The retained record does not contain a marketing claim that can be scored yet; product facts and open checks follow.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 24, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
The outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Open Food Facts resolves 858158005015 to "Women's Multi" (Olly) — consistent with this listing.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingGradual growth is more ordinary; a sudden burst deserves a closer look. Neither pattern proves whether individual reviews are genuine.
Written reviews grew from 3398 to 3544 across 2026-01-30 – 2026-07-12 with no single manufactured spike (largest 30-day gain ~39).
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThese are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Filed address
86 Graham Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, California 94129, UNITED STATES
USPTO identifies the public owner or applicant behind this brand wordmark. This does not by itself identify the product manufacturer or prove where the product was made. Open USPTO source ↗
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24T09:33:33.845686+00:00
View on Amazon ↗matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24
View on Target ↗matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24
View on iHerb ↗Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Walmart ↗Same UPC/GTIN observed across 3 sellers. Amazon was lowest at $11.72; iHerb was highest at $13.99 — a $2.27 range at check time.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
USPTO lists OLLY PBC (CORPORATION) in DELAWARE, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
Open Food Facts resolves 858158005015 to "Women's Multi" (Olly) — consistent with this listing.
Written reviews grew from 3398 to 3544 across 2026-01-30 – 2026-07-12 with no single manufactured spike (largest 30-day gain ~39).
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
Unresolved public record
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
We read the full Supplement Facts panel from the listing-image panel (below), but the label doesn’t state a serving weight, so the arithmetic can’t run. A gap in the label’s information, not evidence of a problem.
OLLY, Public Benefit Corporation appears in NSF’s certified-products registry with 10 certified product(s), but we couldn’t confirm this exact listing is among them. Closest listed product: “WOMEN'S MULTI”. Certification covers contents and contaminants — not effectiveness.
This record does not currently hold an identity-bound public label filing for the exact product. That is a LookCloser coverage gap, not evidence that no filing exists.
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 3,398 on 2026-01-30 to 3,544 on 2026-07-12 (net +146). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
The package says distributed by: OLLY Public Benefit Corp., San Francisco, CA 94111. USPTO names OLLY PBC as the exact wordmark owner. That can be a normal distributor, manufacturer, or licensing relationship; the retained records do not establish the relationship.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
What is the amount of each ingredient inside the proprietary blend?
A blend total tells you nothing about whether any single ingredient reaches a dose used in research. Brands may decline — that answer is informative too.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 858158005015.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
Look the product up yourself in NSF’s certified-products registry.
Search “OLLY, Public Benefit Corporation” at info.nsf.org — certification covers contents and contaminants, not effectiveness.
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 24, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.