Prevagen Lawsuit: Jury Verdict, Appeal, and Settlement

The Prevagen lawsuit is a federal case brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General against Quincy Bioscience, the maker of the memory supplement Prevagen. In March 2024, a jury found that eight of Quincy’s advertising statements were unsubstantiated and had a tendency to deceive. In November and December 2024, the court issued a nationwide injunction ordering Quincy to stop making those eight claims, but declined to award monetary penalties. Quincy, the New York Attorney General, and the FTC have all appealed, and the Second Circuit heard oral argument on February 26, 2026. As of mid-2026, the injunction is in effect and a decision is pending.

Who Sued Quincy Bioscience and Why

The FTC and the New York Attorney General jointly filed suit on January 9, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:17-cv-00124). The defendants are Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Quincy Bioscience LLC, Prevagen Inc., Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing LLC, and the company’s two principals, president Mark Underwood and CEO Michael Beaman.¹

The complaint targeted Quincy’s national advertising for Prevagen, a supplement whose active ingredient is apoaequorin, a protein originally derived from jellyfish. Since at least 2011 the company had marketed the product as improving memory, reducing age-related memory problems, and supporting “a sharper mind and clearer thinking,” with prices reaching $89.95 for a 30-day supply and sales topping $165 million. Then-director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Jessica Rich called the campaign “a clear-cut fraud” that “preyed on the fears of older consumers.”²

The government’s central factual claim was that Quincy’s own science did not back its ads. The company’s principal clinical study, the “Madison Memory Study,” enrolled 218 participants and failed its primary endpoint, showing no statistically significant difference between Prevagen and placebo on any measure of cognitive function. Quincy then ran more than 30 post hoc subgroup analyses until it found apparent improvements in small slices of the data. Internal Quincy documents submitted to the FDA acknowledged that the supplement is “unlikely to reach the brain.”³

The 2024 Jury Verdict

The case went to a jury in early 2024 on the New York Attorney General’s claims. Because the FTC is not entitled to a jury trial, its participation was not disclosed to the jury and its claims were reserved for Judge Louis L. Stanton to decide separately.³

In March 2024, the jury returned a split verdict. It found that all eight challenged advertising statements were conveyed “repeatedly or persistently,” lacked support from “competent and reliable scientific evidence,” and had the “capacity or tendency to deceive,” which placed them in violation of New York Executive Law Section 63(12). But the jury found only two of the eight statements “materially misleading” under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350: the claim that Prevagen “reduces memory problems associated with aging” and the claim that this had been “clinically shown.” The other six were found to violate the Executive Law but did not clear the materiality bar under the consumer-protection statutes.⁴ Judge Stanton formally accepted the verdict on May 8, 2024.³

The Eight Claims Prevagen Can No Longer Make

On November 18, 2024, Judge Stanton issued a judgment ordering Quincy to “immediately remove” all eight challenged marketing statements. A follow-up order on December 6, 2024, clarified that the injunction “takes effect forthwith and applies nationally wherever Prevagen is marketed.” The prohibited statements are:

“Prevagen improves memory.”
“Prevagen is clinically shown to improve memory.”
“Prevagen improves memory within 90 days.”
“Prevagen is clinically shown to improve memory within 90 days.”
“Prevagen reduces memory problems associated with aging.”
“Prevagen is clinically shown to reduce memory problems associated with aging.”
“Prevagen provides other cognitive benefits, including but not limited to healthy brain function, a sharper mind and clearer thinking.”
“Prevagen is clinically shown to provide other cognitive benefits, including but not limited to healthy brain function, a sharper mind and clearer thinking.”

The court found that scientific support for all eight statements was lacking and that each had a “tendency to deceive.”⁵⁶

Why Consumers Got No Money From the Government Case

Judge Stanton denied the Attorney General’s request for monetary penalties, disgorgement, and statutory costs. He reasoned that the jury’s finding that six of the eight statements were not materially misleading “counsels forbearance rather than rigor in the calculation of a just judgment, stopping short of the pursuit of monetary penalties.”⁶ The FTC’s claims were resolved in the same judgment, and the agency announced its win on December 10, 2024, but the ruling included no consumer redress.¹

Consumers who bought Prevagen have separately recovered money through a private class-action settlement, described further below.

What’s on Appeal at the Second Circuit

Quincy Bioscience filed a notice of appeal on December 14, 2024, and the New York Attorney General and FTC also appealed portions of the ruling. Oral argument was held on February 26, 2026, before a panel consisting of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Judges Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Robert D. Sack.⁷

Quincy is arguing that a New York state statute cannot support a permanent, nationwide injunction, and that the injunction is unconstitutionally vague because it prohibits the eight statements “and similar” ones. The company also contends that the FTC cannot seek a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act without first pursuing an administrative proceeding, an argument that leans on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.⁸

The New York Attorney General is asking the appellate court to affirm liability on all eight statements, reverse the finding that six were not materially misleading, and overturn the denial of monetary relief. At oral argument, Judges Sack and Livingston expressed concern about the district court’s limited explanation for refusing to award penalties. The Attorney General also argues that Executive Law Section 63(12) is “a broadly worded anti-fraud provision” that provides an independent cause of action not requiring proof of material misleadingness for each statement, citing a 2025 New York appellate ruling in People v. Trump.⁹ The FTC is defending its authority to obtain a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) without an administrative case.⁵ A decision is pending.

What Prevagen Looks Like After the Injunction

Quincy has changed its website, removing promises of memory improvement, references to “90-day” results, and claims that the product is “clinically proven.” The company continues to sell Prevagen and now uses the tagline “For Your Brain.”¹⁰¹¹

In November 2025, the New York Attorney General moved to expand the injunction to cover the “For Your Brain” tagline. Judge Stanton denied that motion in January 2026, ruling that the state could not “shoehorn an entirely new set of facts into an existing Judgment.”

The Separate Class-Action Settlement for Prevagen Buyers

Apart from the government case, consumers pursued private class actions. In Collins, et al. v. Quincy Bioscience LLC (Case No. 1:19-cv-22864, S.D. Fla.), a nationwide class-action settlement received final court approval on November 18, 2020. The class covered anyone who purchased Prevagen between January 1, 2007, and July 21, 2020. Consumers with proof of purchase could recover 30% of their costs, up to $70; those without proof could claim $12. Quincy agreed to stop marketing Prevagen as supporting aging brain health or improving memory loss but did not admit wrongdoing. Claimants reported receiving $12 checks in early 2021.¹² The claim period for that settlement has closed.

1
FTC. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company Cases and Proceedings
2
FTC. FTC, New York State Charge Marketers of Prevagen With Making Deceptive Memory, Cognitive Improvement Claims
3
NY Attorney General. Attorney General James Wins Trial Against Quincy Bioscience for Deceptive and Misleading Marketing
4
NY AG. People v. Quincy Bioscience Decision
5
NutraIngredients. Court Orders Prevagen to Remove Memory-Improvement Claims
6
Supply Side SJ. Prevagen’s Claims Curbed but New York Attorney General’s Monetary Demands Denied
7
Truth in Advertising. Prevagen
8
Supreme Court. AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC
9
NY Courts. People v. Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756
10
CSPI. Prevagen Ordered to Cease Memory-Improvement Claims
11
MedShadow. Prevagen Memory Claims Explained
12
Top Class Actions. Prevagen Brain Health Supplement Class Action Settlement