Neuriva

August 2023: The appellate court denied the petition for rehearing en banc.

May 2023: Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

April 2023: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision to approve the settlement agreement and remanded the case for further proceedings.

April 2022: An objector filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the final approval order.

March 2022: The Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

December 2021: The magistrate judge recommended that the Court approve the settlement agreement.

April 2021: The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. For more information, go to https://rbsettlement.com/.

February 2021: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement that would provide class members with cash refunds. Class members who have proof of purchase may receive $32.50 for up to two products purchased while class members who do not have proof of purchase may receive $5 for up to four products purchased. In addition, the company agreed to make minor changes to the language on product labels and in other marketing materials but only for a period of two years.

January 2021: A nationwide settlement was reached in the Williams case, and the Angeles and Matthews cases were stayed pending the finalization of the settlement agreement. Later in January, plaintiffs in the Williams case filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding Matthews and Angeles as named plaintiffs.

June-September 2020: Multiple class-action lawsuits were filed against Reckitt Benckiser for allegedly falsely marketing the supplements Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus as “clinically proven” to improve “brain performance” – including focus, memory, learning, accuracy, concentration, and reasoning – when, according to plaintiffs, the company has no scientific or clinical proof that the products or ingredients in them provide the advertised benefits. Click on the links below to see each complaint.

• Angeles et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 20-cv-7138, S.D.N.Y.
• Matthews et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 20-cv-854, E.D. Cal.
• Williams et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 20-cv-23564, S.D. Fla.

For more of TINA.org’s coverage of brain supplements, click here.