How does Neurocept's BBB rating and complaint volume compare to similar neurotechnology or healthcare firms since 2020?
Executive summary
Neurocept’s public consumer records show low trust signals: the BBB lists Neurocept/Neuerocept as not accredited, with a D+ rating citing a failure to respond to at least one complaint [1]. Independent complaint sites and scam-tracker posts show multiple consumer reports and Trustpilot reviews calling Neurocept a “scam,” while advocacy and investigative pieces allege deceptive marketing tactics [2] [3] [4]. Comparable neurotech and established medical-device firms in the neuro space generally appear on the BBB with varying accreditation status but far fewer visible consumer-scam narratives in these sources [5] [6] [7].
1. Neurocept’s BBB profile and visible complaint signals
Neurocept appears on the Better Business Bureau under at least two near-identical listings (“Neurocept” and misspelled “Neuerocept”), both flagged as not BBB-accredited; one listing carries a D+ and notes “failure to respond to 1 complaint filed against business” [1] [8]. The BBB’s Scam Tracker includes a specific 2025 consumer report describing an online purchase of six bottles marketed for brain health for $217, indicating recent direct-consumer complaints about purchases and marketing [3]. Trustpilot and other review pages amplify consumer dissatisfaction; a Trustpilot page aggregates negative user reports calling the product a scam and describing billing disputes [2].
2. Independent reporting and allegations of deceptive marketing
Beyond consumer reviews, investigative and watchdog-style reports in the sources frame Neurocept as an aggressively marketed supplement that borrows credibility from fake or misleading endorsements. A September 2025 analysis alleges deepfake-style ads and fake celebrity endorsements to promote a “honey recipe” claim and calls the product a scam propped up by deceptive advertising [4]. These accounts track with a longer regulatory pattern in the supplement market: the FTC previously sued marketers of similarly named supplements for deceptive claims, showing a precedent in this niche for enforcement actions against direct-mail or direct-to-consumer brain-health products [9].
3. How that compares to “neurotech” device and medtech firms on BBB
The BBB listings for firms clearly in neurotech or medical-device roles (Neurotech USA Inc; Neurotech NA, Inc) in the provided sources are also “not BBB accredited,” but their BBB pages do not show the same combination of D+ ratings plus active scam-tracker reports or widespread consumer-review pile-ons visible for Neurocept in these sources [5] [6]. Industry profiles of established neurotech companies (e.g., profiles of leading device startups and device-makers) focus on technology, product pipelines and investment, not consumer purchase complaints of the kind seen with Neurocept’s supplement marketing [7] [10].
4. Important differences in business models and complaint exposure
Available sources show a key distinction: Neurocept is marketed as an over-the-counter brain supplement sold direct to consumers via online ads and direct mail, a business model that historically generates many consumer complaints and regulatory scrutiny [2] [3] [9]. By contrast, many neurotech firms cited in the industry coverage are device-makers, startups or medical-equipment suppliers whose customers are hospitals, clinicians or institutional purchasers, and which therefore generate different complaint patterns and fewer public consumer-scam reports in the cited materials [7] [10].
5. Conflicting or promotional sources and the limits of the record
Some promotional and review sites included in the search show positive or neutral takes on Neurocept (for example, product-review pages and PR-distribution pieces claiming “highly rated” user experiences), conflicting with the BBB/Trustpilot/scam-tracker narrative [11] [12]. That divergence highlights the mixed public record and the risk that paid promotions or affiliate review sites can obscure consumer-complaint signals [11] [12]. Available sources do not mention any peer‑reviewed clinical trials or FDA approvals for Neurocept in the provided material; the MedicinesFAQ entry confusingly treats “Neurocept” as a pharmaceutical-like agent with pharmacokinetic numbers, but that appears inconsistent with other reporting and lacks corroboration here [13].
6. What these patterns imply for consumers and regulators
The pattern in the cited sources points to a company operating in the high‑complaint, high‑scrutiny segment of the supplement market: poor BBB rating, multiple consumer reports and third‑party allegations of deceptive advertising [1] [2] [3] [4]. By contrast, established neurotech and medtech firms in the sources are profiled for products and clinical ambitions with fewer consumer‑purchase complaints visible on the same public complaint platforms [5] [7]. Regulators have previously targeted similar direct‑to‑consumer brain‑health supplement campaigns, setting precedent for enforcement when claims are deceptive [9].
Limitations and next steps: these conclusions rely only on the supplied sources. I did not find FDA approval records, clinical-trial citations, or a comprehensive complaint count for Neurocept or for the comparison firms in the provided documents; available sources do not mention detailed complaint volumes for major neurotech corporates in the same consumer-complaint channels (not found in current reporting). For a definitive comparative metric you should request BBB complaint counts and ratings for a specified set of peer firms and search FTC or state enforcement records for formal actions.