PharmaCare’s IntenseX

September 2016: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding three court orders, including the one granting summary judgment. To see the court orders on appeal, click on the links below.

August 2016: A federal judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment. The judge found, among other things, that summary judgment was appropriate for the false advertising claims because the statements on the label are too vague, general, and subjective to be actionable and that the named plaintiff failed to plead that he relied on claims on the website. To learn more about the court’s decision, click here.

April 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against PharmaCare for allegedly falsely marketing IntenseX as a product with aphrodisiac properties that increase “Sexual Power and Performance” when, according to plaintiffs, none of the ingredients in the product provide such benefits. (Sandoval et al v. PharmaCare US, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-738, S. D. CA.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against PharmaCare and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.

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

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates