Are there regulatory actions or lawsuits linked to customer complaints about Neurocept?

1. Customer complaints: what people are reporting and where

Multiple consumer-facing sites collect complaints that describe similar themes: buyers say social-media ads used convincing celebrity deepfakes or AI videos, products arrived with different ingredients (not matching labeling), and refunds were delayed or not honored; one buyer returned six bottles after receiving an allegedly caffeine-heavy formula and reported the advertised refund promise was not fulfilled ^{[4] [1] [3]}. Trustpilot and independent review posts allege the company’s videos are “all AI generated and fakes,” urging state consumer protection complaints ^[3]. The BBB profile records at least one complaint and flags the business for failure to respond ^[2].

2. Evidence of possible fraud or deceptive marketing in reporting

Investigative-style pieces and consumer advocacy posts collected by independent blogs argue the Neurocept campaign uses fake endorsements (names like Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Anderson Cooper, Bruce Willis cited) and “honey recipe” or miracle-cure scripts that exploit fear around Alzheimer’s — framing the product as a scam propped by deepfake ads ^[4]. Trustpilot reviewers echo that narrative, telling readers the FDA lists no approved drug named Neurocept and urging caution ^[3]. These consistent consumer accounts across platforms indicate a serious pattern of alleged deceptive marketing ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Complaints about product contents and returns

At least one detailed complaint submitted to the BBB’s Scam Tracker describes receiving a product whose ingredients were “primarily caffeine and derivatives of caffeine,” which reportedly caused an allergic-risk match with the customer’s expectations; the buyer returned unopened bottles and alleges promised refunds were not delivered despite tracking proof and advertised 90-day guarantees ^[1]. That complaint, filed in early September 2025, provides the most granular on-the-record consumer allegation about product mismatch and refund handling ^[1].

4. Regulatory filings and lawsuits — what the provided sources show and don’t show

In the material supplied, I find no record of an FDA warning letter, a state attorney general enforcement action, an FTC order, or a published federal or state civil judgment specifically naming Neurocept. The sources document consumer complaints, independent exposes, and a BBB file; they do not report a formal regulatory enforcement action or a class-action suit outcome against Neurocept (available sources do not mention a regulator order or court judgment) ^{[3] [4] [1] [2]}.

5. Broader regulatory context that matters for claims like these

Regulators are increasingly focused on deceptive health marketing and deepfake endorsements; separately, neurotech and brain-data firms face growing scrutiny in 2024–2025, including new bills and heightened FTC interest in neural-data governance (MIND Act) — a landscape that would empower agencies to act on deceptive claims if they choose to investigate supplement marketers or data misuse ^{[5] [6]}. But the supplied materials do not show that these broader regulatory developments have been deployed specifically against Neurocept ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives and why consumers disagree

Some affiliate or promotional pages claim high customer satisfaction and scientific ingredient backing, showing sharply divergent pictures of Neurocept’s reputation (one page asserts 42,000+ reviews and high ratings) while watchdog blogs and complaint pages call the product a scam ^{[7] [4]}. That split suggests either active reputation management and promotional marketing or significant differences in source quality; independent complaint evidence and BBB tracking weigh against the positive-affiliate narrative in the supplied sources ^{[7] [4] [2]}.

7. What to watch next and practical steps for consumers

Watch for formal regulatory notices (FDA, FTC, state AG) and court dockets that would confirm escalation beyond consumer complaints; none are in the current reporting (available sources do not mention regulator orders or lawsuits) ^{[3] [4] [1] [2]}. Consumers harmed by purchases should document orders, packaging and ingredients, return tracking, and any communications, and consider filing complaints with their state consumer protection office, the BBB, and the FTC; this is consistent with advice posted in reviews and complaint entries ^{[3] [1]}.

Limitations: reporting above is limited to the documents you supplied. I cite only those sources; if you want me to search additional databases (FDA warning letters, state AG press releases, PACER court dockets) I can do so to check for subsequent enforcement or litigation beyond the items provided.