Prevagen Class Action Lawsuit Claims Supplement Does Not Actually Support Brain Health

Manufacturer has admitted to the FDA that Prevagen ingredients cannot reach the brain, and that its main memory study was unregistered, unreliable, and manipulated to show benefits that did not exist.

A California woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Prevagen does not protect the brain against Alzheimer’s, dementia or other forms of memory loss, despite the manufacturers’ claims.

Prevagen is an unregulated dietary supplement that contains apoaequorin, a protein originally derived from jellyfish. While it has not been linked to any known health risks, the product is marketed as a way to protect brain cells and improve memory in older adults, claims that researchers say lack credible scientific support.

As a result, a number of Prevagen lawsuits have been filed over the past decade, accusing the manufacturer of deceptive marketing and profiting from misleading health claims.

In a recently filed complaint (PDF) brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 13, Louise Hudis claims that Quincy Bioscience Holding Inc. and various related entities, including Prevagen Inc. and company CEO Mark Underwood, have deceived consumers with false statements about Prevagen’s benefits.

The lawsuit claims Prevagen has long been marketed with promises of improved memory, sharper thinking and better brain function, despite scientific evidence showing the supplement provides none of those benefits. Hudis says Quincy Bioscience targeted older adults worried about cognitive decline, using television and online ads with slogans such as “Healthier Brain. Better Life.” and “Clinically Tested,” and charging up to $60 per month for a product that costs pennies to make.

She contends those claims are impossible because Quincy’s own filings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledge that apoaequorin is digested in the stomach and broken down into amino acids before reaching the brain. As a result, the lawsuit argues that it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier or affect brain chemistry, making Prevagen no more effective than an ordinary dietary protein.

The complaint also cites the Madison Memory Study, which Quincy often references in its marketing as evidence that Prevagen improves memory. Hudis alleges the 2016 study was deeply flawed, unregistered, and conducted by staff with no clinical research experience. The study found no statistically significant benefit compared to placebo, and Hudis claims Quincy later performed improper post-hoc data mining to fabricate positive results.

In addition, Hudis contends that federal regulators have repeatedly challenged the company’s claims, with the FDA sending Quincy a warning letter in 2012 for marketing Prevagen as an unapproved drug, while in 2024, a federal court in New York issued an injunction prohibiting deceptive “brain health” advertising. Despite this, Hudis says the company continued to make similar claims in modified form.

The lawsuit also highlights internal records and testimony showing that company CEO Mark Underwood personally approved labeling and ad campaigns, even though he allegedly knew Prevagen’s claims were scientifically impossible.

“The purported connection between Defendants’ synthetic apoaequorin and brain health is the byproduct of a scientific misnomer that came to its creator, Defendant Mark Underwood, in what he claims was an epiphany. In fact, how Underwood and Quincy arrived at apoaequorin as a supplement that purportedly provides brain health benefits is a tortured tale that itself demonstrates that Underwood and Quincy merely searched for a use of cheaply made synthetic apoaequorin so that they could make millions off of unsuspecting consumers.”

— Louise Hudis v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Inc. et al

Hudis raises allegations of unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

The lawsuit seeks class action status, with a subclass for California consumers, and requests restitution, recovery of profits, damages, and a court order barring further false advertising while requiring a corrective campaign.

Prevagen MDL Motions

This is not the first time Prevagen has been accused of false advertising. A motion to consolidate four Prevagen lawsuits into a single MDL, or multidistrict district litigation, was originally brought in 2017. However, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the motion in May of that year, due to there being too few cases and the common factual issues not being unusually complex.

A second attempt to consolidate the federal litigation was filed in January 2020. That motion was denied on similar grounds, with the JPML ruling that formal centralization was still not necessary.

Despite these decisions from the JPML, litigation against Prevagen and its manufacturer continues in individual courts, including private consumer class-action lawsuits like Hudis’s, as well as actions brought by government regulators.

In one instance, a long-running case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General ended in late 2024, with the presiding court issuing an order prohibiting Quincy Bioscience from making unsupported memory improvement claims. Hudis references this case in her lawsuit.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.