Have Neurocept executives been named personally in any lawsuits for product safety issues?

1. What the record you gave actually contains — consumer complaints and marketing disputes

The documents returned by your query are primarily consumer-review pages and promotional or review content. Trustpilot shows individual complaints alleging false marketing, refund problems and worries about pills from a Neurocept seller ^[1]. Other review pages praise the product or advertise it ^{[2] [4]}. Those items reflect customer dissatisfaction or advertising claims, not formal lawsuits naming company executives ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. No court filings naming executives appear in these results

The search results include broader product-liability coverage and unrelated corporate litigation examples (for instance, a roundup of major product lawsuits and a Reuters corporate story), but none of the supplied items cite legal complaints that personally name Neurocept executives for product-safety problems ^{[5] [6]}. Therefore, within this dataset, there is no evidence of executives being personally sued (not found in current reporting) (p1_s1–p1_s9).

3. Distinguishing consumer reviews from legal action

Consumer posts and Trustpilot complaints often allege deception or quality concerns; those can presage legal claims but are not the same as court filings. The Trustpilot reviewer accused Neurocept of false marketing and potential danger in pills, and complained about refund handling — serious consumer allegations but not a lawsuit naming executives ^[1]. Similarly, marketing-review pages promote effectiveness and user anecdotes; they do not document litigation ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Related context: other supplement companies have faced class actions for advertising, not necessarily executive-level suits

The result set includes an example of a class-action settlement over allegedly false brain-health advertising (Neuriva), which shows how consumer-advertising disputes against supplement makers often resolve as class actions against companies rather than as personal suits against executives ^[3]. That context suggests that, when supplement makers face legal exposure over claims, corporate entities are the typical targets in the available reporting ^[3].

5. Limits of the available material — what we cannot conclude from these sources

These sources do not include comprehensive court-docket searches or legal databases; they are a small bundle of news, review and corporate pages. Because no court filings or legal-news items naming Neurocept executives appear in the provided set, I cannot say whether such suits exist outside this dataset — available sources do not mention lawsuits personally naming Neurocept executives (not found in current reporting) (p1_s1–p1_s9).

6. How to verify further if you need a definitive legal answer

To establish whether Neurocept executives have been personally named in litigation, consult primary legal records: PACER or state court dockets, press coverage from legal reporters, or filings compiled by class-action trackers. The provided material does not include those records, so it cannot serve as definitive proof that no personal suits exist (not found in current reporting) (p1_s1–p1_s9).

Sources cited above: consumer-review reports and promotional material ^{[2] [1] [4]}; overview of product-liability litigation context ^[5]; example of advertising class action in the supplement space ^[3]; unrelated corporate news included in your results ^{[7] [6]}.