Quincy Bioscience’s 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.

April 2019: The Spath case was transferred to a court in New York. (Case No. 19-cv-3521, S.D.N.Y.)

October 2018: The parties agreed to consolidate this case with Vanderwerff v. Quincy Bioscience (Case No. 17-cv-784, D.N.J.), which will be the lead case.

August 2018: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Quincy Bioscience for allegedly falsely marketing the supplement Prevagen as being clinically tested to improve memory within 90 days and support “healthy brain function, sharper mind, and clearer thinking” when, according to plaintiffs, the supplement has not been clinically tested and does not provide the advertised brain and memory benefits. (Spath et al v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc. et al, Case No. 18-cv-12416, D.N.J.)

For more of TINA.org’s coverage of Prevagen, 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