When was the first lawsuit filed against Neurocept and who filed it?
Executive summary
Available reporting in the provided documents does not identify any formal lawsuit filed against “Neurocept.” Consumer complaints and scam reports show purchases and allegations of deceptive marketing dating to September 2025 (a buyer reported purchasing Neurocept on 09/01/25) but none of the indexed sources name a plaintiff or the date of a first lawsuit against the product or company (available sources do not mention a filed lawsuit) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public record in these sources actually shows
The clearest contemporaneous complaint in the supplied material is a consumer-report entry saying someone purchased six bottles of Neurocept for $217 on September 1, 2025 after seeing the product on social media; that entry is recorded in a BBB/ScamTracker-style report [1]. Independent review and consumer-review pages amplify allegations that Neurocept is being marketed with false celebrity endorsements and misleading health claims, but those pages are opinion and consumer-review sites rather than court dockets [2] [3].
2. No court filing found in the provided results
Among the supplied search results there are multiple journalism and legal items about lawsuits in the broader brain‑supplement space (Neuriva, Neurontin, etc.), but none of the indexed links show a complaint, civil docket number, named plaintiff, law firm, or date for a lawsuit against Neurocept itself. The explicit statement here: available sources do not mention a lawsuit filing against Neurocept [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [1].
3. Why consumer complaints can be mistaken for lawsuits
Platforms such as BBB ScamTracker and Trustpilot collect consumer reports and reviews that can read like legal complaints to the public. The ScamTracker entry documents a dated purchase and payment dispute (09/01/25 purchase for $217), and Trustpilot entries allege refund problems and misrepresented ingredients—these are consumer grievances, not pleadings filed in court [1] [3].
4. Parallel legal context in the market — comparable litigation, not Neurocept-specific
The supplied sources include past high‑profile litigation against supplement and pharmaceutical makers—Neuriva false‑advertising class actions and long-running Neurontin suits—illustrating how products marketed for brain health can attract suits for deceptive marketing. Those cases show the pathways plaintiffs use when moving from complaints to class actions, but none of those pieces say such a path has yet been taken against Neurocept in the materials provided [4] [8] [5] [6].
5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in the sources
Consumer‑review pages and blog posts often position Neurocept as a scam and cite alleged AI‑generated celebrity endorsements; these outlets have a clear consumer‑protection angle and may prioritize alarm. Trade or promotional pages (e.g., product review sites) sometimes present positive testimonials—those can reflect affiliate marketing incentives. The Reuters and Top Class Actions items illustrate neutral legal reporting and case summaries in other matters; use those genres to benchmark what a true lawsuit report would look like [2] [3] [4] [5].
6. What would constitute confirmation of a first lawsuit and where to look next
A verified first lawsuit would be a civil complaint filed in a named court, listing a plaintiff, defendant (company name), filing date, and docket number. To confirm such a filing beyond these consumer reports, check federal and state court dockets (PACER for federal, state court online portals), press releases from a plaintiff’s counsel, or authoritative legal‑news outlets that track filings. The current dataset contains no such filing against Neurocept (available sources do not mention a filed lawsuit; [1]; [2]; p1_s2).
Limitations: This analysis uses only the documents you supplied. If a suit was filed after the dates or in sources not included here, it will not appear in this report (available sources do not mention a lawsuit) [1].