Hardbody Supplements was once presented as a textbook American fitness success story. Founded in Kansas by married bodybuilding partners Law, also identified in court records as Lawrence Payne, and Patricia Payne, the company grew from a personal-training and supplement venture into a rapidly expanding online nutrition business. Its story was attractive enough for Inc. magazine to profile the couple and place Hardbody Supplements among America’s fastest-growing private companies. In 2020, the company reported $25.6 million in revenue, according to Inc., representing extraordinary growth from 2017. By 2021, Hardbody ranked No. 8 on the Inc. 5000 list.
Behind that growth, however, a dispute with investors developed into a federal court battle involving allegations of financial misconduct, access to company records, personal expenditures, disputed ownership arrangements and questions about where company money went. The litigation ultimately produced a $3.4 million stipulated judgment against Lawrence Payne and Patricia Payne. The judgment was followed by collection proceedings in which creditors sought information about the couple’s assets and finances. By 2026, the dispute had expanded into additional litigation involving payment-processing and business entities connected to the Paynes.
The public record requires an important distinction. Some accusations against the Paynes originated with their former business partners and were allegations in litigation. Other matters resulted in actual court orders or judgments. The $3.4 million judgment was not, as some secondary reporting has described it, a jury verdict following a completed fraud trial. The federal court record shows that after litigation and discovery, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and then submitted a joint stipulation of judgment. On August 13, 2024, the court entered judgment for $3.4 million on the claims.
That distinction matters because the Hardbody story is not simply one of a failed business or an unhappy investor. It is a case in which allegations of fraud and misuse of company resources became serious enough to produce a multimillion-dollar judgment, followed by judicial orders concerning financial records and later proceedings over compliance with those orders.
Lawrence and Patricia Payne founded Hardbody Supplements in 2016. The company was built around the couple’s experience as fitness trainers and competitive bodybuilders. Inc. described Law Payne as a former personal trainer and 2011 Lightweight World Champion who had become concerned about digestive problems associated with fitness supplements. The Paynes said they wanted to develop products using ingredients they considered cleaner and more transparent, and they built the business around protein products, pre-workout formulas, weight-loss programs and other nutrition products.
The early business narrative was remarkably successful. Inc. reported that Hardbody generated $25.6 million in revenue in 2020, up 22,948 percent from 2017. That performance helped place the company at No. 8 on the 2021 Inc. 5000 list. Inc.’s later company profile lists Hardbody Supplements as a Kansas-based consumer-products company founded in 2016, with Law Payne as its leader. The company also appeared on Inc.’s Midwest regional rankings.
The company marketed itself as a premium supplement operation, emphasizing organic and GMO-free products and describing its products as being manufactured in FDA-registered and current Good Manufacturing Practice facilities. Its public business profile described products ranging from fat burners and superfoods to plant-based protein and fitness programs. A trademark filing also shows Hardbody Supplements LLC as the applicant for “The Hardbody Team” fitness and nutrition coaching brand.
The growth was largely digital. Hardbody sold through its own website and major online marketplaces including Amazon, Walmart and Target. Inc. reported that the company’s social-media operation had attracted millions of followers and that influencer marketing was a major part of its sales strategy. The company also expanded beyond supplements into energy drinks and fitness-related offerings.
For a time, the business appeared to be precisely the kind of internet-driven consumer brand that investors wanted to find. The problem was not necessarily the public sales story. It was what happened inside the ownership structure.
The federal lawsuit that brought those internal issues into public view is Nathan Barns, Susannah Kilpatrick and Darren Kilpatrick v. Lawrence Payne and Patricia Payne, Case No. 2:22-cv-02433, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The case was filed on October 21, 2022. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and conversion.
According to the allegations summarized in a December 2023 federal discovery order, the Paynes had founded Hardbody Supplements LLC and initially owned 50 percent each under a 2016 operating agreement. In 2019, Lawrence Payne approached Nathan Barns about entering into a business relationship. Barns and the Kilpatricks subsequently became investors in the company. The precise economic arrangements and later ownership disputes became a central part of the litigation.
The investors alleged that they had paid $500,000 for a nondilutable 50 percent interest in the business. They further alleged that they were subsequently denied meaningful access to the company’s books and records. Those allegations were not simply reported in an online complaint and forgotten. They became the subject of discovery proceedings before a federal judge.
The December 13, 2023 order by Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson is particularly important because it provides a window into what the court considered relevant evidence. The court granted the investors’ motion to compel in part and ordered the Paynes to produce extensive records. Among other things, the court required financial documents, company records and an adequate privilege log.
The court also addressed allegations that the Paynes had distributed more than $500,000 to themselves in 2019 and at least $1.5 million in 2020. Those were allegations made by the plaintiffs, not findings that the court was independently declaring proven at that stage. But the court concluded that the allegations, combined with evidence suggesting company funds may have been used for personal expenses, made the Paynes’ personal financial information relevant to the case.
That decision opened the door to discovery into bank accounts, credit cards and transactions involving the Paynes. The court limited the scope of personal financial discovery, but it specifically allowed discovery into transactions of $10,000 or more dating back to 2019. The order also referenced allegations concerning luxury vehicles, jewelry and non-fungible tokens.
The NFT allegations are particularly striking because the court record identifies specific digital assets. One discovery request sought information concerning a Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT that Lawrence Payne allegedly purchased for approximately $192,500, approximately 25 Mutant Ape Yacht Club NFTs allegedly valued at about $121,000 each, and approximately 30 Clone X NFTs associated with Takashi Murakami, each allegedly valued at approximately $53,000. The Paynes disputed the characterization that Hardbody itself had purchased those assets and maintained that another business was involved.
That is a critical point for any responsible investigation. The court did not rule in the December 2023 discovery order that the NFTs were definitively purchased with misappropriated Hardbody money. What the court did rule was that the financial information was sufficiently relevant to justify discovery because the plaintiffs had alleged that company assets had been used for personal expenditures and because the defendants had identified other entities as purchasers of some of the NFTs.
The court’s treatment of the records dispute is equally revealing. The Paynes had not provided a privilege log for documents they claimed were protected. The court declined at that stage to deem privilege waived, but ordered the defendants to provide an adequate privilege log and produce or certify the production of nonprivileged responsive documents.
The order therefore established an important factual backdrop to the later judgment. The dispute was not merely about whether investors liked the way Hardbody was being managed. A federal court was actively ordering the founders to provide financial records and information relevant to allegations of self-dealing and possible misuse of corporate resources.
The litigation continued. Rather than proceeding to a public jury verdict, the parties eventually reached a confidential settlement and submitted a joint stipulation of judgment. The court entered judgment on August 13, 2024, in favor of Nathan Barns, Susannah Kilpatrick and Darren Kilpatrick for $3.4 million. The January 2026 federal court record expressly identifies the amount and explains that the judgment was entered pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation.
This is the point at which the story moved from an investor dispute into an asset-recovery battle.
After the judgment, the investors attempted to collect. On February 18, 2025, they asked the court for a hearing in aid of execution under Kansas law, seeking an order requiring the Paynes to appear, testify about their property and income and produce documents concerning their financial assets and bank accounts. The court granted the request on March 10, 2025.
The Paynes were ordered to appear personally. They did not do so at the April 24, 2025 hearing. Their attorney appeared and sought a continuance, but the court denied that request and ordered them to appear at a subsequent show-cause hearing. The court emphasized that their personal attendance was compulsory because the purpose of the hearing was to examine their financial circumstances.
The subsequent proceedings produced another layer of judicial scrutiny. At the June 5, 2025 hearing, the Paynes appeared personally, but the court found that the document production was limited and largely nonresponsive. The court record states that the production contained no financial information and that the Paynes had still not produced all documents required by the March 10 order. A further examination was scheduled for July 17.
The July proceedings did not immediately end the dispute. The judgment creditors argued that important documents were still missing. They asked the court to hold the Paynes in civil contempt and sought sanctions, including a proposed $500-per-day fine beginning July 17, 2025, until compliance.
A January 2026 report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Severson recommended that Lawrence Payne and Patricia Payne be found in civil contempt. The recommendation described the case as having a lengthy procedural history involving repeated delays and what the court characterized as disregard for court orders and dilatory conduct. It also stated that the Paynes had failed to comply fully with earlier orders concerning document production.
Again, the distinction between a recommendation and a final contempt judgment is important. The January 2026 document was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to the district judge. It recommended civil contempt rather than itself constituting the final district-court contempt ruling. The same document explains that civil contempt sanctions are within the authority of the district court.
The financial dispute also produced another significant case involving 8fig Inc., an e-commerce financing company. In 8fig, Inc. v. Hardbody Supplements, LLC, Case No. 1:24-CV-7-DAE, filed in the Western District of Texas, 8fig sued Hardbody Supplements LLC, Lawrence Payne and Patricia Payne. The federal court record describes Hardbody as an online merchant selling through Amazon, Shopify, Walmart and its own website, with the Paynes responsible for day-to-day operations and finances.
That case eventually resulted in default-judgment proceedings. On July 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra adopted portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted default judgment as to 8fig’s claims for breach of contract, conversion, fraud and money had and received, while denying the civil-conspiracy claim. The court held the question of damages and final judgment in abeyance pending further proceedings.
The significance of the 8fig litigation is not simply that another company sued Hardbody. It demonstrates that the financial problems surrounding the Paynes were not confined to the original investor dispute. Another commercial counterparty brought a separate federal action and obtained rulings on several claims after the defendants failed to appear and defend the case.
By 2026, yet another federal proceeding had emerged. Stripe filed Stripe, LLC v. Hardbody Supplements, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00325-PHK, in the Northern District of California. The respondents include Hardbody Supplements Inc., Hardbody Supplements LLC, Online Empire LLC, Hardbody Energy LLC, Lawrence Payne and Patricia Payne. Stripe’s January 12, 2026 filing sought confirmation of an arbitration award.
The case became more complicated when service itself became an issue. In a July 21, 2026 order, Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang granted Stripe’s request for the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on the respondents. The order states that counsel for the respondents had not entered appearances and had not responded to the motion. It directed Stripe to take the necessary steps to facilitate service through the U.S. Marshals in Kansas and Missouri.
That July 2026 order is significant because it shows that the legal problems associated with Hardbody and the Paynes were still developing more than a year after the $3.4 million judgment. The proceedings had expanded beyond the original investor relationship and into disputes with commercial service providers and payment infrastructure.
There is also a separate controversy concerning the attempted removal or suppression of negative online information. A website calling itself CyberCriminal.com has alleged that Hardbody or someone acting on its behalf misused DMCA copyright notices to cause critical material to be removed from Google. The site identifies a July 9, 2024 notice and links to a Lumen Database record. It characterizes the conduct as potential impersonation, fraud and perjury.
Those allegations should be treated differently from the court judgments. I found the allegations in secondary investigative material, but I did not locate a court ruling establishing that Lawrence Payne, Patricia Payne or Hardbody Supplements committed fraud through a fraudulent DMCA filing. The safest journalistic formulation is therefore that a separate online investigation alleged improper DMCA activity, not that the Paynes were judicially found liable for it.
The same caution applies to claims about regulatory enforcement. A review of publicly searchable material located the civil litigation, federal orders, business records and adverse reporting described above, but did not identify a public FDA or Federal Trade Commission enforcement action specifically against Hardbody Supplements or the Paynes arising from the investor dispute. That does not establish that no regulatory inquiry has ever occurred. It means that no specific FDA or FTC enforcement action was located in the sources reviewed for this investigation.
This distinction is especially important in the supplement industry. Dietary supplements occupy a different regulatory position from prescription drugs, and Inc. itself noted in its 2021 profile that consumers should understand that supplements are not evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness before marketing in the same manner as drugs. Hardbody’s own promotional language emphasized FDA-registered facilities and manufacturing standards, but such statements should not be confused with FDA approval of individual supplement products.
The strongest evidence against the Paynes therefore comes not from allegations about product quality but from the civil litigation surrounding ownership, money and financial records.
The chronology tells the story clearly. Hardbody Supplements was founded in Kansas in 2016 and grew rapidly. By 2020, Inc. reported $25.6 million in revenue. In 2021, the company appeared at No. 8 on the Inc. 5000 list. In 2022, Barns and the Kilpatricks filed the federal lawsuit against Lawrence and Patricia Payne. In December 2023, the federal court ordered substantial financial and corporate discovery. In August 2024, the court entered the $3.4 million stipulated judgment. In 2025, the judgment creditors pursued collection and financial examinations, while 8fig separately pursued claims that ultimately produced default-judgment findings. In January 2026, the Kansas magistrate judge recommended civil contempt over continued compliance issues. In July 2026, a California federal court authorized U.S. Marshals service in the Stripe arbitration-confirmation proceeding.
The transformation is stark. The public Hardbody story began with fitness, entrepreneurship and rapid growth. Inc. portrayed Law and Patricia Payne as ambitious founders who turned their personal experience as trainers and bodybuilders into a national supplement brand. The company became a regional business success story and an Inc. 5000 example of extraordinary growth.
The court record tells a different and much more complicated story.
It shows former investors accusing the founders of financial misconduct. It shows a federal court ordering the production of corporate and personal financial records. It shows allegations involving large distributions, luxury purchases and NFTs becoming sufficiently relevant to permit financial discovery. It shows a $3.4 million judgment entered after the parties agreed to a stipulated judgment. It shows creditors subsequently seeking information about the Paynes’ assets and the court dealing with repeated disputes over compliance.
And it shows that the legal exposure did not end with the judgment.
For potential investors, customers, business partners and journalists examining Hardbody Supplements today, that is perhaps the most important part of the story. The $3.4 million judgment is not an isolated historical dispute. Post-judgment proceedings continued into 2025 and 2026, while separate commercial litigation added another layer of financial and procedural pressure.
At the same time, there is no basis in the evidence reviewed here to characterize Hardbody Supplements itself as a criminal enterprise, nor is there a basis to claim that the Paynes have been criminally convicted for the conduct described in the investor litigation. The principal findings documented in the records are civil in nature. The $3.4 million judgment is a civil judgment. The later contempt proceeding concerns compliance with court orders. The 8fig case involved civil claims and default-judgment proceedings. The Stripe case concerns confirmation of an arbitration award.
There is another potential source of confusion that should be avoided in publication. Searches for the name Lawrence Payne return unrelated criminal cases involving people with the same or similar names. For example, a Sixth Circuit case concerns a Lawrence Payne who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The available record does not establish that this defendant is the same Lawrence Payne who founded Hardbody Supplements. That unrelated conviction should therefore not be attributed to the Hardbody founder without independent identity evidence.
The verified record is already substantial without importing unrelated allegations.
Hardbody Supplements was a real and remarkably fast-growing Kansas consumer brand. Its founders built a company that generated tens of millions of dollars in reported annual revenue and achieved prominent business-media recognition. But the company’s rise was followed by a bitter ownership dispute, allegations of financial misconduct and a federal judgment worth $3.4 million. The judgment was followed by efforts to locate and examine assets, court-ordered financial disclosures and a later recommendation that the founders be held in civil contempt. Separate litigation involving 8fig and Stripe indicates continuing commercial disputes involving Hardbody-related entities and the Paynes.
For an investigative journalist, the most consequential unanswered questions are therefore no longer simply whether Hardbody was successful. The public record establishes that it was. The harder questions concern the movement of money among Hardbody Supplements and the other businesses controlled or associated with the Paynes, the precise financial relationship between the company and the luxury assets identified in discovery, the extent to which investors received the records they sought, the status of the $3.4 million judgment and the outcome of the later contempt proceedings.
Those questions are precisely where the documentary trail becomes most valuable. The December 2023 discovery order identifies the categories of records that the court considered relevant. The 2024 stipulated judgment establishes the amount owed. The 2025 collection proceedings document the creditors’ efforts to obtain financial information. The January 2026 contempt recommendation records the court’s continuing concerns about compliance. The July 2026 Stripe order demonstrates that litigation involving the Paynes and Hardbody-related entities remains active.
The Hardbody Supplements story is therefore not simply about a supplement company that lost its way. It is a case study in how a celebrated growth story can look radically different once investors, financial records and federal courts enter the picture.
The company that once marketed itself around discipline, performance and transparency eventually became the subject of a multimillion-dollar civil judgment and prolonged disputes over financial disclosure. The public image was built on rapid growth. The legal record is now defined by a $3.4 million judgment, asset-recovery efforts, discovery battles, default-judgment findings and continuing litigation.
For consumers and investors, the lesson is straightforward. A place on the Inc. 5000, spectacular revenue growth and a powerful social-media presence can demonstrate commercial momentum, but they do not establish financial integrity. In Hardbody’s case, the most important evidence emerged later, inside federal court records, where allegations were tested through discovery and ultimately followed by a substantial stipulated judgment.
That record, rather than promotional profiles or online accusations, provides the clearest foundation for understanding Lawrence Payne, Patricia Payne and Hardbody Supplements today.
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
