Reckitt Benckiser

Neuriva objected — as amicus curiae — to a class-action settlement that sought to resolve claims filed against Reckitt Benckiser for falsely advertising the brain supplement Neuriva as “clinically proven” to improve several areas of cognitive functioning, including memory and focus, when, in reality, competent scientific evidence did not support, and even contradicted, these marketing claims.


  • Filed an objection to proposed settlement
  • Court requested additional briefing from parties and
  • Parties revised settlement agreement
  • District court approved revised settlement agreement
  • Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated district court approval
Neuriva ad


April 12

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the district court’s decision to approve the settlement agreement because it determined that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief claims.

April 15

The class member who objected to the settlement agreement files an appeal regarding the Court’s final approval order.

March 17

The Court grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

December 15

The magistrate judge presiding over the final fairness hearing issues a report recommending that the Court approve the amended settlement agreement.

September 29

The Court denies defendants’ Motion to Strike’s submissions in the case.

September 24 files a response to the parties amended settlement agreement.

September 13

The parties file a First Amended Settlement Agreement, which revises the injunctive relief to temporarily prohibit defendants from using the word “shown” in its marketing of Neuriva.

September 9 files another supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order.

August 19 files a supplemental response to the defendants’ Motion to Strike.

August 18

The Court orders the parties and objectors to file additional information by September 13, 2021.

August 17

The Court holds a final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

August 13 files an opposition to the defendants’ Motion to Strike, as well as a supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 5, 2021 Order.

August 10

The defendants, after consenting to’s Motion for Leave, move to strike’s submissions. Plaintiffs also file a brief responding to’s opposition.

August 5

The Court orders the parties and objectors to submit more information addressing whether consumers appreciate any substantive difference between a health-related product marketed as clinically or scientifically “proven” and one marketed as clinically or scientifically “tested.”

July 27

The Court grants’s Motion for Leave to file its amicus curiae brief opposing the proposed settlement.

July 26 files brief as amicus curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.

February 8

The parties reach a settlement agreement.

January 27

Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to’s involvement in the case.


The Latest


Class-Action Tracker


Class Action


Allegations: Falsely marketing Neuriva supplements as “clinically proven” to improve “brain performance” when the company has no scientific or clinical proof that the supplements or ingredients in them provide the…