Which regulatory actions or consumer complaints have been filed against memory supplement marketers in the last five years?

1. High‑profile litigation: Prevagen and state/federal suits that changed marketing

Quincy Bioscience’s Prevagen has been the focal point of recent enforcement: federal and state actions culminated in orders that the company cease promoting Prevagen as improving memory, after regulators and courts found the underlying clinical claims unsupported and marketing practices predatory toward older consumers ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Consumer advocacy groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest framed the order as part of a broader push to block untested, patented ingredients—like apoaequorin—that entered the market without convincing safety and efficacy data ^[1].

2. Agency warning letters and enforcement against Alzheimer’s claims

The FDA has explicitly targeted companies selling products that claim to prevent, treat, or cure Alzheimer’s disease, issuing multiple warning letters and online advisory letters to domestic and foreign marketers of such products and noting it has taken action against dozens of products for making illegal drug claims ^{[7] [8]}. Those actions reflect the agency’s long‑standing stance that dietary supplements may be marketed only within the limits of DSHEA and cannot be sold as unapproved drugs ^{[9] [7]}.

3. FTC orders, refunds and contempt motions for deceptive supplement advertising

Beyond the FDA’s safety and misbranding focus, the Federal Trade Commission has pursued deceptive‑advertising and consumer‑protection cases, securing administrative orders and restitution payments in supplementary product cases and even filing motions of contempt where firms continued barred marketing practices ^{[10] [11]}. The FTC’s enforcement has included mailing refunds to consumers in past deceptive supplement settlements and pursuing administrative complaints against companies making unverified disease‑prevention claims ^{[11] [10]}.

4. Consumer complaints as a driver of action — volume and limits

Regulatory scrutiny has often been prompted or informed by consumer complaints: inspectors found Quincy had logged “more than 1,000 adverse events and product complaints,” and the FDA says it has received numerous consumer reports about illegally marketed Alzheimer’s products, which factor into surveillance and enforcement priorities ^{[3] [8]}. At the same time, agencies caution that adverse‑event reports and complaints can be incomplete, not definitive proof of harm, and require follow‑up investigation ^{[3] [9]}.

5. Systemic critiques: overlapping jurisdiction, enforcement gaps, and evolving rules

Analysts and GAO reports emphasize that the split responsibilities—FDA policing product safety and labeling versus FTC policing advertising claims—can leave gaps in public understanding and enforcement; GAO has recommended clearer roles and coordination to strengthen oversight of memory supplements ^{[4] [5]}. Legal and industry observers also note mounting regulatory activity internationally and at the state level, plus shifting agency priorities and proposed rulemaking that could change how supplements are reviewed and policed going forward ^{[12] [13] [14]}.

6. What the reporting does not show — limits of the public record

The assembled reporting documents multiple enforcement actions, warning letters, lawsuits, and voluminous consumer complaints focused on memory and Alzheimer’s claims, but it does not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑the‑minute catalog of every enforcement action in the past five years or a full list of consumer complaint counts across all brands; GAO analyses historically covered earlier periods and agency disclosure practices vary, so gaps remain in publicly available aggregate data ^{[4] [5]}.