Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2021

Move Free promised joint relief its ingredients couldn't deliver — $53M settlement

2021: Reckitt Benckiser settled for $53M over Move Free's joint-health claims — the largest false-advertising settlement ever for a retail supplement.

Reckitt Benckiser · 2021-06

What happened

Schiff's Move Free Advanced line was marketed as relieving joint pain and stiffness: glucosamine and chondroitin for cartilage, 'support joint comfort' on the label. A class action filed in 2017 alleged the products did not perform as advertised — the plaintiffs' scientific evidence said glucosamine and chondroitin have no beneficial effect on joint health, and the court found a triable question whether the third ingredient, calcium fructoborate, delivered the claims either.

The court also rejected Reckitt's shield: FDA label approval does not immunize a supplement from false-advertising claims, and 'support joint comfort' read as a disease claim — treating pain and arthritis symptoms — not a mere structure-and-function claim. In 2021 the company agreed to pay around $50–53 million, the largest false-advertising settlement ever for a retail product of this kind, covering buyers from 2015 onward.

The case is the supplement industry's warning shot: health claims on a label are claims in court, and the science behind each ingredient — not the marketing around them — is what gets examined.

Why it happened

  • The joint-relief claims rested on ingredients the scientific evidence did not support.
  • 'Support joint comfort' was read as a disease claim — treating arthritis symptoms — demanding the highest proof.
  • FDA label approval was no shield: state false-advertising law reached the claims anyway.
What it cost~$53M settlement, a recordcostly

The lesson

Health claims on a supplement label are claims a court can test: FDA approval of the label is no defence, and the science behind each ingredient is what gets examined.

Aftermath

The settlement covered buyers from May 2015 onward and set the benchmark for supplement false-advertising recoveries. The ruling's disease-claim reading is now cited whenever 'support' language implies treating a condition.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →