What types of complaints are filed against Neurocept on the Better Business Bureau each year since 2020?
Executive summary
Available BBB and related consumer-reporting sources show complaints about Neurocept center on alleged deceptive marketing, fake endorsements/deepfakes, billing/ordering problems and “scam” reports; BBB profiles exist but do not list a clear year-by-year breakdown of complaint types since 2020 in the provided material (available sources do not provide an annual complaint table) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the Better Business Bureau profiles say — limited but consistent themes
The BBB maintains at least two profiles for businesses named like Neurocept/Neuerocept in Aurora, Colorado, noting they are not BBB accredited and advising readers to weigh complaint context against company size and transaction volume; those profiles do not, in the excerpts provided, include a neat year‑by‑year list of complaint categories since 2020 [1] [5]. The BBB’s Scam Tracker entry for a specific report documents a consumer who described being drawn in by dementia-focused marketing and then experiencing post‑purchase texts and scam‑number flags — a mix of deceptive-ad marketing and payment/communication complaints [2].
2. Recurrent complaint types shown across sources
Across the provided reporting and consumer sites, recurring complaint themes are: deceptive or false marketing claims (including medical claims), fake or AI-generated endorsements, billing or ordering disputes, and classification of the product as a “scam.” The FTC action cited in the sources describes enforcement against marketers of pill products that deceptively promoted remedies to older consumers, showing regulatory precedent for deceptive‑marketing complaints in this product space [3]. Consumer reviews and complaint pages likewise emphasize alleged fake celebrity/doctor endorsements and credit‑card disputes [4] [2].
3. Deceptive marketing and fake endorsements — the dominant allegation
Multiple summaries and reviews allege Neurocept’s marketing uses fabricated or hijacked trusted figures (deepfakes) and misleading “miracle cure” claims for conditions like memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Independent articles and consumer reviews assert the ads borrow trust from known journalists and doctors — a primary source of consumer outrage in the reporting provided [4] [6]. The FTC action described involves similar tactics (fake doctor endorsements and false testimonials) for related supplements, lending context though it references different brand names in its complaint [3].
4. Billing, ordering and post‑purchase contact complaints
At least one BBB Scam Tracker report details a purchase followed by unsettling automated texts and phone numbers flagged as scam‑related — a complaint about post‑purchase communications and possible payment or fraud exposure [2]. Trustpilot and other review excerpts contain multiple mentions of credit card disputes and advice to contact state consumer protection agencies, indicating financial‑transaction problems are commonly reported by consumers [4].
5. Regulatory and investigative context
Federal actions in this category of marketers exist: the FTC issued complaints and settlements against direct‑mail pill marketers for deceptive claims to older Americans and fake endorsements — an important precedent that explains why consumers, journalists, and watchdogs treat Neurocept‑style marketing skeptically [3]. The FTC example in our sources names products with similar marketing patterns though not precisely the Neurocept brand as presented elsewhere [3].
6. Conflicting voices and promotional material
Not all pages paint the product as a scam; some promotional or review sites present positive user testimonies and claims of improved cognition [7] [8]. Scam‑tracking sites and fraud‑analysis pages, however, give Neurocept and associated domains low trust scores and flag controversial, high‑risk characteristics [9]. Readers should note the divergence: consumer complaint platforms and watchdog analyses emphasize deception and deepfake endorsements, while some review sites promote efficacy without regulatory corroboration [4] [9] [7].
7. What’s missing from available reporting — the single biggest limitation
Available sources do not provide a year‑by‑year breakdown of complaint types filed with the BBB for Neurocept from 2020 onward; there is no table or annual complaint count in the excerpts provided, and no authoritative BBB complaint chronology is quoted here (available sources do not provide an annual complaint table or per‑year complaint categorization) [1] [5]. Because of that gap, precise annual totals or trends since 2020 cannot be stated from the supplied material.
8. How you can get the definitive per‑year data
To obtain the exact types of complaints filed with the BBB each year since 2020, retrieve the Neurocept/Neuerocept BBB profile page and use their “Complaints” section or contact BBB customer service for complaint history. The BBB business pages linked in the sources are the primary portal for such records, though the excerpts here do not include the detailed complaint list [1] [5].
Limitations: All factual statements above are drawn from the provided sources only; assertions about content not present in those sources are explicitly noted as missing [1] [2] [4] [3] [5] [9].