What lawsuits have been filed against Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Available sources do not mention any lawsuits filed against “Neurocept” or Dr. Paul Cox by name; reporting in the provided set instead documents consumer complaints and scam reports about a supplement called Neurocept (Trustpilot, BBB) and an entirely separate, high‑profile copyright lawsuit against Cox Communications brought by music labels that produced a jury verdict initially for $1 billion (Reuters, CNN, ACLU) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. No reported litigation naming “Neurocept” or Dr. Paul Cox in the provided files
I searched the supplied material for lawsuits specifically alleging wrongdoing by a company called Neurocept or by an individual physician named Dr. Paul Cox and found none. The items about Neurocept are consumer review pages, Trustpilot complaints and a BBB scam tracker entry describing purchases and refunds—these are complaints and alleged scams, not court filings—[1] [2]. The provided legal reporting instead centers on Cox Communications, a large ISP, not an individual physician, and on music‑industry litigation [3] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention lawsuits against a Neurocept company or a Dr. Paul Cox.
2. What the Neurocept material in the record actually shows — consumer complaints and fraud reports
The Neurocept links in the file are consumer‑facing: a Trustpilot page with reviews calling the product “a total SCAM” and alleging misleading advertising and ingredient discrepancies [1], and a BBB ScamTracker entry describing a $217 purchase from social media and reporting it as a counterfeit or scam [2]. A health‑review site describes Neurocept as a cognitive‑support supplement and stresses it is not a medical treatment [6]. Those items document customer dissatisfaction and alleged deceptive marketing, not civil complaints or government enforcement actions in court [1] [2] [6].
3. The distinct, well‑documented litigation in the record: Cox Communications v. music labels
The legal threads in the search results all concern Cox Communications, the internet service provider, and a multi‑billion‑dollar copyright dispute brought by major record labels and publishers. Reporting recounts a 2019 jury verdict awarding roughly $1 billion to labels and subsequent appeals, with the Supreme Court taking up issues about ISP liability for customer infringement [3] [4] [5]. Reuters and CNN report that the 4th Circuit found willful contributory infringement and the Supreme Court examined whether holding an ISP liable for customers’ piracy would upend internet access norms [3] [4].
4. Outcomes reported in the supplied sources: mixed results and further review
According to Reuters and related coverage, the 4th Circuit both reduced and affirmed aspects of the jury outcome, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the questions — meaning the litigation remained active and unsettled at the time of those reports [3]. CNN and the ACLU commentary note the jury award, appellate proceedings and Supreme Court briefing; the 4th Circuit had tossed the $1 billion award in part but still found Cox liable in other respects, prompting further proceedings [4] [5]. The Supreme Court’s involvement indicates unresolved legal consequences rather than a simple final judgment in the record [3] [5].
5. How to interpret these materials and what is not here
The supplied sources mix consumer reviews and scam complaints (Neurocept) with heavyweight federal litigation about a company named Cox (an ISP). They do not link the supplement Neurocept to the telecom Cox cases, nor do they show a court filing against a “Dr. Paul Cox.” If you are asking about lawsuits against a physician named Paul Cox, or a particular corporation called Neurocept, those specific filings are not in the provided reporting: available sources do not mention them [1] [2] [3]. The record shows consumer‑level allegations (reviews, scam reports) for the supplement and, separately, complex copyright litigation for Cox Communications.
6. Next steps if you want definitive court‑level records
To resolve whether litigation exists against a Neurocept entity or a Dr. Paul Cox, consult federal and state court dockets (PACER for federal courts, state court online indexes), or ask for news/legal database searches focused on those exact names. The provided materials can’t substitute for docket searches and do not show any judicial opinions or settlements naming Neurocept or a physician Paul Cox (available sources do not mention such filings) [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the documents you supplied; I do not claim there are no other lawsuits beyond these sources — only that the supplied reporting does not show them [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].