Class Action

TripleFlex Supplements

March 2018: The appeal was voluntarily dismissed, the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

December 2017: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement. Later in December, an objector filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the approval of the settlement.

November 2017: filed an (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. brief opposing the terms of the proposed settlement because, among other things, it does not eradicate the deception at issue and therefore is unfair to consumers. To read’s full brief, click here. For a summary of’s legal efforts in this case, click here.

June 2017: The parties amended their proposed settlement agreement to address pro rata increases or decreases in product awards; the remainder of the agreement did not change. The same month, a federal judge preliminarily approved the amended settlement agreement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for December 4, 2017.

April 2017: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement of a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Pharmavite. The complaint, which was originally filed in May 2011 and amended in October 2011, alleges that the company deceptively markets TripleFlex joint health dietary supplements as helping to improve joint mobility and flexibility and reduce joint pain when the company does not have adequate scientific evidence to support such claims.

According to the settlement terms, class members may receive a cash refund or free products. All class members may receive $25 worth of free products for each product purchased (for up to $150 worth of free product). Class members with proof of purchase may receive $25 for each product purchased (for a maximum award of $100 per household) and class members without proof of purchased may receive $12.50 for each product purchased (for a maximum award of $50 per household). In addition, the company agreed to stop using certain language (e.g., “rebuild,” “renew,” “rejuvenate,” and substantially identical variations of such words) when describing the effect of the ingredients glucosamine and/or chondroitin on cartilage for a period of 24 months. (Barrera et al v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-4153, C. D. CA.)

For more information about’s coverage of glucosamine supplements, click here.

Legal Action

Tripleflex Glucosamine

Tripleflex Glucosamine objected — as amicus curiae — to a class-action settlement that sought to resolve claims that TripleFlex glucosamine supplements were deceptively marketed as being able to improve joint mobility,…

Class-Action Tracker

The Latest