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.
- Filed an objection to proposed settlement
- Court requested additional briefing from parties and TINA.org
- Parties revised settlement agreement
- District court approved revised settlement agreement
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated district court approval
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.
The class member who objected to the settlement agreement files an appeal regarding the Court’s final approval order.
The Court grants final approval of the settlement agreement.
The magistrate judge presiding over the final fairness hearing issues a report recommending that the Court approve the amended settlement agreement.
The Court denies defendants’ Motion to Strike TINA.org’s submissions in the case.
TINA.org files a response to the parties amended settlement agreement.
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.
TINA.org files another supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order.
TINA.org files a supplemental response to the defendants’ Motion to Strike.
The Court orders the parties and objectors to file additional information by September 13, 2021.
The Court holds a final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement agreement.
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.
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.
Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser – Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser – Plaintiff Response
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.”
The Court grants TINA.org’s Motion for Leave to file its amicus curiae brief opposing the proposed settlement.
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.
The parties reach a settlement agreement.
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.
Proposed Settlement Allows for Continued Deceptive Marketing of Neuriva
TINA.org files brief urging court to deny final approval of settlement that is unfair to consumers.
Worst Ads of 2020 according to TINA.org
Neuriva’s ‘Clinically Proven’ Ingredients Claims
Memory supplement’s “clinically proven” ingredients claims fall apart upon closer inspection of supporting ingredient studies.
Readers have told us to look into these MLMs.