What enforcement actions have the FTC and state attorneys general taken against fake brain‑booster ads?

1. Landmark: Lumosity — the poster child for fake brain‑booster enforcement

The FTC’s action against Lumos Labs showed how the agency treats health and cognitive performance claims: the commission filed a complaint in January 2016 alleging the company deceptively marketed Lumosity as improving performance for students, athletes, the elderly and people with cognitive impairments, and that it used misleading testimonials solicited via contests without disclosure, producing a settlement that is frequently cited as a blueprint for ad‑fraud enforcement ^[1].

2. The FTC’s toolbox: stopping ads, freezing assets, and consumer redress

The FTC enforces “truth in advertising” standards across media and—when it finds fraud—files actions seeking immediate injunctions, permanent bans on scams, asset freezes and compensation for victims, the standard remedies described on the agency’s truth‑in‑advertising page and reflected in its broader caseload ^{[4] [5]}.

3. A widening focus: from one‑off claims to systemic governance and AI hype

Recent commentary and FTC initiatives show a shift from policing isolated misrepresentations to scrutinizing company systems and AI‑enabled deception; legal analysts and the agency itself have emphasized that enforcement now examines how businesses are designed, who knew what and when, and will pursue cases where AI is used to deceive consumers, as in the Operation AI Comply sweep announced by the FTC ^{[2] [3] [6]}.

4. State attorneys general: coordination, referrals and complementary actions

State attorneys general increasingly coordinate with the FTC and may act under state unfair‑and‑deceptive‑practices statutes; industry observers note that the NAD and other self‑regulatory bodies can refer matters to the FTC or state AGs, amplifying enforcement pressure at the state level even where federal resources are finite ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Liability beyond advertisers: platforms, agencies and third parties in the crosshairs

Enforcement doctrine has expanded to include third‑party liability where companies facilitate or profit from deceptive ads; FTC and state theory now expects ad platforms, agencies and lead generators to conduct due diligence and maintain written policies—an approach that opens non‑advertiser intermediaries to investigation if they “substantially assist” wrongdoing ^{[9] [8]}.

6. Outcomes, priorities and practical effects seen in other sectors

Beyond brain‑training, recent FTC orders against weight‑loss and telemedicine marketers show the agency’s willingness to impose stop‑orders and behavioral remedies in health‑adjacent markets, signaling similar remedies could follow for brain‑booster fraud when evidence of deceptive efficacy claims or fake testimonials emerges ^{[10] [11]}.

7. Missing pieces and limits in the public record

Public reporting documents the Lumosity case and the FTC’s evolving priorities, but available sources do not catalog every state AG action specifically against “brain‑booster” advertisers nor provide a comprehensive list of platform enforcement outcomes tied exclusively to brain‑boost claims; absent that reporting, assertions about the full universe of state‑level suits or platform settlements would exceed the current record ^{[1] [5] [12]}.

8. What patterns to watch next

Regulatory predictions and recent workshops indicate scrutiny will intensify around AI‑enabled claims, children’s online protections, and platform responsibility—areas likely to generate coordinated FTC‑state investigations and referrals that mirror past health‑claim enforcement while expanding the agencies’ focus on systems and corporate governance ^{[13] [14] [2]}.