Status and Updates

December 29, 2021: The class member who objected to the settlement agreement files an objection to the court’s December 15th report recommending approval of the revised settlement.

December 15, 2021: The magistrate judge who presided over the final fairness hearing issues a report recommending that the presiding federal judge approve the revised settlement.

Of note, and with respect to the revised injunctive relief that took issue with, the magistrate judge stated that the court construes the language “similar ‘shown’ claims” to prohibit language stating or implying that studies have “confirmed,” “demonstrated,” “established,” (or other words or phrases which are synonymous to “shown”) that the ingredients do in fact promote brain health functions, which, according to the magistrate judge, nullifies’s concerns.

The Court gave defendants three days to notify the Court if they took issue with the Report’s interpretation of the revised injunctive relief. Defendants did not file any response.

September 24, 2021: files a response to the parties amended settlement agreement.

September 13, 2021: The parties file a First Amended Settlement Agreement, which revises the injunctive relief to temporarily prohibit defendants from using the word “shown” in its marketing of Neuriva.

September 9, 2021: files another supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order.

August 19, 2021: files a supplemental response to the defendants’ Motion to Strike.

August 18, 2021: The Court orders the parties and objectors to file additional information by September 13, 2021.

August 17, 2021: The Court holds a final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

August 13, 2021: files an opposition to the defendants’ Motion to Strike, as well as a supplemental brief pursuant to the Court’s August 5, 2021 Order.

August 10, 2021: The defendants, after consenting to’s Motion for Leave, move to strike’s submissions. Plaintiffs also file a brief responding to’s opposition.

August 5, 2021: The Court orders the parties and objectors to submit more information addressing whether consumers appreciate any substantive difference between a health-related product marketed as clinically or scientifically “proven” and one marketed as clinically or scientifically “tested.”

July 27, 2021: The Court grants’s Motion for Leave to file its amicus curiae brief opposing the proposed settlement.

July 26, 2021: files brief as amicus curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.

* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to’s involvement in the case.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑