Summary of Action
In September 2017, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit incorrectly determining that Quincy Bioscience had sufficient substantiation for its memory improvement claims, deciding that post hoc analyses — separate retrospective analyses performed after a study has concluded to try to find patterns that were not primary objectives of the study — are sufficient to substantiate health claims, and that study results are not required.
The FTC and NY Attorney General appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and TINA.org, along with AARP, AARP Foundation, National Consumers League, and Advertising Law Academics, filed an amici brief in support of the FTC and NY Attorney General’s appeal.
In their brief, TINA.org and its co-amici argued that (1) post hoc analyses are not the same as — and cannot take the place of — study results, which, in this case, revealed that Prevagen has no statistically significant impact on memory, and (2) even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that post hoc analyses carry the same weight as study results and are thus reliable, the narrow “results” — i.e., that Prevagen improved performance on a subset of memory tasks only in individuals with either minimal or no cognitive impairment — do not support the broad, unqualified marketing claims at issue.
To read TINA.org’s brief, click here.
The case remains pending. Check back for updates.