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to the Justice Department's November 19, 2025 press release. The release described the prosecution as involving more than 40 million pills of Adderall and other stimulants and more than $40 million spent on deceptive social media advertising.
• July 7, 2026: He was sentenced to six years in prison and a $1 million fine, and Brody to two years and a $1 million fine, according to reports of the sentencing, including a summary by the law firm ArentFox Schiff.

What did prosecutors say the platform did?

The Justice Department's conviction release described:

• initial appointments "less than half the length of a typical psychiatric examination";
• "auto-refill" technology that allowed prescriptions to continue without clinical interaction;
• patients not being discharged despite concerns about addiction and mental health crises;
• advertising on social media that promoted easy access to medication.

Summaries of the case by law firms also describe false prior authorization requests to insurers and the moving of operations and records to avoid investigators, which became the obstruction count.

Why did design choices become evidence?

A controlled-substance prescription must be "issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice" (21 CFR 1306.04(a)). Prosecutors used the platform's design to argue that prescriptions were not issued in the usual course of professional practice: when the system sets a visit length too short for a real evaluation, refills without review, pays or pressures clinicians toward prescribing, and blocks discharge, the individual clinician's judgment is constrained by the company's choices. That is how a founder with no medical license and a clinical executive both ended up convicted of distribution.

Does this mean telehealth stimulant prescribing is illegal?

No. DEA's fourth temporary extension (90 FR 61301) allows DEA-registered practitioners to prescribe Schedule II through V controlled substances by telemedicine without a prior in-person evaluation through December 31, 2026, subject to all other requirements, including the legitimate-purpose rule above and state law. What changes after that date depends on DEA's special registration rule, which was proposed in January 2025 and is not yet final. See our DEA telemedicine rules hub and prescribing ADHD stimulants by telehealth.

A self-audit for telehealth companies

Visit design

• Is the minimum visit length for a new controlled-substance patient set by the medical director based on what an evaluation requires, or by throughput targets?
• Do intake answers ever lead toward a prescription automatically, or does a clinician always decide?
• Can a clinician extend a visit, order more history, or require records without penalty?

Refills and follow-up

• Does any refill issue without a clinician reviewing the patient? Is there a hard stop for follow-up visits at a set interval?
• Are PDMP checks performed and documented as each state requires? See PDMP checks for telehealth prescribers.

Clinician incentives and independence

• Is any clinician pay, bonus or scheduling tied to prescription rates or patient retention?
• Have clinicians been discouraged from declining, tapering or discharging? Look at internal messages, not only policies.
• Does the medical director have authority to stop a protocol or campaign? See the medical director's responsibilities.

Discharge

• Is there a written discharge pathway for misuse, diversion signs, or worsening mental health, with referral to in-person care?
• How many patients have been discharged in the last year? Zero is a finding.

Marketing

• Do ads promise easy access, speed or a prescription? See the advertising claims checklist.

Payers

• Do prior authorization submissions describe what clinicians actually did?

Who is personally exposed?

The case shows that non-clinical executives can be convicted of distribution and fraud for how a platform is built and run, and that clinical leaders can be convicted for signing off on it. Directors and officers insurance, indemnification and an independent compliance reporting line are worth reviewing with counsel, but none of them substitute for fixing the design.

Our DEA Telemedicine Readiness review ($1,450) runs this audit against your platform and protocols and produces findings for your counsel. See pricing.