Class Action Complaint – 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

 CASE NO.: 

DAVID WILLIAMS and CAROLL ANGLADE, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and 

RB HEALTH (US) LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs David Williams and Caroll Anglade (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege as 

follows against Defendants Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC (collectively, 

“Defendants”), based upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and 

experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation 

conducted by their attorneys: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Defendants Reckitt Benckiser LLC (“RB”) and RB Health (US) LLC (“RB 

Health”) designed and now manufacture, market, advertise, and sell Neuriva Original and 

Neuriva Plus, purported brain performance supplements. 

2. It is no secret that brain health and cognitive performance are issues of concern to 

consumers of all ages and are important public health issues. It is, therefore, no surprise that 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 2 

products promising improved brain performance, including improved memory and focus, are 

widely available in stores across the United States.1 

3. In 2016, dietary supplements claiming to benefit the brain generated $3 billion in 

global sales.2 Brain health supplements are forecast to increase to $5.8 billion in sales by 2023.3 

4. In order to capitalize on the ballooning and lucrative brain health supplement 

market, Defendants raced to bring Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus (collectively, “Neuriva” or 

the “Neuriva Products”) to market in April 2019, promoting Neuriva to the public as a dietary 

supplement that is “clinically proven” to fuel “brain performance.” This statement is not true. 

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, which 

has in turn increased demand for brain health supplements across the United States. 

5. In their efforts to exploit this market, Defendants have engaged in a uniformly 

deceptive advertising and marketing campaign including the product label and packaging, 

Defendants’ website, and other marketing materials, trumpeting that “science proved” that 

Neuriva’s ingredients provide brain-performance benefits to all consumers who use them. 

According to Defendants’ repeated statements in their advertising, marketing, and labeling, 

Neuriva’s ingredients are “backed by science” and “clinically proven” to improve consumers’ 

focus, accuracy, memory, learning, and concentration. 

1

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153641/. 

2 Global Council on Brain Health, “The Real Deal on Brain Health Supplements: GCBH 

Recommendations on Vitamins, Minerals, and Other Dietary Supplements,” p. 2 (2019) (“Global Council 

on Brain Health”). Available at: www.GlobalCouncilOnBrainHealth.org.DOI:https:// 

doi.org/10.26419/pia.00094.001. 

3 Id. p. 2.

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 3 

6. In fact, on the front of the Neuriva Products’ packaging, Defendants tout that 

Neuriva contains “Clinically Proven Natural Ingredients” that improve brain performance in the 

areas of Focus, Memory, Learning, Accuracy, Concentration, and Reasoning. 

7. Similarly, on the top label of the Neuriva Products’ packaging, Defendants state in 

bold letters: “It’s time to brain better.” And, on the side of the product packaging, Defendants 

state: “Nature made it. Science proved it. Brains love it. Our natural ingredients are GMO-free 

and clinically proven to enhance brain performance.” 

8. To further promote their uniform message that Neuriva is clinically proven to 

enhance brain performance, on the front of the Neuriva Product packages, Defendants include a 

large picture of a brain, where it cannot be missed by consumers: 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 4 

9. Defendants’ representations are designed to induce consumers to believe that 

Neuriva has been proven as a matter of fact to provide meaningful brain performance benefits. 

And consumers purchase Neuriva solely for the purpose of obtaining these purported brain 

performance benefits. 

10. The highly trumpeted active ingredients in Neuriva are Coffee Cherry Extract 

(also called “Neurofactor”) and Soy-based Sharp PS (Phosphatidylserine), both of which 

Defendants state are “clinically proven to enhance brain performance.” 

11. 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. 

Defendants’ promises about Neuriva and their representations about Neuriva’s key ingredients 

are simply false or, in some instances, disturbingly misleading. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 4 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 5 

12. Indeed, as the Global Council on Brain Health, a blue-ribbon collaborative panel, 

has emphasized: “Despite claims to the contrary, brain health supplements have not been 

established to maintain thinking skills or improve brain function.”4

13. In an effort to maximize profits, Defendants have capitalized on consumers’ focus 

on brain health and performance and fears of cognitive decline. 

14. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

consumers to halt the dissemination of Defendants’ fraudulent and misleading representations, to 

correct the false and misleading perceptions that Defendants have created in the minds of 

consumers and to obtain redress for those who have actually purchased Neuriva. 

PARTIES 

15. Plaintiff David Williams is a resident and citizen of Homestead, Florida. 

16. Plaintiff Caroll Anglade is a resident and citizen of Hialeah, Florida. 

17. Defendants RB and RB Health are Delaware corporations with their principal 

places of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. Defendants’ corporate parent is a British 

multinational company traded on the London Stock Exchange that reported net revenue of over 

£12.8 billion in 2019 alone. Its brand portfolio includes, among other products, Mucinex, 

Clearasil, Lysol, Air Wick, and Woolite. 

18. In 2012, Defendant RB paid $1.4 billion to merge with Schiff Nutrition 

International, Inc. Schiff Nutrition was founded in 1936 as a small supplement company and 

grew into a multimillion-dollar vitamin and nutritional supplement company. RB’s acquisition of 

Schiff Nutrition allowed it to join the multibillion-dollar vitamins, minerals, and supplements 

market. 

4 Id. at 20. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 5 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 6 

19. Neuriva is a registered trademark of RB Health, and RB Health holds the 

copyrights for the Neuriva Product labeling and for the website through which Neuriva is 

marketed. RB Health also distributes the Neuriva Products and is identified as the manufacturer 

on Amazon. 

20. Defendants advertise, market, distribute, and/or sell the Neuriva Products to 

consumers in Florida and in the Southern District of Florida, as well as throughout the United 

States. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE 

21. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants 

have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business within the State of 

Florida, including within this District; have had continuous and systematic general business 

contacts within the state, including within this District; and can be said to have reasonably 

anticipated being haled into court in this forum. 

22. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because this action 

arises out of and relates to Defendants’ contacts with this forum. Specifically, Defendants 

knowingly directed the Neuriva Products through the stream of commerce into this District. 

Defendants have advertised and marketed within this District through the wires and mail and via 

e-commerce websites through which residents of this state and District can purchase the Neuriva 

Products. Further, Defendants knowingly direct electronic activity into this state and District 

with the intent to engage in business interactions and have in fact engaged in such interactions. 

Moreover, Defendants’ website directs each consumer to purchase Neuriva “at your local 

retailer,” including Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, Kroger, and Rite Aid, all of which have one or 

more locations in this District. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 6 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 7 

23. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d), which provides for the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts over 

“any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and [that] is a class action in which . . . any member of a class of 

plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). 

Plaintiffs are diverse from Defendants, and the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 in 

the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs. Finally, “the number of members of all proposed 

plaintiff classes in the aggregate” is greater than 100. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B). 

24. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred within this District. Plaintiffs 

purchased Neuriva in this District and incurred losses in this District. Numerous other Class 

members also purchased the Neuriva Products in this District. Defendants caused the Neuriva 

Products to be offered for sale and sold to the public, including to Plaintiffs, in this District. 

25. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) because this Court maintains 

personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 

ADDITIONAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Sales of Neuriva Products 

26. Neuriva, which Defendants raced to market in only 12 months, is a growing 

leader in the brain supplement industry. Neuriva is now an Amazon best seller. 

27. The Neuriva Product line includes two formulas—Neuriva Original and Neuriva 

Plus—that both contain coffee fruit extract and soy-based phosphatidylserine as active 

ingredients. 

28. Neuriva Original contains the following ingredients: 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 7 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 8 

29. Neuriva Plus contains the following ingredients: 

30. Defendants sell Neuriva online through their website, schiffvitamins.com, and in 

stores nationwide, including Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, Rite Aid, Sam’s Club, Target, and others, 

as well as on Amazon. 

31. Since Defendants first started selling Neuriva, they have uniformly and 

continuously represented, on both product packaging and in product advertising, that Neuriva 

enhances brain health and performance. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 8 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 9 

32. Defendants’ representations appear, among other places, on the Neuriva Product 

label and packaging; in television commercials; on Defendants’ web pages; in other online 

vending and marketing forums including sponsored videos on YouTube; and in product 

pamphlets and other literature distributed by Defendants. 

33. Although Neuriva comes in two formulas, each formula is substantially similar to 

the other in form and in purported function and both are sold in substantially similar packages, 

with similar labels, making similar claims, and including similar instructions, as can be seen 

throughout this Complaint. 

34. The omissions and misrepresentations identified in this Complaint are virtually 

identical across both formulations and the claims that form the basis of this action would be the 

same in all essential respects regardless which formula is considered. That is to say, the formulas 

are substantially similar and the means of deception is the same for both. 

35. Defendants’ misrepresentations fall into two categories: (1) Defendants make 

health claims (e.g., enhanced brain performance) that are actually false, and (2) Defendants 

affirmatively represent that Neuriva’s purported beneficial effects are scientifically established 

(e.g., clinically proven). Both categories of representations are false and/or misleading. 

36. Defendants intend for consumers to rely upon Defendants’ representations 

concerning the Neuriva Products’ brain health benefits and Defendants’ claims that the Neuriva 

Products’ ingredients are scientifically and clinically proven. 

37. It is reasonable for consumers to rely upon Defendants’ representations 

concerning the Neuriva Products when deciding to purchase Neuriva Products. 

38. Defendants’ representations concerning the Neuriva Products’ brain health 

benefits were developed with the intent to generate sales of the Neuriva Products. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 9 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 10 

Defendants’ Representations about the Neuriva Products 

39. Defendants have made uniform, express and implied representations concerning 

the benefits of the Neuriva Products. These representations include claims that the Neuriva 

Products are scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain function in specified ways and 

that oral consumption of the Neuriva Products will result in improved brain function. 

40. Defendants’ express and implied representations concerning the Neuriva 

Products’ brain performance capabilities are uniform and pervade Defendants’ marketing. 

41. The exterior of the Neuriva Original packaging claims that it has “clinically 

proven natural ingredients” and claims that the supplement “Fuels 5 indicators of brain 

performance” and lists the following: Focus, Memory, Learning, Accuracy, and Concentration. 

The label on the bottle itself states that it is “CLINICALLY PROVEN.” 

 

42. The side of the Neuriva Original packaging elaborates on what Defendants claim 

the supplement will do as a matter of fact: “Our natural ingredients are GMO-free and clinically 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 10 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 11 

proven to enhance brain performance.” Regarding Neuriva Original’s first main active 

ingredient, coffee cherry extract (which its ingredient list identifies as coffee fruit extract), 

Defendants claim on their packaging that it is “clinically proven to increase levels of the vital 

neuroprotein BDNF, known to strengthen connections between brain cells.” Regarding its second 

main active ingredient, phosphatidylserine, Defendants claim on the packaging that “[t]hese 

plant-sourced phospholipids make up the structure of neurons within the brain. Clinically proven 

to aid neuron health and fuel memory and learning ability.” Defendants prominently display on 

the packaging Neuriva’s tagline: “Nature made it. Science proved it. Brains love it.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 11 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 12 

43. The exterior of the Neuriva Plus packaging also advertises that it has “clinically 

proven natural ingredients” and claims that the supplement “Fuels 6 indicators of brain 

performance” and lists the following: “Focus,” “Memory,” “Learning,” “Accuracy,” 

“Concentration,” and “Reasoning.” 

44. The side of the Neuriva Plus packaging elaborates on what Defendants claim the 

supplement will do as a matter of fact, which is identical to the claim made on the side panel of 

the Neuriva Original packaging: “Our natural ingredients are GMO-free and clinically proven to 

enhance brain performance.” Regarding the first main active ingredient, coffee cherry extract, 

Defendants again claim that it is “clinically proven to increase levels of the vital neuroprotein 

BDNF, known to strengthen connections between brain cells.” Regarding the second main active 

ingredient, phosphatidylserine, Defendants again claim that “[t]hese plant-sourced phospholipids 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 12 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 13 

make up the structure of neurons within the brain. Clinically proven to aid neuron health and fuel 

memory and learning ability.” As with Neuriva Original, Defendants prominently display 

Neuriva’s tagline on the Neuriva Plus label: “Nature made it. Science proved it. Brains love it.” 

With respect to B6, B12, and Folic Acid, which Neuriva Plus also contains, Defendants claim 

they are “[k]ey nutrients to support brain health & cognitive function.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 13 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 14 

45. Through the representations on Defendants’ exterior packaging, Defendants 

represent to consumers that Neuriva improves focus, memory, learning, accuracy, concentration 

and, when they add vitamins B6, B12, and Folic Acid, reasoning. And Defendants further claim 

that Neuriva’s efficacy is scientifically and clinically proven. 

46. Defendants repeat and expand on these deceptive representations on their website, 

www.SchiffVitamins.com. Their website includes the following representations, among others, 

concerning the Neuriva Products: 

a. “Our new supplement combines the best of science and nature to help brains 

brain better.” 

b. “What makes our ingredients so special? Nature made it. Science proved it. 

Brains love it.” 

c. “Our natural ingredients are decaffeinated, GMO-free, gluten-free, and 

clinically proven to support brain performance.” 

d. “This extract is GMO-free and is decaffeinated, and it’s been shown to have 

incredible brain-supporting properties.” 

e. “We’ve studied this amazing superfruit [Coffee Cherry], and proven that it 

elevates the body’s levels of the neuroprotein BDNF.” 

f. “BDNF is vital neuroprotein that is known to strengthen connections between 

brain cells, and help new connections flourish.” 

47. If a consumer decides to buy Neuriva Original or Neuriva Plus on the Schiff 

website and clicks on the product, the website then shows another summary of purported brain 

performance benefits, which includes the claim that “Coffee Cherry Extract has been clinically 

proven to increase BDNF levels in the brain.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 14 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 15 

48. Defendants also encourage readers of their website to “visit our science & 

ingredients” webpage by asking: “What makes our ingredients so special?” 

49. Under the title “Natural Ingredients Proven Through Science,” Defendants 

elaborate on their claims that Neuriva is scientifically proven through a series of rotating slides. 

After a person clicks on these slides, a pop-up window appears providing additional information: 

a. After clicking the slide entitled “Tale of Two Neurons,” the pop-up window 

states: “Your brain consists of approximately 86 billion neurons. And it does 

its work by making connections between them. The two main ingredients in 

Neuriva have been shown to support both; PSTM supports neuronal health, and 

coffee cherry (Neurofactor) increases BDNF.” 

b. After clicking the slide entitled “The Importance of BDNF,” the pop-up 

window states: “[BDNF is] what your brain uses to strengthen connections 

between neurons, and has been clinically shown to play a role in cognitive 

performance and higher thinking. Maintaining higher levels of BDNF helps 

ensure maximum support for your brain.” 

c. After clicking the slide entitled Coffee Cherry,” the pop-up window states: 

“This extract is GMO-free and is decaffeinated, and it’s been shown to have 

incredible brain-supporting properties. We call it Neurofactor. We’ve studied 

this amazing superfruit and proven that it elevates the body’s levels of 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 15 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 16 

neuroprotein BDNF. BDNF is a vital neuroprotein that is known to strengthen 

connections between brain cells, and help new connections flourish.” 

d. After clicking the slide entitled “Plant-Sourced Sharp PSTM,” the pop-up 

window states: “Dietary trends show that PSTM intake from food and diet 

alone has declined over the years so PSTM supplementation is a great way to 

help support your brain and cognitive function! Our Sharp PSTM is sourced 

from soybeans and the subject of many clinical studies proving its 

effectiveness as a cognitive aid.” 

50. Defendants also create and post videos on their dedicated YouTube.com channel, 

Neuriva Brain Performance, through which they market Neuriva. These videos are designed and 

intended by Defendants to communicate claims about Neuriva’s brain performance capabilities. 

51. In the video entitled “What’s in Neuriva? Discover our natural ingredients to 

support brain health,” Defendants ask: “What’s the not so secret secret behind Neuriva? Our 

amazing clinically proven natural ingredients.” Defendants then continue to discuss their 

“clinically proven” ingredients. Regarding “Neurofactor” (a brand name for coffee cherry 

extract), Defendants claim it “helps increase your brain’s natural levels of BDNF, a key 

neuroprotein crucial to your overall brain health. Now what you really need to know is BDNF is 

known to support connections between brain cells and help new connections flourish.” 

Regarding “Sharp PS” (phosphatidylserine), Defendants claim it is “clinically proven to support 

memory and learning. This is a no-brainer because lipids make up 60% of your brain and act as 

the main building blocks of cell membranes. Healthy lipids enrich the brain making PS key for 

health cognitive functions.” Putting the ingredients together, Defendants claim that both active 

ingredients carry the imprimatur of science: “Neurofactor plus PS makes Neuriva an incredible 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 16 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 17 

brain support option. It combines the best of science and nature to help your brain be there for 

you when you need it most, and fuel key indicators of brain performance.” 

52. Defendants have extensively advertised Neuriva on television. A recent 

advertisement stated: “Do you want to brain better? Unlike ordinary memory supplements, 

Neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that fuel five indicators of brain performance: memory, 

focus, accuracy, learning, and concentration. Try Neuriva for 30 days and see the difference.” 

53. Commercials have appeared on various popular networks. 

54. Defendants also actively post marketing claims to an Instagram account. For 

example, a March 17, 2020, post utilizes the Jeopardy game show to emphasize Defendants’ 

claim that Neuriva is clinically proven. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 17 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 18 

55. Another Instagram post by Defendants asked: “Did you know that nutrient-rich 

coffee cherry (also known as Neurofactor) is proven to increase levels of BDNF in the brain? 

56. On Twitter, Defendants claim, among other claims: “Let’s talk about 

Phosphatidylserine. Sharp PS, has been proven to support memory and learning in multiple 

clinical studies.” 

57. Defendants also include descriptions next to their videos to emphasize their 

central uniform marketing message. For example, Defendants attempt to set Neuriva apart from 

competitors as a better supplement based on its “clinically proven” ingredients: 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 18 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 19 

58. The singular message throughout Defendants’ marketing of Neuriva is that 

Neuriva is scientifically and clinically proven, as a matter of fact, to increase brain performance. 

This overriding message promoted by Defendants has been and will continue to be read, heard, 

and understood by consumers whether they see it on television; research the product online 

through Defendants’ website or through another website (such as YouTube or Instagram); or read 

the Product packaging or labeling in a physical store, because this primary message is 

consistently repeated by Defendants across all utilized media. 

Defendants’ Representations are Deceptive and Misleading Because There is No Valid 

Scientific or Clinical Evidence Supporting Defendants’ Representations 

59. In order for a claim to be considered scientifically and clinically proven, as 

Defendants claim for Neuriva, the claim must be widely accepted in its applicable field and have 

overwhelming evidence supporting it. Moreover, there must be a consensus in the scientific 

community agreeing with the representations. Such consensus would require, at a minimum, 

sufficiently large, randomized, controlled, double-blind studies that have been scrutinized by 

peer review during the publication process and subjected to scholarly debate by diverse panels of 

scientific experts. Additionally, scientific consensus requires that published results be 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 19 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 20 

independently replicated by others using rigorous experimental design and data collection 

practices. If specific representations do not meet these standards, they cannot be considered to be 

“scientifically and clinically proven” nor can they be considered to have reached scientific 

consensus.5

 

60. 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. 

61. Neuriva has two main active ingredients to which Defendants attribute its 

purported efficacy: coffee cherry extract and plant-sourced phosphatidylserine. 

62. Both versions of the active ingredients that Defendants use in Neuriva are brandname versions. Defendants’ supplier of coffee cherry extract has named the ingredient 

“Neurofactor,” while Defendants’ supplier of plant-sourced phosphatidylserine has named that 

ingredient “Sharp PS.” 

63. In order to cause any improvement in brain performance, Neuriva must first be 

ingested. Then, its active ingredients must be absorbed into the bloodstream. From there, the 

active ingredients must circulate in the bloodstream, without being broken down, and ultimately 

cross the blood-brain barrier. Only after the active ingredients cross the blood-brain barrier can 

they potentially cause any improvement whatsoever to brain performance. 

64. As the Global Council on Brain Health has emphasized: “When researchers study 

prescription drugs that have an effect on the brain, a key experiment that they perform is 

measuring how much of the drug taken (orally or through other routes) gets into the brain. Not 

5

 Bauchner H, Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB. Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Clinical Trials. 

JAMA. 2019;322(8):732-735; Kirman CR, Simon TW, Hays SM. Science Peer Review for the 21st 

century: Assessing Scientific Consensus for Decision-making while Managing Conflict of Interests, 

Reviewer and Process Bias. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;103:73-85. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 20 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 21 

all substances taken by mouth survive the strong stomach acid, and not all substances that persist 

beyond the stomach get absorbed into the blood. Even after absorption into the blood, the liver 

can further break down the substance, and the blood-brain barrier – the natural gatekeeper of the 

brain – may keep out what is left. Usually it is not known how much – if any – of the 

supplement people take gets into the brain.”6

 Consequently, “a key step in using science to 

support any supplement’s benefit on brain health would be to study how much of each nutrient 

gets to the brain.”7

65. No valid scientific or clinical evidence exists regarding how much, if any, of 

Neuriva’s key ingredients reaches the brain. Because of this lack of evidence, Defendants’ 

claims that Neuriva’s ingredients are scientifically and clinically proven to benefit the brain are 

patently false, as are Defendants’ claims that Neuriva is effective. 

66. Instead of presenting actual scientific and clinical evidence giving rise to a 

scientific consensus that coffee cherry extract and plant-based phosphatidylserine in fact impact 

brain performance, Defendants created a deceptive and misleading infographic on their website 

that sets out Defendants’ essential claims and purported scientific support for Neuriva and its 

active ingredients but glosses over or misrepresents the lack of evidence that its active 

ingredients actually reach the brain or impact the function of the brain:8

6 Global Council on Brain Health at p. 20. 

7 Id.

8 See https://www.schiffvitamins.com/blogs/health-wellness/ingredients-for-better-brain-health.

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 21 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 22 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 22 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 23 

No Scientific or Clinical Evidence Exists 

That Coffee Cherry Extract Supports Brain Performance 

67. According to Defendants, coffee cherry extract is one of the ingredients that 

“science proved,” “is clinically proven to increase levels of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor 

(BDNF),” and “is clinically proved to increase BDNF levels in the brain.”9

 Also according to 

Defendants, “[BDNF] has been widely studied and is known to support the survival of existing 

neurons and encourage the growth of new neurons.”10 

68. Defendants’ claims that coffee cherry extract (also known as Neurofactor) is 

scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain performance and the implications in 

Defendants’ infographic purporting to support those claims are deceptive and misleading because 

coffee cherry extract does not and cannot increase BDNF levels in the brain. 

69. Among other reasons that Defendants’ claims are false, BDNF cannot cross the 

blood-brain barrier. Therefore, it is scientifically implausible that BDNF could survive 

circulation in the bloodstream and be transported across the blood-brain barrier in a quantity 

sufficient to provide any meaningful impact on brain performance. 

70. The blood-brain barrier acts as a sort of security system for the brain. The bloodbrain barrier is highly selective and ensures that only specific substances are allowed to cross and 

gain access to brain tissue. There is no evidence, let alone scientific or clinical proof, that any 

increase of BDNF in the blood, such as may be caused by coffee cherry extract, will result in 

measurable BDNF transport across the human blood-brain barrier and, subsequently, increase the 

concentration of BDNF in brain tissue. 

9 See https://www.schiffvitamins.com/products/neuriva-original-brain-performance-clinically-provenbrain-supporting-supplement-with-natural-ingredients. 

10 See id. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 23 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 24 

71. Consequently, there is no scientific or clinical evidence, let alone scientific or 

clinical proof, that coffee cherry extract that is orally ingested will increase BDNF in the brain 

and/or increase brain performance. 

72. In addition to their false claims regarding coffee cherry extract, Defendants 

intentionally misled consumers by juxtaposing (a) assertions that clinical studies show that 

coffee cherry extract stimulates the production of BDNF and can increase BDNF levels in the 

plasma in 90 minutes with (b) statements such as “BDNF has an important role in maintaining 

the health of existing brain cells, inducing the growth of new neurons and synapses and 

supporting overall cognitive function, including memory and learning.” (Bold in original) A 

reasonable consumer would be misled into understanding these two juxtaposed claims to mean 

that coffee cherry extract can improve cognitive functions by increasing levels of BDNF in the 

blood when, in fact, there is no scientific or clinical evidence that increased plasma levels of 

BDNF can increase BDNF levels in the brain. 

No Scientific or Clinical Proof 

That Plant-Based Phosphatidylserine Supports Brain Performance 

73. Defendants’ claims that their second active ingredient, plant-sourced 

phosphatidylserine, is scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain performance also are 

deceptive and misleading. 

74. First, no scientific consensus exists that there is clinical and scientific proof that 

the soy-derived phosphatidylserine in Neuriva will in fact positively affect brain functions. 

Defendants’ claims—such as the one on their website that “PS has been heavily researched and is 

known to support proper functioning of the nerve cells in the brain” (bold in original)—are 

misleading. Soy-based phosphatidylserine, such as that used in Neuriva, has not been heavily 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 24 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 25 

researched, and it has not been scientifically established that soy-based phosphatidylserine 

benefits the brain. 

75. Defendants fail to disclose to consumers that the “heavily researched” form of 

phosphatidylserine is animal-derived phosphatidylserine, which is distinct from the soy-based 

phosphatidylserine present in Neuriva. The molecular composition of soy-based 

phosphatidylserine, the ingredient contained in Neuriva, is different from the molecular 

composition of animal-derived phosphatidylserine, and research on animal-derived 

phosphatidylserine cannot support any claim that soy-based phosphatidylserine will improve 

brain performance. 

76. There is no consensus in the scientific community, based on the limited and 

inconclusive research to date, that soy-based phosphatidylserine can improve brain performance 

generally, much less “Focus,” “Memory,” “Learning,” “Accuracy,” “Concentration,” and 

“Reasoning.”. 

77. Defendants’ assertion that the phosphatidylserine in Neuriva has been clinically 

proven to support memory and learning in multiple clinical studies is deceptive and misleading. 

78. The Global Council on Brain Health, after reviewing the scientific literature, has 

concluded: “There is not enough evidence for recommending the use of phosphatidylserine for 

brain health, mental functioning, or prevention or treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.”11

79. The United States Food and Drug Administration has taken the position that 

“there is little scientific evidence supporting [the] claim” that “[c]onsumption of 

phosphatidylserine may reduce the risk of cognitive dysfunction in the elderly.” Further, it is the 

11 Global Council on Brain Health p. 20. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 25 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 26 

FDA’s position that “there is little scientific evidence supporting [the] claim” that 

“[c]onsumption of phosphatidylserine may reduce the risk of dementia in the elderly.” 

80. Even if there were evidence that soy-based phosphatidylserine in fact improves 

brain function, which there is not, there is no scientific consensus and clinical studies have not 

scientifically established that the amount of soy-based phosphatidylserine contained in 

Neuriva—100mg—would provide any meaningful improvement in brain performance or that 

taking Neuriva for 30 days, as advertised, can make any difference in brain function. 

No Scientific or Clinical Evidence 

Exists of Neuriva’s Effectiveness 

81. When a drug or supplement has more than one active ingredient, as Neuriva does, 

all active ingredients must be studied in conjunction with one another in order to determine 

whether the active ingredients in combination still provide the benefits stated in the specific 

claim or claims. This is important because the active ingredients may diminish each other’s 

effectiveness or produce unexpected consequences. 

82. The FDA has emphasized that even if a manufacturer can point to a study 

substantiating its claims as to one ingredient contained in its supplement, “[m]anufacturers 

should be aware that other substances . . . included in the dietary supplement product itself 

might also affect the dietary supplement’s performance or the study results.”12

83. Neuriva has two active ingredients: coffee cherry extract and phosphatidylserine. 

There is no valid scientific or clinical evidence that these two active ingredients, when combined, 

improve brain function or are safe for concurrent consumption. 

12 See https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ guidance-industrysubstantiation-dietary-supplement-claims-made-under-section-403r-6-federal-food. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 26 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 27 

Defendants’ Citation to Studies Purportedly Supporting Their Product Claims are 

Deceptive and Misleading Statements 

84. On the Neuriva website, after repeatedly claiming that Neuriva’s ingredients are 

scientifically and clinically proven, Defendants urge consumers “to do your research” and 

“[w]hen choosing a supplement, look for products that have science backing their ingredients.” 

Defendants then list the following five “[r]eferences” to scientific literature:13 

85. By citing to purportedly scientific and/or clinical literature, Defendants intend to 

communicate to consumers that Neuriva is scientifically and clinically proven by these five 

scientific references to support brain performance. Defendants’ implication that these references 

support their claims is deceptive and misleading. 

86. The five cited references do not provide any scientific or clinical proof for 

Defendants’ claims. Rather, these references directly undermine Defendants’ claim that Neuriva 

is scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain function. 

13 See https://www.schiffvitamins.com/blogs/health-wellness/ingredients-for-better-brain-health.

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 27 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 28 

87. First, Defendants cite to a 2013 study conducted by employees of the company 

that owns and sells Neurofactor (the coffee cherry extract) entitled “Stimulatory Effect of Whole 

Coffee Fruit Concentrate Powder on Plasma Levels of Total and Exosomal Brain-Derived 

Neurotrophic Factor in Healthy Subjects: An Acute Within-Subject Clinical Study.”14 The 

conclusion reached in this study was that “whole coffee fruit concentrate” increased BDNF in 

blood plasma. This study did not show any increase in BDNF in the brain or provide any 

evidence that BDNF in blood plasma could cross the blood-brain barrier and achieve 

concentrations in brain tissue that could improve brain performance. The study also noted further 

research was necessary, which further shows that Defendants’ claim that coffee cherry extract is 

scientifically and clinically “proven” is false.15 Specifically, the studies’ authors end the article 

with an explanation that “[f]urther studies are needed” and that “it would be interesting to study 

the effect of [whole coffee fruit concentrate] on BDNF-mediated brain functionalities such as 

cognitive activity....”16 In other words, the study itself acknowledged that it did not address 

whether coffee cherry extract affects brain performance. Accordingly, Defendants’ citation of 

this study is deceptive and misleading. 

88. Second, Defendants cite to a 2013 study entitled “Modulatory effect of coffee 

fruit extract on plasma levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in healthy subjects,” a study 

also conducted by employees of the company that markets Neurofactor.17 The conclusion 

reached in this study was again only that “whole coffee fruit concentrate” increased BDNF in 

14 See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260944035_Stimulatory_Effect_of_Whole_ Coffee_ Fruit_ 

Concentrate_Powder_on_Plasma_Levels_of_Total_and_Exosomal_Brain-Derived_Neurotrophic_Factor_ 

in_Healthy_Subjects_An_Acute_Within-Subject_Clinical_Study 

15 Id. 16 Id. 17 See https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8B291E8D0531 

43AA5A8D33B65496B034/S0007114512005338a.pdf/modulatory_effect_of_coffee_fruit_extract_on_pl

asma_levels_of_brainderived_neurotrophic_factor_in_healthy_subjects.pdf. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 28 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 29 

blood plasma. This study did not show any increase of BDNF in the brain or that an increase in 

blood plasma BDNF results in enhanced BDNF delivery across the blood-brain barrier. 

Furthermore, this study provided no data in support of the assertion that coffee fruit extract could 

provide beneficial effects in the brain due to elevated BDNF plasma levels. This study also noted 

the need for “larger clinical studies” simply “to support” a possibility that whole coffee fruit 

concentrate might be “used for modulation of BDNF-dependent health conditions,” without any 

reference to the brain. 

89. Third, Defendants cite to a 2019 literature review entitled “A simple role of 

BDNF in learning and memory?”18 Far from supporting Defendants’ claim that Neuriva’s active 

ingredients when orally ingested are scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain 

performance, this review notes that “[l]ack of a precise knowledge about the mechanisms by 

which BDNF influences higher cognitive functions and complex behaviors may constitute a 

severe limitation in the possibility to devise BDNF-based therapeutics for human disorders of the 

CNS.” Nothing in this recent review supports Defendants’ claim that coffee cherry extract (also 

known as Neurofactor) can increase BDNF in the brain or affect brain performance. 

90. Fourth, Defendants cite to an article entitled “Treatment of age-related decline in 

cognitive capacities: The effects of phosphatidylserine” contained in a 1998 book that is now out 

of print. The results of this study have been described as controversial, involved 

phosphatidylserine dosages three times larger than contained in Neuriva, and looked at only at a 

limited population. This article does not support Defendants’ claim that plant-derived 

phosphatidylserine is clinically proven to improve brain performance or that Neuriva can 

increase brain performance. 

18 See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821174/

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 29 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 30 

91. Fifth, Defendants cite to a 2014 literature review entitled “Phosphatidylserine in 

the brain: metabolism and function.”19 This review establishes, contrary to Defendants’ claims, 

that it is far from clear whether soy-based phosphatidylserine can increase brain performance: 

“[E]xperimental evidence indicating that orally or intravenously administered PS actually alters 

neuronal membrane properties is lacking. How the administered PS is transported in the plasma, 

how much enters the brain, whether it is taken up intact, and whether it is incorporated into 

neurons or glia are not known.... These issues will have to be investigated in order to obtain 

some mechanistic insight into how dietary or intravenously administered PS supplements 

function to produce cognitive improvement.” This literature review shows that Defendants’ 

claims of scientific and clinical proof regarding the ability of soy-based phosphatidylserine to 

affect brain performance are deceptive and misleading. 

92. The lack of scientific and clinical support for Defendants’ claims regarding 

Neuriva is hardly surprising to anyone versed in the science. As the Global Council on Brain 

Health emphasized in a Consensus Statement: “Very few supplements have been carefully 

studied for their effect on brain health. For the handful that have been researched, several welldesigned studies of supplements for brain health found no benefit in people with normal nutrient 

levels. It’s unclear whether people with nutritional deficiencies can benefit their brains by taking 

a supplement because the research is inconclusive.”20 

Defendant RB’s Chief Scientific Officer Admits 

Defendants’ Marketing is Deceptive and Misleading 

93. Defendants’ persistent and uniform marketing message is that Neuriva is 

scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain performance as a matter of fact. This 

19 See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258547/ 

20 Global Council on Brain Health at p. 4. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 30 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 31 

message conveys to consumers that scientists have reached a consensus through clinical research 

that Neuriva’s ingredients will improve consumers’ brain performance. This message is 

deceptive and misleading as implicitly acknowledged by Defendant RB’s Chief Scientific 

Officer, Dr. Dirk Hondmann. 

94. In Defendants’ press release dated April 24, 2019,21 Dr. Hondmann claims only 

that “Neuriva’s ingredients are supported by clinical studies”—as opposed to being proven—and 

also acknowledges that the Products need more testing: “But this is just the beginning – the team 

is committed to continuing to advance the education and science even further.” 

95. In addition, in an interview published on May 6, 2019, shortly after Defendants 

first began marketing Neuriva, Dr. Hondmann said with regard to Neuriva’s ability to improve 

brain function: “There are several studies supporting the effectiveness of the ingredients in 

Neuriva. While both ingredients have similar mechanisms of action we are eager to continue to 

invest in clinical research of the individual components and investigate studies on the complete 

product.”22 

96. Dr. Hondmann’s more limited claim that there are only studies “supporting” the 

effectiveness of the ingredients in improving brain function is deceptive in and of itself and is 

also an acknowledgement that the effectiveness of the Neuriva ingredients has not yet been 

proven. Scientifically, the mere existence of studies “supporting” the effectiveness of an 

ingredient does not “prove” that the ingredient is effective, although this distinction is not readily 

apparent to the average consumer, particularly when bombarded with marketing and label claims 

of clinical and scientific proof. 

21 See https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/its-time-to-brain-better-rb-launches-neuriva-a-dietarysupplement-and-holistic-approach-to-support-brain-health-300837523.html. 

22 See https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2019/05/06/Reckitt-Benckiser-throws-hat-innootropic-ring-with-Neuriva-launch#. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 31 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 32 

97. Dr. Hondmann further acknowledged that the effectiveness of the ingredients had 

not yet been proven—contrary to Defendants’ uniform marketing claims—by stating that 

Defendants needed to fund further research on the ingredients. 

98. Dr. Hondmann also acknowledged that the effectiveness of Neuriva itself had not 

been proven—contrary to the implications of Defendants’ uniform marketing claims—because 

clinical research needs to be done on Neuriva itself. 

99. By acknowledging the need for further research on Neuriva’s core ingredients and 

on Neuriva itself, Defendant RB’s Chief Scientific Officer admitted that Neuriva does not have 

the consensus of the scientific community necessary to state that Neuriva is scientifically or 

clinically “proven” to improve brain performance. 

Impact of Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct 

100. As the manufacturer and distributor of Neuriva, Defendants possess exclusive and 

specialized knowledge regarding Neuriva’s content and the effects of its ingredients as well as 

the state of scientific and clinical research regarding Neuriva’s ingredients. As a result, 

Defendants are in a superior position to know whether Neuriva works as they claim in their 

marketing on the Products’ packages and labels. 

101. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, or should have known, that Neuriva is not 

scientifically or clinically proven to improve brain performance as advertised because Neuriva 

itself has not been studied. 

102. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, or should have known, that coffee cherry 

extract (also known as Neurofactor) has not been scientifically or clinically proven to improve 

brain performance and that even if orally-ingested coffee cherry extract increases levels of 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 32 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 33 

BDNF in the blood plasma, BDNF cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and impact brain 

performance. 

103. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, or should have known, that soy-based 

phosphatidylserine is not scientifically or clinically proven to improve brain performance as 

advertised; that very little research has been done on soy-based phosphatidylserine; that soybased phosphatidylserine is molecularly different than animal-derived phosphatidylserine; that 

the overwhelming bulk of the research has been done on animal-derived phosphatidylserine 

rather than soy-based phosphatidylserine; and that even if soy-based phosphatidylserine could 

have an impact on brain function, it would not show any brain impact within 30 days as 

advertised. 

104. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that their five references to scientific 

literature do not support, and in several cases directly refute, Defendants’ assertions that Neuriva 

and its ingredients are scientifically and clinically proven. 

105. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that some of their cited studies are funded 

by those who have a direct financial incentive in producing positive results. 

106. Defendants affirmatively represented that there was scientific and clinical proof 

for Neuriva’s improved brain performance claims when there is no scientific or clinical 

consensus regarding those claims. 

107. Plaintiffs and the class members have been and will continue to be deceived or 

misled by Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive brain performance representations. 

108. Defendants’ brain impact representations and omissions were a material factor in 

influencing Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ decision to purchase Neuriva. In fact, the only 

purpose for purchasing Neuriva is to obtain the represented brain performance benefits. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 33 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 34 

109. Defendants market Neuriva solely for use as a supplement that improves brain 

performance. Defendants’ conduct has injured Plaintiffs and the class members because 

Defendants’ Neuriva cannot support or benefit brain performance as advertised and is worthless. 

110. Had Plaintiffs and the class members known the truth about Defendants’ Neuriva 

products, they would not have purchased Neuriva and would not have paid the prices they paid 

for Neuriva. 

111. Plaintiffs and each class member were harmed by purchasing Defendants’ 

Neuriva because Neuriva is not capable of providing the claimed benefits to the brain. Plaintiffs 

and each class member lost money and property as a result of purchasing Defendants’ ineffective 

and worthless products. 

112. Plaintiffs and each class member did not realize the benefit of the bargain and 

their expectations were not met. And Plaintiffs and each class member paid substantially more 

than the market value represented by the price bargained for. 

113. By use of its misleading marketing and labeling, Defendants created increased 

market demand for Neuriva and increased their market share relative to what the demand for 

Neuriva and their market share would have been had Defendants marketed and labeled Neuriva 

truthfully. 

114. Plaintiffs and the class members lost money as a result of Defendants’ 

misrepresentations in that they did not receive what they reasonably believed they were paying 

for based upon the misrepresentations while Defendants realized a commensurate unearned gain 

because they did not deliver to Plaintiffs and the class members what Defendants led Plaintiffs 

and the class members to believe they would receive. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 34 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 35 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF DAVID WILLIAMS 

115. Plaintiff David Williams purchased seven to eight bottles of Neuriva Original at 

Walmart in about January 2020. Prior to purchasing Neuriva Original, Plaintiff Williams was 

exposed to and saw and relied upon Defendants’ materially misleading representations in 

television commercials and on the Neuriva Original packaging. Based on Defendants’ claims, 

Plaintiff Williams believed that Neuriva Original would improve his brain performance and 

memory. 

116. Plaintiff Williams experienced no improvement in his brain performance as a 

result of taking Neuriva Original. 

117. Plaintiff Williams’ decision to buy Neuriva was directly impacted and caused by 

the materially misleading representations that Defendants made regarding Neuriva’s ingredients 

being clinically and scientifically proven and Neuriva’s ability to improve brain performance. 

118. Had Plaintiff Williams known the truth about Defendants’ materially misleading 

representations and omissions, he would not have purchased Neuriva. 

119. By purchasing Defendants’ falsely advertised Products, Plaintiff Williams 

suffered injury in fact and lost money. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF CAROLL ANGLADE

120. Plaintiff Caroll Anglade purchased Neuriva on several occasions in 2019 at 

Walgreens, BJ’s Wholesale Club, and Costco Wholesale. She stopped using Neuriva in January 

2020. Prior to purchasing Neuriva, Plaintiff Anglade was exposed to and saw and relied upon 

Defendants’ materially misleading representations in Defendants’ advertisements and on the 

Neuriva packaging, including Defendants’ claims that Neuriva’s ingredients have the ability to 

improve brain performance. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 35 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 36 

121. Plaintiff Anglade experienced no improvement in her brain performance as a 

result of taking Neuriva. 

122. Plaintiff Anglade’s decision to buy Neuriva was directly impacted and caused by 

the materially misleading representations that Defendants made regarding Neuriva’s ingredients 

being clinically and scientifically proven and Neuriva’s ability to improve brain performance. 

123. Had Plaintiff Anglade known the truth about Defendants’ materially misleading 

representations and omissions, she would not have purchased Neuriva. 

124. By purchasing Defendants’ falsely advertised Products, Plaintiff Anglade suffered 

injury in fact and lost money. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

125. Pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed Class defined as follows: 

All persons residing in the state of Florida who purchased Neuriva 

Original and/or Neuriva Plus for personal use and not for resale. 

126. Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, Defendants’ board members, executive 

level officers, and attorneys, and immediate family members of any of the foregoing; 

governmental entities; the Court, the Court’s immediate family, and staff; and any person who 

timely and properly excludes himself or herself from the Class. 

127. Plaintiffs reserve the right to alter the Class definition as necessary to the full 

extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and applicable precedent. 

128. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of the claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence that 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 36 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 37 

individual Class members would use to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the 

same claims. 

Numerosity, Rule 23(a)(1) 

129. The size of the Class is so large that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. 

Plaintiffs believe there are thousands or more members in the Class geographically dispersed 

throughout the State of Florida. 

Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact, 

Rule 23(a)(2), (b)(3) 

130. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class. These questions 

predominate over any questions that affect only individual Class members. Common legal and 

factual questions/issues include but are not limited to:

a. what representations Defendants have made regarding Neuriva over time; 

b. the state of scientific and industry knowledge, including Defendants’ 

knowledge, regarding the ability of coffee cherry extract and/or plant-based 

phosphatidylserine to improve brain performance; 

c. whether Neuriva is capable of providing or in fact provides any of the 

beneficial effects on brain performance that Defendants claim; 

d. whether Neuriva is scientifically or clinically proven to have any beneficial 

effects on brain performance, as Defendants claim; 

e. whether Defendants’ representations and omissions regarding Neuriva are 

false and/or misleading; 

f. whether Defendants have engaged in false and/or misleading advertising, 

marketing, packaging, and labeling in connection with Neuriva; 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 37 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 38 

g. whether Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their 

representations regarding Neuriva are false and misleading; 

h. whether Defendants’ conduct was knowing and willful; 

i. whether the Class members have been injured and the proper measure of their 

damages as a result of their injuries; and 

j. whether the Class members are entitled to other appropriate remedies, 

including corrective advertising and injunctive relief. 

131. Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct in contravention of the laws 

Plaintiffs seek to enforce individually and on behalf of the Class members. Similar or identical 

violations of law, business practices, and injuries are involved. Individual questions, if any, pale 

by comparison, in both quality and quantity, to the numerous common questions that 

predominate this action. Moreover, the common questions will yield common answers that will 

substantially advance the resolution of the case. 

Typicality, Rule 23(a)(3)

132. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class members because, among 

other things, Defendants injured all Class members through the uniform misconduct described 

herein; all Class members suffered injury due to Defendants’ misrepresentations; and Plaintiffs 

seek the same relief as the Class members. 

133. There are no defenses available to Defendants that are unique to the named 

Plaintiffs. 

Adequacy of Representation, Rule 23(a)(4)

134. Plaintiffs are fair and adequate representatives of the Class because Plaintiffs’ 

interests do not conflict with the Class members’ interests. Plaintiffs will prosecute this action 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 38 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 39 

vigorously and are highly motivated to seek redress against Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 

have retained competent counsel who are experienced in class action and other complex 

litigation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously 

on behalf of the Class and have the resources to do so. The interests of the Class members will 

be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel. 

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Rule 23(b)(2)

135. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and 

declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 

Superiority, Rule 23(b)(3): 

136. The class action mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy for reasons including but not limited to the following: 

a. The damages individual Class members have suffered are small compared to 

the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and 

extensive litigation needed to address Defendants’ misconduct. 

b. It would be virtually impossible for the Class members individually to redress 

effectively the wrongs done to them. Even if Class members themselves could 

afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized 

litigation would unnecessarily increase the delay and expense to all parties 

and to the court system and presents a potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory rulings and judgments. By contrast, the class action device 

presents far fewer management difficulties, allows the hearing of claims 

which might otherwise go unaddressed because of the relative expense of 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 39 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 40 

bringing individual lawsuits, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, 

economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

c. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create 

a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. 

137. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a 

risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the 

interests of other Class members not parties to the adjudications or that would substantively 

impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. 

(On behalf of Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Class) 

138. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs 

as if fully set forth herein. 

139. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (“FDUTPA”). The stated purpose of the 

FDUTPA is to “protect the consuming public . . . from those who engage in unfair methods of 

competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade 

or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2). 

140. Plaintiffs and all Class members are “consumers” and Defendants have engaged 

in “trade or commerce” as defined by FDUTPA. Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7)-(8). 

141. FDUTPA declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable 

acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 40 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 41 

commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). The FDUTPA also prohibits false and misleading 

advertising. 

142. Defendants have violated the FDUTPA by engaging in the unfair or deceptive 

practices described in this Complaint, practices that offend public policies and are immoral, 

unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendants’ unfair or 

deceptive practices as described herein are likely to mislead—and have misled—consumers 

acting reasonably in the circumstances. 

143. Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive practices by, among other things, 

making the false representations and omissions of material facts regarding Neuriva in their 

uniform advertising, including the packaging and labeling, as set forth more fully in this 

Complaint. In fact, Neuriva is not capable of conferring the brain performance benefits 

Defendants promised, and Defendants falsely claimed Neuriva’s benefits are scientifically and 

clinically proven when they are not. 

144. Plaintiffs and the other Class members paid for a valueless product that is not 

capable of conferring the benefits promised. While Plaintiffs and the other Class members were 

harmed, Defendants were unjustly enriched by their false representations and omissions. As a 

result, Defendants’ conduct is “unfair.” 

145. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have in fact been deceived as a result of 

their reliance on Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions, which are described 

above. Plaintiffs and the Class acted reasonably when they purchased Neuriva based on their 

belief that Defendants’ representations were true and lawful. 

146. In addition, the practices employed by Defendants, whereby Defendants sold, 

promoted, and marketed Neuriva with the deceptive representations described in this Complaint 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 41 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 42 

constitute a per se violation of FDUTPA under Fla. Stat. § 501.203(3)(c) because they are in 

violation of the Florida Food Safety Act (“FFSA”), Fla. Stat. § 500.04 (1) and (2), in that the 

Neuriva Products are misbranded. 

147. Defendants’ false, unlawful, and misleading product descriptions render its 

products misbranded under Florida law. Specifically, § 500.04 of the FFSA prohibits the 

manufacture, sale, or delivery of “misbranded food.” Neuriva is a dietary supplement, which 

meets the definition of “food” under the FFSA. Fla. Stat. § 500.03(n)(5). Food is “misbranded” 

when “its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.” Fla. Stat. § 500.11(1)(a). A food is 

considered mislabeled unless the proper disclosures are made “on the outside container or 

wrapper” on the product. Fla. Stat. § 500.03(1)(t). Misbranded products cannot be legally sold 

and are legally worthless. 

148. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a 

result of their purchases of Defendants’ Neuriva Products and Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and 

fraudulent practices. 

149. The harm suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class was directly and proximately caused 

by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendants, as more fully described in this 

Complaint. 

150. Defendants knew, or should have known, that they have no scientific evidence for 

their claims of definitive scientific and clinical proof as set forth above. Defendants further 

knew, or should have known, that their material misrepresentations and omissions would be 

likely to deceive and harm the consuming public and result in consumers making payments to 

Defendants for Neuriva which is valueless and incapable of actually supporting, maintaining, 

improving, or benefiting brain performance. 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 42 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 43 

151. As a result of their deception, Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving 

payments from Plaintiffs and the Class for Neuriva Products when they cannot perform as 

advertised and when there is no scientific or clinical evidence to support Defendants’ claims of 

definitive scientific and clinical “proof.” 

152. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants will continue to engage in the 

unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint. Accordingly, injunctive 

relief is appropriate. 

153. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf 

of the general public, seek damages and restitution from Defendants of all money obtained from 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class collected as a result of Defendants’ deceptive or 

unfair practices, an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing and further engaging in 

their unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct, requiring corrective advertising, and all other 

relief this Court deems appropriate. 

154. In addition to seeking recovery of their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. 

Stat. § 501.2105, Plaintiffs and the Class seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 

501.211(1) that Defendants have knowingly violated FDUTPA because their representations are 

false and/or misleading in that the Neuriva Products cannot perform as advertised and there is no 

scientific or clinical evidence to support Defendants’ claims of definitive scientific and clinical 

“proof.” Plaintiffs and the Class further seek a declaratory judgment that the Neuriva Products 

are a misbranded food under Florida law, and therefore Defendants have committed per se 

violations of the FDUTPA.

 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 43 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 44 

COUNT II 

Unjust Enrichment 

(On behalf of Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Class) 

155. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege ¶¶ 1-137 as if fully set forth herein. 

156. Plaintiffs and the Class conferred a non-gratuitous monetary benefit on 

Defendants when they purchased Neuriva. Defendants accepted and retained the non-gratuitous 

benefits conferred by Plaintiffs and the Class with full knowledge and awareness that, as a result 

of Defendants’ deceptive marketing, Plaintiffs and Class Members were not receiving products 

of the quality, nature, fitness, or value that had been represented by Defendants and reasonable 

consumers would have expected; in fact, the Neuriva Products they purchased were worthless. 

157. By their wrongful acts and omissions described within this Complaint, including 

the deceptive marketing, packaging, labeling, distribution, and sale of the Neuriva Products as 

scientifically and clinically proven to improve brain performance, Defendants were unjustly 

enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class Members. 

158. Plaintiffs and Class Members’ detriment and Defendants’ enrichment were related 

to and flowed from the wrongful conduct challenged in this Complaint. 

159. Defendants have profited from their unlawful, unfair, misleading, and deceptive 

practices at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class Members under circumstances in which it would 

be unjust for Defendants to be permitted to retain the benefit. It would be inequitable for 

Defendants to retain the profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained from their wrongful 

conduct as described herein in connection with the deceptive marketing, packaging, labeling, 

distribution, and sale of Neuriva. 

160. Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ unjust enrichment because they would not have purchased Neuriva had they known 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 44 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 45 

that it does not improve brain performance and was not scientifically and clinically proven to do 

so. 

161. Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiffs and the Class would make payments 

for Neuriva based on the belief that Neuriva was scientifically and clinically proven to improve 

brain performance, as represented by Defendants in advertising and marketing, on Defendants’ 

website, and on the labels and packaging. It is inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit of 

payments obtained through false and misleading representations. 

162. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants, and Defendant 

should be required to disgorge, all amounts wrongfully collected and improperly retained by 

Defendants. 

163. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct and unjust 

enrichment, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to restitution of, disgorgement of, and/or 

imposition of a constructive trust upon all profits, benefits, and other benefits obtained by 

Defendants for their inequitable and unlawful conduct. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

proposed Class, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against 

Defendants as follows: 

1. Declaring that this action is a proper class action, certifying the Class as requested 

herein, designating Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing the undersigned counsel as 

class counsel; 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 45 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 46 

2. Ordering restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that 

Defendants obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class members as a result of Defendants’ unlawful, 

unfair, and fraudulent business practices; 

3. Ordering injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining 

Defendants from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, and ordering Defendants 

to engage in a corrective advertising campaign; 

4. Ordering all recoverable damages for Plaintiffs and the Class members; 

5. Ordering Defendants to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiffs and 

other members of the Class; 

6. Ordering Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts 

awarded; and 

7. Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

Dated: August 26, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Rachel Soffin 

Rachel Soffin (Fla. Bar No. 18054) 

 Jonathan B. Cohen (Fla. Bar No. 27620) 

GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 

First Tennessee Plaza 

800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 

Knoxville, TN 37929 

Telephone: (865) 247-0080 

Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 

rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com 

jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 46 of 47
Class Action Complaint – 47 

Daniel K. Bryson* 

Martha A. Geer* 

Patrick M. Wallace* 

WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 

900 West Morgan Street 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

Telephone: (919) 600-5000 

Facsimile: 919-600-5035 

dan@whitfieldbryson.com 

martha@whitfieldbryson.com 

pat@whitfieldbryson.com 

Matthew D. Schultz (Fla. Bar No. 640326) 

LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, 

MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & 

PROCTOR, PA 

316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600 

Pensacola, FL 32502 

Telephone: (850) 435-7140 

Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 

mschultz@levinlaw.com 

Nick Suciu* 

BARBAT, MANSOUR, & SUCIU PLLC 

1644 Bracken Rd. 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Telephone:(313) 303-3472 

nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com 

*Applications pro hac vice to be submitted 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

Case 1:20-cv-23564-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 47 of 47