top of page

Green.Money™

Nootropic.jpg

ChatGPT Pro Report

Why Nootropics Are Flagged as High-Risk by Traditional Processors

Major payment networks and processors (Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, etc.) often classify nootropic and “brain supplement” businesses as high-risk or even prohibited. This is not necessarily because the products are illegal, but because of the elevated financial and regulatory risks they present. Key factors include:
 

  • Unregulated or Controversial Ingredients: Many nootropics contain compounds that are in a legal gray area – not FDA-approved drugs, but also not recognized dietary supplements. For example, racetam-class compounds (like piracetam and aniracetam) and others are not approved by the FDA for use in the U.S. Payment providers see these “pseudo-pharmaceutical” products as risky because their legal status is ambiguous and may invite regulatory action.
     

  • Health Claims and Marketing Hype: Nootropic sellers sometimes make bold claims (e.g. “improves memory,” “cures Alzheimer’s”) that draw scrutiny from the FDA and FTC. This history of overpromising in the supplement industry gives the niche a poor reputation with banks. Processors fear being implicated if a product’s claims prove false or fraudulent.
     

  • High Chargeback Susceptibility: The nutraceutical sector in general has above-average chargeback rates, often due to customer dissatisfaction or confusion (discussed more below). Card networks label these industries high-risk because chargebacks indicate potential fraud or customer disputes.
     

  • Recurring Billing Models: Many nootropic sellers use subscriptions or free-trial offers (monthly auto-ship programs). These models are notorious for payment disputes and “friendly fraud” (customers canceling via chargeback) if not managed well. Mainstream processors view such practices as red flags for risk.
     

  • Association with MLM or Aggressive Sales Tactics: Some nootropic products are sold via multi-level marketing or aggressive affiliate campaigns. This can lead to compliance issues and higher chargeback rates, further convincing traditional processors that the vertical is problematic.


In short, card networks and payment platforms lump nootropics into the “high-risk” category alongside adult, gaming, and vape industries. As a result, mainstream providers often won’t approve merchant accounts for nootropics at all, or they impose strict terms (higher fees, rolling reserve holdbacks, monthly volume caps). Even PayPal has explicitly chosen not to work with most nootropic or dietary supplement vendors as a matter of policy. In one vendor’s words, “PayPal has made a willful choice not to work with a variety of nootropic and/or dietary supplement vendors.”. Similarly, popular payment gateways like Stripe and Shopify Payments exclude supplements and nootropics unless they are fully FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. This leaves many U.S. nootropic merchants scrambling for specialized “high-risk” payment processors.

Common Issues: Chargebacks, Denials, and Regulatory Scrutiny
 
Even if a nootropics merchant manages to open a payment account, they often encounter operational challenges due to the high-risk designation:
 

  • Merchant Account Denials and Shutdowns: It is common for nootropics sellers to be denied merchant accounts by conventional banks. Even after initial approval, accounts can be suddenly terminated after an internal review or audit. Merchants have reported waking up to messages like “your business can’t use this service because it doesn’t meet our terms of service,” effectively cutting off their card payments overnight. Aggregators like Stripe have been known to freeze accounts once they discover the merchant is selling supplements or “smart drugs,” regardless of prior compliance history. In fact, a single newly-added nootropic product on a site or just a few chargeback incidents can trigger an automatic account shutdown under these strict policies. This volatility means getting approved is hard – and staying approved can be even harder. Merchants face unpredictable cash flow when a processor can freeze payouts or terminate the account with little notice.
     

  • High Chargeback Rates: Chargebacks – customer-initiated payment reversals – are a major pain point in this industry. Nootropic and supplement sellers often inadvertently exceed the 1% chargeback ratio that Visa/Mastercard typically tolerate. Why so many disputes? Common reasons include:
     

    • Customers not recognizing the billing descriptor (e.g. a charge under a corporate name instead of the product name) and disputing the charge.
       

    • “Friendly fraud” where a buyer knowingly files a false claim of non-receipt or dissatisfaction to get a refund while keeping the product.
       

    • Recurring subscription charges that customers forgot or found hard to cancel, leading them to complain to their bank.
       

    • Overhyped marketing leading to unrealistic expectations – when the supplement doesn’t deliver a miracle cure, some buyers demand their money back.
       

    • Delayed shipments or fulfillment issues causing impatience and disputes.
      Each chargeback not only reverses the sale but usually hits the merchant with $20–$100 in fees and penalties. If chargebacks exceed the threshold (often just 1% of transactions), the merchant can be blacklisted by the networks or fined heavily. Processors closely monitor new nootropic accounts, and a spike in disputes or refunds can prompt immediate account review or suspension to limit the processor’s exposure.
       

  • Regulatory Scrutiny and Compliance Checks: Because nootropic products inhabit a grey area, merchants may receive extra scrutiny from regulators and by extension their payment providers. The FDA and FTC have issued warning letters to some brain supplement marketers for unsubstantiated health claims or for selling unapproved new drugs as supplements. For instance, in 2019 the FDA warned a vendor for selling piracetam as a supplement, stating it was an unapproved drug. Payment processors are highly sensitive to such actions. Acquiring banks will often conduct regular audits of supplement clients – reviewing websites for banned ingredients or illegal claims. If a processor’s compliance team finds the merchant selling anything deemed “banned” or too risky, they may freeze the account immediately. In worst cases, the merchant can be placed on the Terminated Merchant File (MATCH list), a blacklist that makes it nearly impossible to get another card processing account. In summary, nootropic sellers operate under a microscope: even minor infractions or surprise regulatory updates can lead to account closure or holds on funds pending investigation.
     

Overall, U.S. nootropic merchants face an uphill battle with traditional payment processing. Many report a cycle of applications, rejections, and sudden account closures, which disrupts their ability to do business. This environment drives them to seek out specialized high-risk merchant services or alternatives to the major payment platforms.

Examples of “Problem” Nootropic Compounds Triggering Payment Disruptions

Not all brain supplements are treated equally; certain ingredients and products are known to raise red flags with both regulators and payment services:
 

  • Racetams: The racetam family (e.g. Piracetam, Aniracetam, Phenylpiracetam, Coluracetam) is often cited. These synthetic nootropics are not scheduled controlled substances in the U.S., but they are not FDA-approved for any consumer use. The FDA has explicitly stated that racetam drugs cannot be sold as dietary supplements, making them “unapproved new drugs” in the agency’s view. Payment processors have internal compliance lists that flag transactions involving racetams, since selling them may violate FDA law. Indeed, processors include racetams on lists of ingredients they prohibit – for example, phenylpiracetam appears on a high-risk blacklist of compounds that will get a supplement merchant account shut down. Merchants selling racetams have seen their payment accounts quickly terminated once the processor identifies the product. A high-profile case occurred in 2023: a major U.S. nootropics retailer was criminally charged for selling racetam drugs (along with other compounds) without FDA approval. This kind of enforcement action makes payment companies even warier of any racetam sales.
     

  • Phenibut: Phenibut is an anti-anxiety nootropic compound that is legal to possess and sell in the U.S., but not as a dietary supplement. The FDA has ruled phenibut (β-phenyl-GABA) is an unapproved drug, and lab tests have found it spiked in some supplement products. It’s also a substance with abuse potential. Because of this, credit card processors commonly ban phenibut outright in their merchant agreements. For instance, an industry compliance guide listed “phenibut” among unapproved drugs found in brain supplements that processors won’t support. Merchants who list phenibut products online often find their PayPal or card processing turned off abruptly when an audit or web-crawling algorithm detects the keyword. Like racetams, phenibut was part of the 2023 federal case against a nootropics vendor, reinforcing its high-risk status in the U.S.
     

  • NSI-189 and Research Chemicals: NSI-189 is an experimental research chemical (originally developed as an antidepressant candidate) that is sold by some nootropic shops for “research purposes.” It is neither a dietary supplement nor a controlled substance – essentially a grey-market drug. Such compounds (including others like Noopept, SEMAX, tianeptine, etc.) trigger payment disruptions because they appear to violate terms against selling unapproved pharmaceuticals. Processors like Visa/Mastercard require that no drugs or experimental chemicals be sold without proper licensing. Selling NSI-189 or similar research nootropics under a supplement storefront will almost certainly get a mainstream payment account flagged. In practice, merchants have tried listing NSI-189 with euphemistic names or “for laboratory use only” labels, but if the connection is made, banks may shut down the account to avoid liability. Notably, tianeptine (another grey-market nootropic, sometimes called “gas station heroin”) has caused enough public safety concern that several states banned it and the FDA is cracking down on its sale. Any merchant selling tianeptine or NSI-189-like compounds faces extreme difficulty maintaining credit card processing due to the compound’s dubious legal status and potential harm.
     

These examples illustrate why payment providers maintain internal prohibited lists for supplements. Even if a compound isn’t explicitly illegal, the combination of FDA non-approval, potential health risks, and public controversy is enough for Visa/Mastercard or PayPal to err on the side of caution. Nootropic merchants often find that as soon as their product catalog strays into these “gray” substances, their transactions start getting declined or their account gets flagged for termination.

FDA/DEA Ambiguity and Its Impact on Processing Risk
 
A core issue is the regulatory limbo many nootropics occupy in the United States. Most fall into one of two categories: (1) unapproved dietary ingredients that FDA considers unlawful to market, or (2) analogs of drugs that are not scheduled controlled substances by the DEA, yet are being used as supplements. This ambiguity greatly increases perceived risk:
 

  • Not Explicitly Illegal, But Not Legal Supplements: Unlike scheduled narcotics, many nootropics aren’t outright banned. For example, piracetam, phenibut, and NSI-189 are not on the DEA’s controlled substances list. However, because they are not recognized as legitimate dietary supplement ingredients, selling them for human consumption violates FDA regulations. This creates a tricky scenario: a merchant might argue the product is legal to sell, but regulators can claim it’s an unlawfully marketed drug. Payment processors typically have clauses barring “the sale of products that are not FDA-approved for consumer use.” Thus, the lack of clear legal status means processors err on the side of prohibition, treating these products as if they were illegal.
     

  • Risk of Sudden Regulatory Changes: The DEA or state authorities could schedule a popular nootropic if safety concerns grow, as happened with certain analogs. Likewise, the FDA periodically issues warning letters or seizures against nootropic vendors (as seen with piracetam and tianeptine). This unpredictability makes banks nervous – they don’t want to be caught facilitating transactions for a substance that might be pulled from the market or deemed illicit. As a result, even absent a ban, many acquirers simply refuse categories that invite potential regulatory intervention. A payment provider would rather preemptively avoid a grey-market substance than risk fines or reputational damage later.
     

  • Complex Compliance Burden: Operating in this gray zone forces extra compliance work. Merchants must carefully label products (often adding “Not for Human Consumption” or “research chemical” disclaimers) to attempt to dodge the dietary supplement rules. From a payment perspective, however, those very labels can be a red flag – indicating the merchant knows the product isn’t legally a supplement. The FDA/DEA ambiguity also means no standardized code or category exists for these sales, so processors can’t easily underwrite the business. All of this contributes to higher underwriting scrutiny, special legal reviews, and often outright denial of service for nootropic transactions.
     

In essence, the uncertainty of U.S. law around nootropics amplifies the risk profile. Banks and processors see an unstable landscape where a product could be fine one day and banned the next. Until nootropics receive clearer regulatory pathways (e.g. FDA new dietary ingredient notifications or DEA rulings), mainstream financial institutions will continue to approach them with extreme caution.

Merchant Workarounds and Their Risks

Faced with these obstacles, some nootropic sellers attempt creative workarounds to process payments. While a few tactics may yield short-term success, they carry significant risks:
 

  • Vague or Misleading Product Descriptions: Merchants may intentionally sanitize their website content – avoiding explicit terms like “nootropic” or specific compound names. Instead, they might market products under broad categories (e.g. “research chemicals,” “health powder,” or code words) to fly under the radar. Another strategy is framing the product as a general wellness or educational item (“brain health kit” or “study material”) rather than a supplement. This stealth marketing aims to prevent automated scans or human reviewers from flagging the site. However, it has limits: card companies also examine ingredient lists and effect claims. If the actual substance is apparent (or if customers mention it in reviews), the account can still be flagged. Moreover, being too vague can erode customer trust or lead to chargebacks if buyers feel misled.
     

  • MCC Masking (Reclassification of Business Type): Every merchant account is assigned a Merchant Category Code (MCC) that signals the industry (for example, 5912 for drug stores, or 5499 for misc. food stores). Some high-risk merchants try to apply under a safer MCC, effectively disguising a nootropics business as something else. For instance, a merchant might register as a “consulting service” or “educational materials” vendor, rather than a nutraceutical retailer. Others route their transactions through a different front-end business – e.g. charging customers via an affiliate’s site with an innocuous MCC. While this might get an account approved initially, it is a serious compliance violation. Acquiring banks conduct periodic reviews and use web crawlers; if they discover the true nature of the sales, the account will be terminated for fraud. The merchant could then end up on the MATCH/TMF list for knowingly misrepresenting their business. Card networks have become more sophisticated at detecting MCC laundering and are quick to shut down accounts using such deceptive practices.
     

  • Alternate Payment URLs or Shell Websites: Another ploy is to use a separate, low-risk website to handle payments. The merchant’s main site might showcase the nootropic products, but at checkout the buyer gets redirected to a different site (perhaps selling a generic “training program” or other benign product) which processes the card charge. This affiliate or shell site then passes the order back to the actual merchant. While this can work temporarily, it only shifts the risk – the processor of the shell site is now at risk and will likely terminate once unusual volume or customer complaints reveal the scheme. It also creates a poor customer experience (confusing descriptors, mismatched websites) that can increase disputes.
     

  • Crypto and Unregulated Channels: Outside the traditional banking system, some merchants turn to cryptocurrencies or person-to-person payment apps. Crypto (Bitcoin, etc.) can bypass bank rules entirely – several nootropic sellers encourage crypto payments with discounts. However, crypto adoption is limited to tech-savvy customers and introduces volatility. Peer-to-peer payment apps (Venmo, Cash App) technically forbid business transactions for goods like supplements, so using them is against their terms and could result in funds being frozen if discovered.
     

The risks of these workarounds are high. If caught, the merchant not only loses their payment channel but could face funds seizure, account blacklisting, or even legal action for fraud or regulatory violations. One industry report notes that such tactics “may work temporarily, but they increase exposure to compliance violations, processor audits, and financial penalties”. In short, while desperate merchants may try to game the system, the card networks are actively hunting for these evasions. The prudent approach – and what experts advise – is to seek legitimate high-risk payment solutions and keep everything transparent, rather than risk the long-term ruin that comes with being flagged for deceptive practices.

Shift to Alternative Payment Systems (Direct Bank Payments)
 
With credit card and mainstream processor options so constrained, many U.S. nootropic merchants are transitioning to alternative payment methods. In particular, direct bank-based payments like eDebit (electronic debit from customer bank accounts) have grown in popularity for this sector. These systems bypass the card networks entirely, offering some key advantages:
 

  • Higher Approval Rates: Bank debits operate under different rules. Providers offering direct debit are often more willing to board supplement and nootropic merchants because the risk of card network chargebacks is removed. As one report highlights, credit card approval for supplement businesses is low, whereas bank debit platforms can accept nearly 100% of such merchants. Essentially, if a customer has a valid checking account, the merchant can accept payment without the same level of underwriting scrutiny that a Visa/Mastercard account would entail.
     

  • Fewer Chargebacks and Disputes: eDebit payments don’t have a comparable chargeback mechanism in the way credit cards do (eDebit transactions can be disputed/reversed for limited reasons, but the process is stricter and less prone to abuse). This means merchants face far fewer consumer disputes and no costly chargeback fees on bank transfers. A direct debit pulls funds straight from the buyer’s bank, which tends to reduce impulsive “I’ll call my card and charge this back” behavior. Lower chargebacks not only save money but also preserve the merchant’s relationship with the payment provider.
     

  • Stability and Control: By cutting out the card networks, merchants avoid the ever-shifting card brand rules and algorithmic fraud flags that caused so many headaches. Bank-based payment providers (often eDebit gateways) have more stable relationships with merchants as long as return rates (the equivalent of chargebacks) are kept in check. There are fewer sudden account freezes since the model is more akin to a bank-to-bank transfer. Merchants also gain more control—for example, they can set up recurring billing via eDebit without worrying about expiring card numbers or card holds. In general, direct debit systems provide a more predictable cash flow, which is crucial for a high-risk business.


Given these benefits, it’s no surprise that industry experts observe more supplement and nootropic sellers “choosing direct bank-based systems that deliver better approval odds, fewer disputes, and long-term control”. Some providers market eDebit solutions tailor-made for high-risk wellness products, boasting that they accept businesses the big processors decline.

In summary, the shift to bank-based systems is a logical adaptation. Unable to rely on finicky card processors, nootropic sellers are building payment stacks that might include eDebits, wire transfers, Zelle, or crypto, thereby reclaiming stability. This doesn’t completely replace the convenience of credit cards, but it provides a lifeline to keep revenue flowing when traditional options fail. The trend in the U.S. nootropics space is clear: diversify payment methods or risk having your business at the mercy of a single intolerant payment provider. As one high-risk payment firm put it, “the key to success in the nootropics space is diversifying your payment options” – and increasingly, that means looking beyond Visa and Mastercard to more reliable channels.

Conclusion
 

Operating a nootropics or “brain supplements” business in the U.S. presents unique payment processing challenges. Traditional payment processors view the industry as high-risk due to its regulatory grey areas, higher incidence of chargebacks, and history of dubious marketing. U.S. merchants often face account denials, frozen funds, and strict oversight from banks if they try to use standard credit card processing for these products. Particular compounds like racetams or phenibut draw even more concern, as they exemplify the unclear legal status that makes processors uneasy. While some sellers have attempted to outsmart the system through subtle labeling or routing payments through other means, these workarounds carry significant downsides and can put a business in an even worse position if they backfire.
 

Increasingly, the path forward for nootropic vendors is to embrace alternative payment solutions that align better with the reality of their products. Direct bank-based payments (eDebit platforms) offer a more forgiving landscape with higher approval rates, fewer chargebacks, and more stability. By leveraging these alongside other methods (such as crypto or online transfers), merchants can reduce their reliance on any one provider and ensure customers still have convenient ways to pay. The U.S. regulatory environment may eventually evolve to offer more clarity for cognitive enhancers, but until then, nootropic sellers must stay vigilant, compliant, and flexible in how they accept payments. A diversified, legally compliant payment strategy will be crucial for sustaining growth in this fast-growing yet high-risk sector.

bottom of page