FTC Brain Claims Cases Since 1995

A 2019 report by the Global Council on Brain Health came about as close as a group of experts could come to calling brain supplements a total waste of money.

Following a review of the evidence supporting brain supplement marketers’ claims, experts wrote in the first of nine “practical tips” for consumers: “Buying supplements to benefit your brain health is likely a waste of money.”

Second on the list? A warning to be cautious of “claims to improve brain health or memory, make you smarter or cure a brain disease,” which the report found to be lacking scientific evidence.

In fact, these are exactly the types of brain claims that the FTC has been targeting in cases not just involving supplements, but all kinds of products over the last 25 years.

Since 1995, the FTC has brought nearly 70 actions alleging that companies market their products using deceptive brain claims, including claims that products improve memory, provide other cognitive benefits and/or treat brain diseases and disorders.

The actions, outlined in the chart below, are a mix of administrative actions (15), court cases (28), warning letters (21) and closing letters (4). The vast majority (55) involve the marketing of supplements, including actions taken against the marketers of Prevagen and Neora (formerly known as Nerium), both of which were the subject of separate TINA.org investigations. (TINA.org is also tracking a number of class-action lawsuits focused on deceptive brain health advertising claims.)

The FTC has also sought to crack down on CBD and human growth hormone (HGH) supplements making deceptive brain claims. Other products at issue include foods, beverages, medical devices and brain training programs.

The year with the largest number of FTC brain claims cases to date (12) is 2019. That year, an AARP survey found that more than a quarter of Americans age 50 and older take supplements on a regular basis to boost their brain health, despite what experts say.

(1) NBTY was formerly known as Nature’s Bounty. The 1995 action was filed against Nature’s Bounty and the 2005 action was filed against NBTY.

(2) In 2004, Trudeau entered a stipulated order to resolve charges that he violated the 1998 court order by marketing a product to cure cancer. In 2007, a federal judge found that Trudeau misrepresented the contents of his weight-loss book in infomercials, in violation of the 2004 court order. These two subsequent actions are not included in the chart.

(3) Six months later, the FTC filed a lawsuit alleging that the company failed to pay the monetary penalty. This December 1998 lawsuit is not included in the chart.

(4) In 2006, the FTC claimed that the defendants violated the 2005 court order by marketing that a pill would prevent, treat and cure diabetes. The parties modified the original court order to resolve this matter. The 2006 action is not listed separately in this chart.

(5) Three years later, the FTC claimed that three of the defendants violated the original court order by failing to properly disclose that programs were paid advertisements. The parties entered a stipulated court order to resolve these allegations. This second action is not listed separately in this chart.

(6) Two years later, the FTC, along with the state of Maine, filed a contempt action alleging that two of the defendants violated the settlement agreement by advertising that supplements could treat and cure diseases without the required scientific support. The contempt action is pending. It is not included in the chart.

(7) The brain health advertising claims at issue in the Cellmark BioPharma case are directed to cancer patients. The FTC alleges that marketing materials for one of the supplements at issue deceptively represent that it will prevent or help cancer patients with “chemo brain” and cognitive decline due to cancer and cancer treatments.

* There may be products at issue in these cases that are not listed in this chart.