Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What regulatory actions or warnings (FDA, FTC) exist regarding marketing claims for dementia supplements since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 federal regulators have continued active enforcement against firms making disease claims for “brain health” supplements: the FDA and FTC jointly issued warning letters and advisories in a 2019–2020 sweep that called out roughly 17 companies and more than 58–60 products, and the FTC has pursued litigation and refunds for deceptive “cognitive” claims (including actions tied to Prevagen and other marketers) [1] [2] [3] [4]. The FTC updated its health‑products guidance in December 2022 to sharpen standards for substantiation of cognitive and dementia claims, while GAO and consumer guidance materials reiterate the limits of FDA premarket authority over supplements and the separate but overlapping roles of FDA (safety/labeling) and FTC (truthful advertising) [5] [6] [7].
1. Regulators stepped in where companies claimed supplements could prevent or treat dementia
In a coordinated effort that began before 2020 and continued into early 2020, FDA and FTC scrutinized websites, product pages and marketing and jointly sent 12 warning letters and five online advisory letters citing more than 58 products marketed with illegal disease claims — the agencies and reporting identified about 17 companies and ~60 named supplements promoted as treating Alzheimer’s or dementia [1] [2] [8].
2. The FTC’s role: advertising truth and consumer refunds
The FTC enforces truth in advertising and has a long history of actions against deceptive memory‑support claims. It has sued and settled cases (including the longrunning Prevagen dispute and other cases resulting in consumer refunds), and its December 2022 Health Products Compliance Guidance updated and broadened the agency’s expectations for substantiation of health claims across supplements, foods, apps and other health products [9] [10] [5] [11].
3. The FDA’s role: disease claims, labeling and safety enforcement
FDA enforcement focused on claims that turned supplements into unapproved drugs (disease claims) and on product safety/labeling issues; its consumer advisories explicitly warned people not to buy products claiming to cure or prevent Alzheimer’s and it identified hundreds of problematic products over recent years, issuing warning or advisory letters to firms selling them [1] [2] [12].
4. How the two agencies coordinate — and where gaps remain
GAO and agency materials explain that FTC and FDA responsibilities overlap but differ: FTC targets false advertising and requires competent, reliable scientific substantiation for claims, while FDA addresses labeling, adulteration, and when a product crosses into being an unapproved drug. Neither agency has broad premarket approval authority over most supplements, which means enforcement typically happens after products reach the market [6] [7] [13].
5. High‑profile examples that shaped enforcement and public attention
Prevagen drew sustained regulatory and legal scrutiny: the FTC and New York Attorney General sued its marketers for allegedly false memory claims, and courts and agency actions have constrained some of the product’s claims [9] [14]. Earlier joint FDA/FTC warning letters also named products such as Mind Ignite and Cogni‑Flex in public reporting, helping to catalyze the agencies’ warning letters targeting Alzheimer’s disease claims [10] [8].
6. What the guidance and letters require of marketers now
The FTC’s updated guidance requires “competent and reliable scientific evidence” (typically well‑controlled human trials) for disease or cognitive improvement claims and underscores that structure‑function claims are limited and must include appropriate disclaimers; FDA warning letters underline that claiming a supplement treats or prevents Alzheimer’s or dementia makes it an unapproved drug [5] [10] [7].
7. Consumer and clinical context: why regulators emphasize caution
Public health and scientific reviews cited by agencies and advocacy groups say evidence supporting supplements for prevention or treatment of dementia is weak or inconsistent, and older adults commonly use supplements — creating risk that misleading claims exploit vulnerable consumers — which is why FDA and FTC warnings stress both lack of proof and potential safety concerns [15] [16] [17].
8. Limitations and open questions in current reporting
Available sources document agency warning letters, FTC litigation and the December 2022 guidance, but they do not provide a single, up‑to‑date tally of every enforcement action since 2020; specifics about settlements, civil penalties, or the full list of companies sanctioned after 2020 are not comprehensively listed in these materials [1] [5] [10]. For a firm‑by‑firm, year‑by‑year enforcement ledger, consult the FDA and FTC press‑release archives directly (noted materials summarize major actions) [1] [10].
Bottom line: Since 2020 federal regulators have continued to act against dementia‑treatment claims for supplements — using FDA warning/advisory letters and FTC litigation/guidance to demand substantiation, remove illegal disease claims, and obtain consumer redress — but systemic limits on premarket review for supplements mean enforcement is reactive and ongoing [1] [5] [6].