Neuriva Class Action Says Supplements Don’t Enhance Brain Performance

Consumers have filed a class action lawsuit claiming Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus brain supplements do not fuel brain performance.

Plaintiff Thomas Matthews says he purchased Neuriva Plus on Amazon. The Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus supplements are manufactured by the company Reckitt Benckiser.

Matthews states that prior to buying the product, he relied on Reckitt Benckiser’s misleading representations that he saw on television commercials, the internet and the Neuriva website. Matthews also says he relied on the defendants’ claims that ingredients in the product have been clinically and scientifically proven to improve brain performance.

The Neuriva class action lawsuit claims that Matthews did not experience any improvement in his brain performance as a result of taking Neuriva. He states that his decision to purchase the supplement was directly caused by the misleading representations that the defendants made regarding Neuriva’s ingredients being clinically and scientifically proven to improve brain performance.

Matthews says if he had known about Reckitt Benckiser’s misleading representations and omissions he would not have purchased the product. 

The Neuriva class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants raced to bring Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus to the market in April 2019, in order to capitalize on the booming supplement market. 

“Defendants have engaged in such deceptive conduct in order to compete in the saturated brain health supplement market, which is driven by consumers’ deep concern about this issue and has in turn increased demand for brain health supplements across the United States,” the Neuriva class action lawsuit goes on to state.

According to the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser’s repeated statements in their advertising and labeling mention that Neuriva’s ingredients are “backed by science” and “clinically proven” to improve consumers’ focus, accuracy, memory, learning, and concentration.

Matthews alleges the representations on the packaging of the product are designed to induce consumers to believe that Neuriva has been proven as a way to provide meaningful brain performance benefits, and consumers purchase the product for the purpose of obtaining these purported benefits.

Matthews says the highly-touted active ingredients in Neuriva are coffee cherry extract (also called “Neurofactor”) and Soy-based Sharp PS, both of which the defendants claim are “clinically proven to enhance brain performance.”

However, “in reality, Defendants have no scientific or clinical proof that Neuriva provides any benefit to the brain or that its key advertised ingredients can actually access the brain in sufficient amounts—or in any amount—to provide meaningful brain performance benefit,” according to the Neuriva brain supplement class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff says that he is bringing this class action individually and on behalf of other consumers to stop the dissemination of Reckitt Benckiser’s fraudulent and misleading representations, to correct the false and misleading perceptions that the company has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain compensation for those who have purchased Neuriva.

Matthews alleges that since Reckitt Benckiser first started selling Neuriva, the company has uniformly and continuously represented that the supplement enhances brain health and performance through advertising and labeling. 

The plaintiff states that the defendants’ misrepresentations fall into two categories: 1) Defendants make health claims that are actually false; and 2) Defendants affirmatively represent that Neuriva’s purported beneficial effects are scientifically established. Matthews says that both representations are false and misleading.

“There is no scientific consensus or scientific or clinical evidence that Neuriva will result in enhanced or increased brain performance or will otherwise support brain performance in any way,” the Neuriva class action lawsuit says.

In addition, the plaintiff maintains that there is no scientific or clinical evidence regarding how much, if any, of Neuriva’s ingredients actually reach the brain. Due to this lack of evidence, the defendants’ claims that Neuriva’s ingredients are scientifically proven to benefit the brain are patently false, Matthews argues.

Matthew also says Reckitt Benckiser’s claims that coffee cherry extract (or Neurofactor) is scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain performance are deceptive and misleading because coffee cherry extract cannot increase BDNF levels in the brain.

There are three prospective classes in the Neuriva class action lawsuit: 1) National Class: All persons residing in the United States who purchased Neuriva Original and/or Neuriva Plus for personal use and not for resale; 2) Multi-State Class: All persons residing in the states listed in the complaint who purchased Neuriva Original and/or Neuriva Plus for personal use and not for resale; and 3) California Class: All persons residing in the state of California who purchased Neuriva Original and/or Neuriva Plus for personal use and not for resale.

Did you purchase Neuriva Original or Neuriva Plus thinking it would enhance your brain performance? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Alex R. Straus, Adam A. Edwards, Rachel Soffin, Jonathan B. Cohen, and William A. Ladnier of Greg Coleman Law PC, Daniel K. Bryson, Martha A. Geer, and Patrick M. Wallace of Whitfield Bryson LLP, Matthew D. Schultz of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA and Nick Suciu of Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC.

The Neuriva Brain Supplement Class Action Lawsuit is Thomas Matthews v. Reckitt Benckiser, et al., Case No. 2:20-at-00603, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

PG&E Stock Offering Increased for Fire Victims

Is Stevens Johnson Syndrome Contagious? 

Hackensack Meridian Health Sued Because of Hospital Ransomware Attack

IED Attacks in Iraq Traced to Big Bank Financing