Man Sentenced for Selling Fake Urine to Beat Drug Tests

Originally published: 28 February 2015 | Reviewed: 7 October 2026 | By Anthony Cunningham

An American man was convicted after selling fake urine samples to people who wanted to beat drug tests.

David Neal of Middletown, Ohio, sold synthetic urine through his ACS Herbal Tea Company. The products were marketed to people looking for a way to get around mandatory drug testing.

At the time of our original report, Neal was awaiting sentencing and faced the possibility of imprisonment. He was subsequently sentenced in July 2015 to five years of probation, including six months of home detention, and was ordered to pay a $7,500 fine.

Workplace Drug Testing

Many companies in the United States use drug testing as part of their workplace policies. Testing may take place before employment, following a workplace accident or where there is reasonable suspicion, as well as through random testing programmes in some industries.

The consequences of a positive drug test depend on the employer, the industry, applicable regulations and the circumstances. They may include referral to an employee assistance programme or treatment, as well as disciplinary action.

Drug testing may also be required of people on probation or as part of other court proceedings. A positive test in these circumstances can potentially have legal consequences.

Synthetic Urine Sold to Beat Drug Tests

One of the products sold by Neal was called Magnum Unisex Synthetic Urine. Its packaging claimed that users would “Never Fail a Urine Drug Test”.

According to US federal prosecutors, Neal also sold a product called Urine Luck. Customers bought these products with the intention of defeating federal and federally regulated employment urine drug tests.

Neal pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.

The case centred partly on interference with the work of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

SAMHSA establishes scientific and technical guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programmes and standards for laboratories involved in testing federal employees and workers in federally regulated industries.

Workplace drug testing is particularly important in safety-sensitive industries, where impairment can potentially put employees, passengers and members of the public at risk.

The Investigation

Federal agents investigated Neal and his business over a number of years. The investigation included undercover purchases of products sold through his websites.

Prosecutors said Neal had been selling products intended to defeat federal and federally regulated employment urine tests for around eight years.

When Neal pleaded guilty in February 2015, the possible penalties included imprisonment and a substantial fine. However, his eventual sentence, imposed in July 2015, was five years’ probation with six months of home detention and a $7,500 fine.

Drug Use and Testing

At the time this article was first published, figures from the 2013 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed differences in illicit drug use according to employment status. Nearly one in ten full-time workers reported illicit drug use during the previous year, compared with around one in eight part-time workers and a higher proportion among people who were unemployed.

Those figures are retained here for historical context rather than as a description of drug use in the United States today.

The wider debate surrounding workplace drug testing has continued to evolve, particularly as laws and attitudes towards some substances have changed. However, federal workplace drug testing programmes remain in place in the United States, particularly for federal employees and workers in safety-sensitive, federally regulated roles.

Why the Case Mattered

The Neal case highlighted a problem that continues to concern drug testing programmes: attempts to substitute, adulterate or otherwise manipulate a specimen.

Modern federal urine drug testing procedures include specimen validity testing designed to identify specimens showing abnormal characteristics or evidence of substitution or adulteration.

Drug testing alone cannot diagnose substance misuse or addiction. Where problematic drug use is identified, appropriate support, professional assessment and treatment may be important alongside any workplace or legal response.

The case also demonstrated why regulated testing programmes place considerable emphasis on specimen collection, laboratory standards and procedures intended to protect the integrity of the testing process.