Have the FTC or state attorneys general probed Neurocept for deceptive marketing?

1. What the record actually documents: FTC and state probes targeted Cerebral, not “Neurocept”

Reporting and FTC press releases in the set describe formal FTC action against Cerebral for privacy and deceptive cancellation/billing practices, including orders for refunds to consumers and limits on use of health data in advertising ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Those items form the clear, documented enforcement thread in these results; none of the provided sources refer to a company called Neurocept or an FTC/state‑AG probe of that entity — available sources do not mention Neurocept ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

2. What the FTC found and punished in Cerebral’s case

The FTC’s actions against Cerebral centered on alleged disclosure of sensitive health information to third parties and deceptive cancellation/subscription practices; the agency ordered refunds to more than 40,000 consumers and negotiated monetary relief in the low‑millions (reported amounts range from about $5 million to $7 million in the results) ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The FTC also imposed restrictions on using health data for advertising and required a comprehensive privacy program as part of the settlement terms ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Why people might confuse company names or conflate probes

Telehealth, AI and neurotech firms often draw overlapping scrutiny from the FTC and state attorneys general on privacy, advertising and consumer‑protection grounds; multistate AG letters and probes of big tech, TikTok, and AI firms also appear in the results, illustrating broad regulatory focus on health and algorithmic risks ^{[4] [5] [6]}. That crowded enforcement landscape makes it easy for similar‑sounding names to be mistaken for each other — but the record in these sources links enforcement actions specifically to Cerebral, not Neurocept ^{[2] [1]}.

4. What the state attorneys general are doing in related areas

Multiple entries show state attorneys general coordinating on consumer and technology risks — for example, coalitions probing TikTok’s data practices and jointly warning AI companies about “delusional” chatbot outputs — but those actions target platform or AI makers rather than a firm named Neurocept in this dataset ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The multistate AG model is active and can produce formal subpoenas or warning letters; however, no source here ties any such state AG coalition to Neurocept ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Limits of the available reporting and what we cannot conclude

The supplied search results include multiple stories about Cerebral and broad AG activity on AI and platform safety; they do not address Neurocept at all. Therefore we cannot conclude whether Neurocept has ever been investigated by the FTC or state attorneys general — available sources do not mention Neurocept ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Absence of mention in this selection is not proof of absence overall; it simply means the provided reporting and press releases do not record any probe of that name.

6. If you need to verify whether Neurocept has been investigated

To confirm whether Neurocept has faced FTC or state‑AG scrutiny, check: the FTC press release database for the company name; statements or press releases from relevant state attorneys general offices; and trade and local press coverage. The documents and stories in the provided set demonstrate how such probes are announced (FTC orders and AG coalition letters), so look specifically for those formats if you search beyond these sources ^{[1] [5]}.

Sources cited in this piece are limited to the provided search results: the FTC and news reporting on Cerebral’s enforcement ^{[3] [1] [2]} and state attorneys general activity on technology and AI issues ^{[4] [5] [6]}.