CVS Algal-900 DHA

June 2018: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled..

May 2018: A magistrate judge concluded that the named plaintiff did not demonstrate that he would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and recommended that the motion for preliminary approval be denied.

January 2018: CVS requested preliminary approval of a second amended settlement agreement reached between the parties. The new agreement does not amend the relief provisions but narrows the release provisions and makes some changes to the notice provisions. To read the letter and learn more about the changes to the agreement, click here.

September 2016: A federal judge granted TINA.org’s Motion for leave to file the second letter as (Latin for “friend of the courts.”) A person or organization that is not a party to a lawsuit but has a significant interest in the case and offers information that may be important to the court’s determination..

August 2016: TINA.org files a second letter as amicus curiae opposing the amended settlement agreement.

June 2016: TINA.org filed a letter as (Latin for “friend of the courts.”) A person or organization that is not a party to a lawsuit but has a significant interest in the case and offers information that may be important to the court’s determination. opposing the proposed settlement. To learn more about TINA.org’s involvement in the case, click here.

Later in June, the parties amended the settlement agreement. This agreement addresses many – but not all – of the issues raised by TINA.org regarding the injunctive relief provided in the settlement.

May 2016: After the lawsuit was transferred to a court in New York, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement of this lawsuit. According to the proposed settlement terms, class members with proof of purchase will receive refunds, while class members without proof of purchase will either receive $4 in cash or a $6.50 voucher to use toward a purchase of a CVS-branded dietary supplement. The company also agreed to stop using the statements “clinically shown to improve memory” or “clinically shown memory improvement” on the product label unless such claims are supported by adequate scientific evidence, as well as a vague reference to “claims at issue in this Action.” (Aliano et al v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2624, E.D.N.Y.)

February 2016: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against CVS over its allegedly deceptive marketing of the supplement Algal-900 DHA as “clinically shown” to improve memory and prevent cognitive decline without having adequate substantiation to support such claims. (Aliano et al v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2624, N.D. Ill.)

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against CVS and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.

For more information about other class-action lawsuits about products claiming to improve brain and memory function and TINA.org’s coverage of the topic, click here.