Has Neurocept been subject to class-action or shareholder litigation over product claims or safety?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows that products branded Neuriva (a consumer brain‑health supplement) have been the subject of consumer class-action litigation over advertising claims, including an $8 million settlement that was later tossed by a court, and earlier consumer suits alleging deceptive marketing (claims about clinical proof of brain performance). The Neuriva litigation coverage appears repeatedly in legal‑news outlets; separate, older large class actions and settlements relate to the prescription drug Neurontin/Neurontin (gabapentin) and to companies named Pfizer, not to “Neurocept”—available sources do not mention litigation specifically against a company called Neurocept [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the sources actually cover: Neuriva consumer class actions, not “Neurocept”
Multiple legal‑industry outlets report class actions alleging that Neuriva supplements were deceptively marketed—plaintiffs said the products were advertised as clinically and scientifically proven to enhance brain performance, and an $8 million settlement was reported in that context (Top Class Actions; The National Trial Lawyers) [1] [2] [4]. Westlaw Today and other reporting indicate the reported $8 million settlement in the Neuriva cases was later tossed by a court in the 11th Circuit [3]. None of the supplied sources refer to a company named “Neurocept” or to class actions or shareholder litigation against that exact name—so the specific query about Neurocept is not confirmed in the available reporting (available sources do not mention Neurocept) [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. Neuriva’s allegations: false advertising and deceptive marketing claims
Coverage describes class complaints that Neuriva’s marketing overstated scientific support for brain‑performance benefits; legal summaries cite links the product maker used to research and to branded ingredients such as “Neurofactor,” and identify allegations that advertising misled consumers about efficacy (Top Class Actions, March 2021) [4]. The Top Class Actions report and related outlets frame the litigation as consumer protection and false‑advertising claims—these are typical bases for supplement class actions [4] [1].
3. What happened with the $8 million settlement: reported, then challenged in court
Outlets reported an $8 million settlement resolving Neuriva lawsuits; Westlaw Today summarized that a reported $8 million settlement in the class action was later tossed by the 11th Circuit (suggesting appellate or procedural issues undermined the settlement approval) [1] [3]. That sequence matters: a settlement notice or agreement can be voided or vacated on appeal or for procedural defects, which leaves the underlying claims unresolved or subject to further litigation—sources show exactly that happened with the $8M Neuriva matter [1] [3].
4. Distinguishing Neuriva from Neurontin/Neurontin litigation (Pfizer) — similar names, different matters
Several entries in the search results concern Neurontin (gabapentin) litigation and large class/antitrust settlements involving Pfizer and Warner‑Lambert, including reported settlements of $190M and $325M in antitrust/consumer‑fraud suits; these are about a prescription drug’s marketing and competition, not a dietary supplement [6] [5] [7] [8]. Because the names (Neuriva, Neurontin) can be confusing, readers should not conflate consumer supplement false‑advertising suits (Neuriva) with pharmaceutical antitrust/marketing class actions (Neurontin/Pfizer) [4] [5].
5. Shareholder litigation: no reporting in provided sources about Neurocept shareholder suits
The supplied documents do not contain reporting of shareholder litigation against “Neurocept.” They include SEC/IR pages and filings for other neuro‑related public companies (Neuronetics, Neurocrine, NeuroPace) and coverage of transactional or business updates, but none link shareholder suits or securities class actions to a firm named Neurocept; therefore the direct answer about Neurocept and shareholder litigation cannot be confirmed from these materials (available sources do not mention Neurocept; [9]; [10]; [9]2).
6. How to proceed if you need a definitive answer
Given the gaps in the provided reporting, verify the precise corporate name and spelling (Neurocept vs. Neuriva vs. Neuronetics, etc.), then search court dockets (PACER for U.S. federal cases), state court filings, securities‑litigation trackers and company SEC filings for disclosures of material litigation. For Neuriva‑style consumer suits, look for class notices and appellate opinions (which is how the $8M settlement was reported and then tossed) [1] [3]. The current supplied sources do not substitute for a docket search or SEC 10‑K/8‑K review (available sources do not mention Neurocept; [3]; p2_s4).
Limitations and conflicts in the record: the supplied materials repeatedly document class actions around similarly named products and companies (Neuriva, Neurontin) but do not mention “Neurocept.” Where sources disagree (for example settlement reporting vs. appellate reversal), I cite both the initial settlement coverage and the report that the settlement was tossed to show the litigation’s unsettled status [1] [3].