The Neuriva lawsuit is a series of class actions accusing Reckitt Benckiser of falsely marketing its Neuriva brain health supplements as “clinically proven” to improve memory, focus, and concentration when, plaintiffs say, the science does not support those claims. An $8 million settlement was approved in March 2022, then vacated on appeal in April 2023 after the Eleventh Circuit found the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek the labeling changes built into the deal. A new class action was filed in October 2025 in Illinois raising similar allegations.
What the Lawsuits Allege
Reckitt Benckiser launched Neuriva in the United States in 2018 through its Schiff Vitamins division.1Reckitt. Our Brands – Neuriva The line includes Neuriva Original, Neuriva Plus, Neuriva De-Stress, and Neuriva Ultra, all built around two active ingredients: coffee cherry extract and phosphatidylserine.2Pharmacy Times. Neuriva: A Closer Look at the Efficacy and Safety of This Popular Supplement Reckitt marketed the products as “clinically proven” and “backed by science,” saying they improved focus, memory, learning, accuracy, concentration, and reasoning.3Bloomberg Law. Neuriva Brain Pill $8 Million Class Deal Gets Judge’s Nod
Three class actions were filed against Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC between June and September 2020, in federal courts in Florida, California, and New York. They were consolidated in January 2021 into a single case in the Southern District of Florida, Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 1:20-cv-23564, before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. The core allegation was that Reckitt had no scientific or clinical proof that Neuriva delivered the brain benefits it advertised.4Truth in Advertising. Neuriva Class Action Reckitt denied the claims and said its marketing had “always been truthful and not deceptive.”5RB Settlement. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC Settlement
What the Science Actually Shows
The evidence behind Neuriva’s ingredients is thinner than “clinically proven” suggests. A 2025 review in Pharmacy Times found that research on coffee cherry extract suffers from small sample sizes, short treatment durations, varying doses, and mixed results, leaving “insufficient reliable evidence to draw firm conclusions” about cognitive benefits. Phosphatidylserine has better research support, but the studies showing cognitive benefits used bovine-derived versions at three times the dose in Neuriva Original. Neuriva uses soybean-derived phosphatidylserine, for which the evidence is “more sparse and less clear.”2Pharmacy Times. Neuriva: A Closer Look at the Efficacy and Safety of This Popular Supplement
Reckitt has pointed to a 2023 industry-sponsored study in Neurology and Therapy, in which 138 healthy adults with self-reported memory problems took Neuriva or a placebo daily for 42 days. The Neuriva group showed statistically significant improvements in numeric working memory accuracy and picture recognition accuracy. The study found no significant difference in BDNF levels between the groups and no significant difference on everyday memory or attention tasks, and the researchers wrote that “future larger studies of longer duration are needed to confirm the current study’s findings.”6National Center for Biotechnology Information. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of a Supplement Containing Coffee Cherry Extract and Phosphatidylserine
The $8 Million Settlement
The parties settled before any depositions or contested motions. Reckitt agreed to fund an $8 million pool for consumers who bought Neuriva Original, Neuriva Plus, or Neuriva De-Stress for personal use in the United States between January 1, 2019, and April 23, 2021.7RB Settlement. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC Settlement – FAQ
Individual payouts were modest. Buyers with a receipt could claim $32.50 per purchase up to $65. Buyers without proof of purchase could claim $5 per purchase up to $20. One claim per household.7RB Settlement. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC Settlement – FAQ Reckitt also agreed to drop “proven,” “shown,” and “clinically shown” from Neuriva packaging for two years and use “clinically tested” instead.3Bloomberg Law. Neuriva Brain Pill $8 Million Class Deal Gets Judge’s Nod Plaintiffs’ six law firms were to seek $2.9 million in fees.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232
Judge Goodman granted final approval on March 16, 2022.3Bloomberg Law. Neuriva Brain Pill $8 Million Class Deal Gets Judge’s Nod Class members ultimately filed 59,877 claims worth about $1.1 million, roughly a third of what plaintiffs’ lawyers were set to receive.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232
Two objectors pushed back hard. Theodore Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness called the $8 million headline figure “illusory” and criticized the deal’s “clear sailing” fee provision and a “kicker” clause that returned any reduced fees to Reckitt rather than the class.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232 Truth in Advertising filed an amicus brief arguing the labeling swap from “clinically proven” to “clinically tested” was meaningless, citing a 2005 National Advertising Division decision that had found the two phrases convey the same message to ordinary consumers.9Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. TINA Amicus Brief in Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser Judge Goodman rejected both arguments, ruling that “clinically tested” does not suggest a “definitive scientific outcome or consensus.”3Bloomberg Law. Neuriva Brain Pill $8 Million Class Deal Gets Judge’s Nod
Why the Eleventh Circuit Threw the Settlement Out
Frank appealed. In April 2023 the Eleventh Circuit vacated the settlement on a ground the parties had not focused on: the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek the injunctive relief written into the deal.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232
Federal courts can only grant injunctive relief to plaintiffs facing a “real and immediate” threat of future injury. None of the named plaintiffs said they intended to buy Neuriva again. Their complaint called the products “worthless” and said it was “biochemically impossible” for the ingredients to work. If they were never going to buy the product again, the court reasoned, they faced no future harm from its labeling and could not ask a court to order labeling changes.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232
The court said the monetary portion of the settlement standing alone had no defect. But the two-year marketing restrictions had been an “integral part” of the district court’s fairness analysis, so the entire approval had to be undone.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 22-11232 The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in August 2023.4Truth in Advertising. Neuriva Class Action The ruling aligned the Eleventh Circuit with the Second and Third Circuits and against the Ninth Circuit’s more permissive standing rule for consumer injunctive relief.
Where the Case Stands Now
The original Williams case remains pending in the Southern District of Florida after remand. Publicly available docket records show no post-remand activity as of mid-2026. No new settlement has been announced, and the case has not been dismissed.10CourtListener. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC Docket
A new class action was filed on October 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Timmons v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 1:25-cv-12192, targets Neuriva Original, Neuriva Plus, and Neuriva Ultra, alleging the products “come nowhere near delivering” on their brain health claims. The complaint challenges many of the same representations as the original litigation, including claims about improved focus, memory, and concentration and that coffee cherry extract raises BDNF levels.11MS Law Group. Timmons v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Class Action Complaint The Illinois case is in its early stages, with no rulings or settlement discussions reported as of mid-2026.12Law360. Neuriva Brain Health Products Don’t Work, Class Suit Claims
What Neuriva Buyers Can Do
No payments are currently available. The claim window for the original settlement closed in 2021, and the settlement itself was vacated in 2023, so the $32.50/$65 and $5/$20 payouts described in older notices are no longer on the table. The Illinois case has not been certified as a class, and no settlement class or claim form has been announced. If either case produces a new deal, notice would typically be posted to a court-approved settlement website and to class members whose contact information is on file with Reckitt or a claims administrator. Until then, buyers who feel misled have no active claims process to join.