An Excelsior company’s mouth tape went viral. Now it faces a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

A Minnesota company that has ridden viral social media success and a ringing endorsement from comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan to become one of the most well-known sellers of mouth tape in America is at the center of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court.

Nucap Industries, a Toronto manufacturer with an expertise in tape, alleges it entered into a business agreement with Hostage Tape, which operates out of Excelsior, to move its production out of China so it could market itself as being made in North America. After months of ramping up manufacturing, Hostage Tape abruptly cut off the business deal and moved production back to China to save costs.

It continued to market itself as made in North America.

Hostage Tape, started by former Minnesota Gophers football player Alex Neist, has filed a countersuit, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment because Nucap failed to fulfill the purchase agreements they entered into and refuses to pay back $225,598 it has been paid for unfulfilled orders.

Mouth tape is not a medical or scientific device but has become popular through social media, with thousands of people saying it has helped relieve symptoms of snoring and sleep apnea to provide a better night’s sleep.

Hostage Tape has seen remarkable success since launching in 2022. It markets itself as:

#1 Mouth Tape

Made for Nights

Rogan, who suffers from sleep apnea, said the tape dramatically improved his rest during an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, each episode of which has millions of listeners.

“I’m not selling nothing, I don’t have anything for sale, I use a company called Hostage Tape,” Rogan said. “I’m sure there’s other ones that are great, but [the name] Hostage Tape, makes me laugh.” Hostage Tape was also named the Official Sleep Aid Partner of the wildly popular Ultimate Fighting Championship, for which Rogan is a commentator, and claims to have sold more than 51 million strips to more than 150,000 customers.

Larry Pockers, an attorney representing Nucap, said his clients felt this was “an absolutely perfect fit” given their history of North American manufacturing.

“After months of engagement and a ton of investment and an agreement, my clients were literally shocked to learn that Hostage Tape had reneged on its promises and then apparently went back to its Chinese manufacturer or found a different Chinese manufacturer after this relationship had begun,” Pockers said. “To my clients’ knowledge, Hostage Tape has no current plans to manufacture elsewhere in North America.”

Attorneys with Rubric Legal representing Hostage Tape declined to comment on pending litigation. But in its response to the lawsuit, Hostage Tape argued that while several of the statements and emails from Neist are true, Nucap has mischaracterized the nature of their agreement and attached faulty intention to Neist’s statements.

In Oct. 2024, Neist connected through LinkedIn with a client development manager for Nucap Industries, a Toronto manufacturer with more than 30 years of experience, including with its partner Spidertech, which makes pre-cut kinesiology tape. Neist began having conversations with Nucap CEO Montu Khokhar about a business relationship where Nucap would become Hostage Tape’s “sole long-term manufacturer.”

Hostage Tape alleges that while that phrase was used, it was strictly based on if the financials of the deal were agreeable.

At the time, Hostage Tape was being manufactured in China. Both parties agree that the reason for the business relationship was that Hostage Tape strongly desired to market its mouth tape as being manufactured in North America.

Within three days, they executed a mutual nondisclosure agreement for a potential business relationship.

Nucap alleges that Hostage Tape requested the manufacturing of over two million individual pieces of mouth tape, a number Hostage Tape denies. Khokhar emailed payment details, including production costs, cost per unit, minimum order quantities and lead time.

Neist responded, “Got it ... let’s get moving. What do you need to at least start the process?”

In November 2024, Hostage Tape paid Nucap $10,000 for initial production costs.

Over the next two months, the companies moved forward with business plans. The lawsuit specifies that a grocery store chain order played a key part. Nucap, Hostage Tape and the grocery chain exchanged emails over manufacturing operations and expected orders. (While the lawsuit doesn’t specify which grocery store, Hostage Tape is widely marketed through Walmart and has thousands of reviews on the company website.)

In early 2025, Neist visited Nucap’s manufacturing facility and toured its plant. There were demonstrations of the manufacturing process for Hostage Tape’s mouth tape and discussions about design and packaging. After the tour, Nucap emailed Neist with progress on production capabilities, color options for the tape and “completion of die cut samples with glue weight customized specifically for Hostage Tape.”

On Feb. 18, 2025, Nucap claims that Neist wrote to an operations manager, “I’m about to communicate to China we will be moving mouth tape to you.” Neist denies this.

A month later, Hostage Tape made its first payment of $25,000 for a purchase order of 600,000 units of mouth tape and to “start production.”

Nucap used that deposit to “commence the large-scale manufacture of Hostage Tape’s products.” The company claims to have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in raw materials, tools, staffing and training. Between March and June, Hostage Tape paid several invoices to Nucap, totaling $325,000.

In early July, Hostage Tape told Nucap it was “building up our TikTok shop strategy aiming to have it explode by the end of the month.”

The lawsuit claims that at no time did Hostage Tape tell Nucap that their business agreement was “limited as to time or order quantity” or that Hostage Tape was looking at other manufacturers.

On July 29, Hostage Tape’s vice president of customer experience wrote to Nucap that the company wanted to “use up (but not exceed)” its remaining credit with Nucap, order 11,500 units and “make sure that is the total completed production run (and no more).”

The lawsuit argues that with this message, Hostage Tape “abruptly instructed Nucap to cease its ongoing manufacture of Hostage Tape’s mouth tape products altogether.”

At the time, Nucap had already gathered enough material to make an additional 435,000 kits of mouth tape. Khokhar, the Nucap CEO, messaged Neist that the new message was “contrary to what you had us build for.”

Neist allegedly never replied.

The next day, Khokar messaged again, saying that Nucap had significant investments in Hostage Tape products with employees waiting on next steps and raw materials stored in its facilities.

Around two weeks later, Nucap alleges that Hostage Tape explained it had “decided to re-engage its Chinese manufacturer, which offered lower pricing than Nucap.”

During a phone call in late August, Neist confirmed the company was moving manufacturing back to China. At the end of the call, Neist’s business partner, Benjamin Read, allegedly offered to pay Nucap to mitigate any damages from the decision to pull out of the agreement.

Nucap “conservatively estimated” its total investments at $235,000 and its lost profits between $2.7 million and $5 million, and requested $2 million to “get close to making Nucap whole.”

Several other unsuccessful negotiations took place between September and November 2025, when the lawsuit was ultimately filed. Nucap accuses Hostage Tape of breach of contract, promissory estoppel and violation of Minnesota’s unlawful trade practices statute.