Prevagen 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.

May 2020: A federal judge decertified the class finding that several of the requirements for class certification were not met. The judge also denied the company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law concluding that questions remain about the product purchased, the circumstances of the purchase, and what the label said. Later in the month, the named plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled. for undisclosed reasons.

January 2020: A jury trial resulted in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.

December 2017: A federal judge certified a class of California consumers. For more information, go to https://www.prevagenproductsclassaction.com/.

February 2017: Quincy Bioscience moved for an order staying the proceedings in this action pending the resolution of the lawsuit filed against it by the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General in January 2017 (FTC et al v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc. et al.).

January 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Quincy Bioscience, LLC for allegedly misleadingly marketing Prevagen, a brain health supplement. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the supplement is marketed as being “clinically tested” to “improve memory within 90 days” and support “healthy brain function, sharper mind, and clearer thinking” without scientific evidence to support such claims. (Racies et al v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00292, N.D. Cal.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits and TINA.org’s coverage of them, click here.