Prevagen Dietary Supplement

December 2020: The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to pay filing and docketing fees.

November 2020: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement. Later in November, an objector filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the decision to approve the settlement agreement.

October 2020: TINA.org filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the terms of the proposed settlement agreement as unfair to consumers. To read the brief or learn about the issues raised by TINA.org, click here.

July 2020: A federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2020.

June 2020: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement that would provide class members with a 30 percent cash refund of the company’s suggested retail price for Prevagen products. Class members with proof of purchase may receive a maximum award of $70 while class members without proof of purchase may receive a maximum award of $12. The company also agreed to stop marketing that Prevagen improves memory without adequate scientific evidence to support such claims or qualifying the advertising claim with a disclaimer. This settlement would resolve seven lawsuits: Collins, Engert, Karanthos, Racies, Spath, and Vanderwerff, as well as one state case Miloro v. Quincy Bioscience.

January 2020: A federal judge adopted a magistrate judge’s October 2019 Report and Recommendation and denied Quincy Bioscience’s motion to dismiss.

October 2019: A magistrate judge recommended that the court deny the company’s motion to dismiss. Click here to read the decision.

February 2019: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Quincy Bioscience for allegedly falsely marketing that the dietary supplement Prevagen will “improve memory” and support a “sharper mind,” “clearer thinking,” and “healthy brain function” when, according to plaintiffs, the supplement does not improve memory and has no effect on the brain. (Plaintiffs amended their complaint in May 2019.) (Engert et al v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-183, W. D. Tex.)

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