Reckitt Benckiser

Neuriva

TINA.org 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.


Highlights

  • Filed an objection to proposed settlement
  • Court requested additional briefing from parties and TINA.org
  • Parties revised settlement agreement
Neuriva ad

Timeline

April 15, 2022: The class member who objected to the settlement agreement files an appeal regarding the Court’s final approval order.

March 17, 2022: The Court grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

December 15, 2021: The magistrate judge presiding over the final fairness hearing issues a report recommending that the Court approve the amended settlement agreement.

September 29, 2021: The Court denies defendants’ Motion to Strike TINA.org’s submissions in the case.

September 24, 2021: TINA.org files a response to the parties amended settlement agreement.

September 13, 2021: 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, 2021: TINA.org files another supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order.

August 19, 2021: TINA.org files a supplemental response to the defendants’ Motion to Strike.

August 18, 2021: The Court orders the parties and objectors to file additional information by September 13, 2021.

August 17, 2021: The Court holds a final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

August 13, 2021: TINA.org 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, 2021: The defendants, after consenting to TINA.org’s Motion for Leave, move to strike TINA.org’s submissions. Plaintiffs also file a brief responding to TINA.org’s opposition.

August 5, 2021: 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, 2021: The Court grants TINA.org’s Motion for Leave to file its amicus curiae brief opposing the proposed settlement.

July 26, 2021: TINA.org 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, 2021: The parties reach a settlement agreement.

January 27, 2021: 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 TINA.org’s involvement in the case.


Featured


The Latest

Filters


Class-Action Tracker

Neuriva

Class Action

Neuriva

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…