Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there lawsuits filed against Neurocept and in what years were they initiated?
Executive Summary
The available documents reviewed do not establish that lawsuits were filed against a company named “Neurocept”; instead, the materials reference legal actions involving similarly named products and companies—NeuroPlus, Neurocet/Neurocet-like supplements, Neurobrands v. Neurogum, Neurometrix, and various FTC actions—initiated in 2017, 2020, and 2022 (or announced later) depending on the report. No source in the provided packet explicitly records a lawsuit filed against “Neurocept,” nor lists initiation years for such a suit, and the closest items involve distinct entities or product names that could be conflated with Neurocept [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the record shows confusion among similarly named products and companies
The analyses reveal consistent name overlap between supplement and device makers—NeuroPlus, Neurocet (or Neurocet-like mail marketers), Neurobrands, Neurogum, Neurometrix, and companies using “Neuro” prefixes. This overlap explains why a search for “Neurocept” litigation returns mixed signals: the FTC and Maine action targeted marketers of products called NeuroPlus and BioTherapex, alleging deceptive marketing in November 2017, and led to monetary relief and refunds [1]. Separately, an FTC complaint referenced deceptive direct-mail pill marketers for a product named “Neurocet” and secured a stipulated order with a multiyear monetary judgment in the millions, but the exact initiation year was not specified in the provided excerpt [2]. The key fact is that the provided textual record implicates several distinct “Neuro-” entities rather than a single identifiable defendant named Neurocept, which creates ambiguity about whether Neurocept itself was sued [1] [2].
2. Court dockets that are close but do not name Neurocept
One docket in the California Central District—Neurobrands, LLC v. Neurogum, Inc., case number 2:20-cv-03612—was explicitly filed on April 20, 2020, and later terminated with a dismissal with prejudice on November 16, 2021, following settlement [3] [6]. Another timeline entry relates to Neurometrix, Inc., where a complaint and stipulated injunction and monetary judgment were dated March 4, 2020 [4]. Neither of these filings names “Neurocept.” These records show genuine litigation activity in the “Neuro-” product space in 2020 and 2021, but they point to separate corporate identities—Neurobrands, Neurogum, Neurometrix—rather than the company the question targets. The absence of “Neurocept” on these dockets is a crucial, dispositive detail [3] [4].
3. Company-controlled materials and SEC filings don’t confirm litigation against Neurocept
Company webpages and SEC filing indexes in the provided materials reference marketing, product claims, and corporate filings for various “Neuro-” entities, but none of these extracts document lawsuits against an entity called Neurocept. The Neurocept official site excerpt in the packet focuses on product descriptions, pricing, customer reviews, and warranties, and contains no mention of pending or past litigation; the site capture is dated September 18, 2025 in the analysis metadata, but contains no litigation text [5]. Likewise, SEC filing indices for Neurogene or Neuro Biotech show corporate filings without reference to a lawsuit involving Neurocept [7] [8]. Company-managed disclosures in this set therefore do not corroborate any lawsuit initiation date against Neurocept.
4. Regulatory and enforcement actions point to consumer-protection cases, not a Neurocept suit
The strongest documentary assertions relate to consumer-protection enforcement actions—FTC and state complaints alleging deceptive marketing of cognitive supplements marketed to older adults. The FTC/Maine action relating to NeuroPlus/BioTherapex resulted in an $800,000 refund order and was filed in November 2017 [1]. A separate FTC enforcement against direct-mail pill marketers concerning Neurocet-like products led to a stipulated order and a judgment exceeding $38.1 million; the provided text ties that action to recent settlement announcements though the complaint’s initiation year is not explicitly stated in the excerpt [2]. These are enforcement matters that illustrate regulatory scrutiny in the market but do not prove Neurocept itself was named.
5. Bottom line: evidence gap and recommended next steps for verification
The evidence packet shows multiple lawsuits and regulatory actions against companies and products with “Neuro-” prefixes in 2017, 2020, and around 2022, but no direct, attributable lawsuit against a company named Neurocept appears in the supplied sources [1] [3] [4]. The plausible explanations are either misidentification—confusing Neurocept with Neurocet/NeuroPlus/Neurobrands/Neurometrix—or the absence of litigation involving Neurocept in these datasets. For definitive verification, consult primary court dockets (PACER or equivalent), FTC press releases, and state attorney general records for suits naming “Neurocept” specifically; without those primary records in the packet, any claim that Neurocept was sued in a specific year would be unsupported by the provided materials.