What specific state attorneys general have sued advertisers for deceptive health or brain‑training claims since 2010?
Executive summary
Since 2010, state attorneys general have repeatedly used state consumer‑protection laws to sue or join federal actions against advertisers making deceptive health and cognitive‑benefit claims — most prominently the Florida Attorney General in 2010 (with the FTC) and the New York Attorney General in a 2017 action involving cognitive supplements — while many other AGs have joined multistate enforcement efforts, warning campaigns, or coalition letters addressing deceptive weight‑loss and health ads [1] [2] [3] [4]. The public record in the provided reporting names a small set of explicit plaintiff AGs in court filings and a larger group joining coalitions or letters, but these sources do not attempt a comprehensive catalog of every AG lawsuit since 2010 [5] [6] [7].
1. Known court plaintiffs: Florida’s 2010 action against an “alcoholism cure” and the FTC partnership
The earliest specific example in the supplied reporting is the 2010 joint complaint brought by the Florida Attorney General together with the Federal Trade Commission against the Alcoholism Cure Corporation, which advertised a “permanent cure” for alcoholism through supplements and herbs — a textbook deceptive health claim that drew joint state‑federal enforcement [1].
2. New York Attorney General joined FTC enforcement targeting brain‑training and cognitive supplements
A high‑profile follow‑on occurred in 2017 when the New York Attorney General worked alongside the FTC in litigation against companies and individuals for failing to substantiate claims that a cognitive supplement improved memory, illustrating how a state AG can bring parallel state consumer‑protection claims while the FTC pursues federal remedies [2].
3. State AGs as a coordinated force: coalitions, letters and multistate inquiries on health ads
Beyond courtroom plaintiffs, AGs have frequently acted in coalitions: for example, 35 attorneys general — including Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a long list of others — jointly pressed Meta to remove misleading AI‑generated weight‑loss ads, showing how AGs coordinate to pressure platforms and advertisers even when not filing formal lawsuits [3] [4]. These coordinated letters and inquiries are part of a broader trend described in legal commentary that AGs are taking the lead on false‑advertising enforcement under state UDAP and consumer protection statutes [5] [7].
4. The broader enforcement landscape and how AGs choose targets
Legal commentary and academic reporting underscore that state AGs rely on state unfair and deceptive practices acts, often without needing to prove individual consumer harm, which makes AG enforcement potent against health and advertising claims, including stem‑cell clinics and other medical marketing where substantiation is thin [5] [8] [6]. The sources also document repeated cooperation between AGs and federal agencies (FTC, FDA) and the plaintiffs’ bar in challenging dietary supplements and other health products [1] [2] [9].
5. Limits of the available reporting and what it does not show
The assembled sources identify specific AG plaintiffs in notable instances (Florida in 2010; New York in 2017) and list many AGs participating in recent coalition letters about digital weight‑loss advertising [1] [2] [3] [4], but they do not provide a comprehensive list of every state AG who has filed a lawsuit against advertisers for deceptive health or brain‑training claims since 2010; other AG actions may exist in press releases, court dockets, or state archives not contained in the provided material [5] [7].
6. Takeaway: named actors, common tactics, and a research path forward
The concrete answers supported by the provided documents are that the Florida Attorney General (2010, with the FTC) and the New York Attorney General (2017, coordinated with the FTC) are documented state plaintiffs in deceptive‑health and cognitive‑benefit enforcement actions, while dozens of other AGs have collaborated in enforcement letters and multistate inquiries targeting misleading health advertising on digital platforms; a full roster of state lawsuits since 2010 would require searching state AG press releases, multistate complaint archives and court dockets beyond the present sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].