Lawsuits: Glucosamine’s Promised Relief Mostly Marketing Hype
Consumers report adverse reactions.
TINA.org, along with AARP, objected — as amici curiae — to a class-action settlement that sought to resolve claims filed against Schiff Nutrition for deceptively marketing Move Free® Advanced glucosamine supplements as “clinically tested” and able to rebuild joint cartilage, improve joint function, and reduce joint pain, when there was no competent scientific evidence to support such marketing claims.
November 3, 2015: The Court issues its official Order granting final approval of the settlement.
October 30, 2015: The Court holds a final fairness hearing and grants final approval of the settlement agreement, but lowers the amount of attorney’s fees the plaintiffs counsel will receive from 33% of the settlement fund to 25% of the fund, as advocated by TINA.org and AARP.
October 13, 2015: TINA.org and AARP file a reply brief.
May 8, 2015: TINA.org and AARP file a supplemental brief opposing the parties’ proposed revisions to the settlement agreement.
April 27, 2015: One month after the Court grants TINA.org’s Motion for Leave, the parties file a joint motion to modify the proposed settlement agreement. Among the minor changes made to the agreement, the parties have agreed to ban the same six specific phrases as before (“repair joints,” “repair cartilage,” “rebuild joints,” “rebuild cartilage,” “rejuvenate joints,” or “rejuvenate cartilage”) from the labeling and marketing of the supplements, but are now also banning “any version of those statements using variations of the proscribed terms (e.g., ‘repairs,’ ‘rebuilding,’ ‘rejuvenation,’ etc.).” The injunctive relief still does not expand to synonymous language and still expires after two years.
March 11, 2015: TINA.org and AARP file a brief as amici curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.
March 2, 2015: Plaintiffs reply to defendants’ objection.
February 23, 2015: Defendants object to plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw.
February 6, 2015: In anticipation of TINA.org’s objection, plaintiffs try to withdraw from proposed settlement agreement.
March 25, 2014: Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement.
2011: Plaintiffs file a class-action complaint against Schiff Nutrition International, which was later amended.
* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to TINA.org’s involvement in the case.
TINA.org Joins with AARP in Objecting to Move Free Class-Action Settlement MADISON, Conn., March 12, 2015 — More than 46 million people suffer from arthritis, many of them elderly, and…
Class-action settlement over supplement sold by Walmart, Walgreens and Supervalu provides little relief to consumers.
Allegations: Falsely advertising that Move Free provides joint health benefits when the ingredients in the supplement do not provide such benefits
May 2016: The appeal was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The reasons have not been disclosed. November 2015: A federal judge granted…
August 2016: This action was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. because the claims were resolved pursuant to a settlement in another case, Lerma…
November 2015: After the settlement in the Lerma case was approved in October 2015, this lawsuit was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. November…