How many BBB complaints has neurocept received and what is the timeline of filings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Neurocept’s Better Business Bureau profile shows six complaints on file and a BBB business file opening date listed as October 12, 2025, but public reporting and consumer reports from September–October 2025 provide the only dated complaint-level evidence available in the sources reviewed [1]. Independent scam reports and consumer review pages document specific consumer incidents in early September and late September 2025, though BBB’s public summary does not break down each complaint date in the material provided [2] [3].
1. What the BBB profile states: six complaints and a file-opening date
The BBB business profile for Neurocept lists “6 complaint filed against business” and shows the BBB file opened on 10/12/2025, making six the authoritative count appearing on that profile snapshot [1]. That profile language is the clearest single factual summary available in the supplied material; it functions as the aggregate number the BBB is presenting publicly in that record [1].
2. Timeline detail visible in consumer reports: early–late September 2025
Independent consumer reports in the sources give specific early September and late‑September 2025 dates for incidents tied to Neurocept sales: a BBB Scam Tracker entry documents a purchase/complaint dated 09/01/25, and multiple Trustpilot reviews reference orders and refund disputes around Sept. 29, 2025, with at least one reviewer explicitly noting they intended to file a BBB complaint after failing to obtain a refund [2] [3]. These entries establish that consumer complaints and scam reports were actively being recorded in September 2025, preceding the BBB file‑open date shown on the Neurocept profile [2] [3].
3. How the pieces fit: complaint count vs. dated reports
Putting the two facts together: the BBB profile’s count (six complaints) represents the total complaints the BBB had associated with the Neurocept business file as shown on that page [1], while the dated consumer reports show at least some of those complaints or related reports were filed in September 2025 [2] [3]. The supplied sources do not include a complete, date-by-date listing of all six complaints from the BBB record, so it is not possible from these documents to assign specific dates to each of the six complaints beyond the consumer reports already cited [1] [2] [3].
4. Context and competing narratives: scam allegations, marketing tactics, and similar past enforcement
Reporting beyond the BBB data frames Neurocept as part of a wave of deceptive supplement marketing that uses fake endorsements and viral “honey recipe” ads; investigative writeups describe the campaign as relying on deepfaked celebrity endorsements and emotional promises about Alzheimer’s, a context that explains why multiple consumers reported confusion and sought refunds in a short timeframe [4]. Past FTC actions against similarly named or branded supplements (for example, a separate “Neurocet” case) show regulators have pursued deceptive direct‑mail and online supplement marketers previously, though that FTC action involved different product names and defendants and cannot be used to prove liability for Neurocept itself without additional evidence [5].
5. Limits of the public record and what remains unverified
The available sources permit the firm conclusion that BBB’s profile listed six complaints and that consumer complaints appeared publicly in September 2025, but they do not provide a complaint-by-complaint timeline from the BBB record or evidence that all public reports were submitted to the BBB rather than only to other venues like Trustpilot or the BBB Scam Tracker [1] [3] [2]. Nor do these sources contain BBB responses, resolution dates for each complaint, or documentation tying every Trustpilot post to the six complaints shown on the BBB profile; those details would require direct access to the BBB complaint entries or supplemental records not supplied here [1] [3] [2].
6. Reporting implications and readers’ takeaways
The factual takeaway from the documents reviewed is straightforward: Neurocept’s BBB profile shows six complaints and a BBB file opened on October 12, 2025, while consumer‑facing reports with specific dates in early and late September 2025 indicate a cluster of reported problems around that month [1] [2] [3]. Given broader allegations of deceptive marketing in independent reporting, the pattern of numerous fast‑timed consumer complaints is consistent with known scam tactics, but the supplied sources stop short of proving regulatory action or resolution outcomes tied to those six BBB complaints without additional BBB case records or enforcement documents [4] [5].