Has Neurocept or its parent company issued a public response to claims of using AI-generated celebrity endorsements?

1. What the public allegations say and where they come from

The clearest, specific allegation in the materials provided is a Trustpilot customer review in which a buyer says they paid for Neurocept, received the product, and discovered marketing that allegedly used AI-generated images or videos purporting to show celebrities such as Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Gupta and Tom Hanks endorsing the product ^[1]. That review frames the claim as a consumer fraud complaint—an accusation of misleading advertising and possible product misrepresentation—rather than evidence from forensic analysis of the media or a legal filing ^[1]. Other supplied pieces are general reporting and commentary about AI-generated fake celebrity endorsements in politics and advertising, not investigations into Neurocept specifically ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. What Neurocept (or its parent) has publicly said — the limits of available reporting

Among the documents and articles the user provided, none contains a quoted statement, press release, or interview in which Neurocept or a parent company publicly confirms, denies, or explains the Trustpilot reviewer’s claims; the available sources do not supply a corporate response to cite ^{[1] [2]}. Because the supplied reporting set lacks company communications or authoritative third‑party confirmation tied to Neurocept, it is not possible from these sources to assert that Neurocept has issued any public response; likewise, the materials do not permit asserting that the company has remained silent beyond noting that a response is not present in this reporting ^[1].

3. The broader environment: why companies do respond — or try to avoid direct confrontation

The surrounding coverage shows intense scrutiny of AI-enabled fake endorsements and a growing legal and reputational cost to brands that are accused of fabricating celebrity endorsements, which creates strong incentives for companies to respond quickly when allegations surface ^{[3] [2]}. Trade and legal commentary in the provided corpus explains that unauthorized use of a person’s likeness can trigger rights-of-publicity claims, defamation theories or advertising-regulation enforcement, and that public statements or legal defense strategies often follow to protect sales and investor confidence ^[3]. The presence of wider media debate about AI fakes ^{[2] [4]} raises the reputational stakes for firms named in consumer complaints.

4. Alternative explanations and hidden agendas to consider

Three alternative readings fit the available record: first, the Trustpilot claims may reflect a single consumer’s perception or a misunderstanding of marketing content rather than a confirmed corporate practice ^[1]; second, Neurocept may have responded publicly elsewhere (social media, press release, filings) that are simply not included in the supplied sources, a possibility the reporting can’t confirm or deny ^[1]; third, actors with an interest in discrediting a product—competitors, bad actors, or coordinated disinformation campaigns—can weaponize consumer-review platforms and comment threads to amplify allegations, which is a recognized dynamic in the wider AI‑fake debate ^{[2] [3]}. Each possibility underscores why independent verification beyond a single review is essential.

5. Bottom line and what a reader should do next

Based strictly on the reporting provided, there is no cited, verifiable public response from Neurocept or a parent company addressing claims that it used AI-generated celebrity endorsements; the only direct allegation in the corpus comes from a Trustpilot reviewer ^[1], and the rest of the material offers context about AI‑generated endorsements more broadly ^{[2] [3]}. To move this from allegation to documented fact would require locating a corporate statement, a takedown notice, a platform enforcement record, or forensic media analysis — none of which appear in the supplied sources — or contacting Neurocept directly for comment.