Do regulatory agencies or court records corroborate complaints found on BBB or Trustpilot about Neurocept?

1. What the BBB records actually show — complaint entries, not regulatory adjudication

The Better Business Bureau hosts a Neurocept business profile that records “failure to respond to 1 complaint^[7]” and shows a BBB file opened in October 2025; that profile is a consumer-facing aggregation, not a formal regulatory ruling ^[1]. Separately, BBB Scam Tracker entries include multiple user reports describing purchases of six bottles for roughly $217, inability to find the merchant website later, customer-service runarounds, and texts that phone spam filters flagged as scam numbers — these are individual consumer complaints, not court or agency determinations ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. Trustpilot and other review sites amplify consumer allegations but don’t equal legal corroboration

Trustpilot pages collect adverse reviews claiming fake AI videos, misleading FDA-approval claims, and ingredient mismatches; one reviewer specifically urges filing complaints with state consumer protection agencies ^[8]. These platforms document consumer sentiment and alleged experiences but do not themselves verify claims or produce enforcement actions; they must be treated as reporting of complaints, not as corroboration by regulators ^[8].

3. Media and cybersecurity outlets assert fraud indicators, citing deepfakes and lack of FDA approval

Technology and consumer-protection posts (e.g., MalwareTips) describe Neurocept ads as typical “miracle” supplement marketing, note that supplements are not FDA-evaluated for treating disease, and flag deceptive advertising tactics and fabricated testimonials—these analyses identify red flags but stop short of showing a court or regulator has ruled the product fraudulent ^[5]. CNN reported that Dr. Sanjay Gupta denounced AI deepfakes that used his image to sell bogus products, which aligns with consumer complaints that celebrity likenesses were misused in Neurocept-style ads ^[6].

4. Where court records and formal regulatory actions are found — not in the provided sources

Available sources do not mention any civil lawsuits, class actions, state attorney general enforcement actions, FTC orders, or FDA warning letters specifically naming Neurocept. The materials provided are consumer complaints, watchdog blog posts, and media about deepfake misuse; they do not include court dockets or regulatory adjudications against Neurocept (not found in current reporting).

5. Conflicting narratives on legitimacy and marketing claims

Some promotional sites and marketplace-style reviews present Neurocept as legitimate, citing manufacturing in FDA-registered or GMP facilities and large positive-review counts ^{[9] [10] [11]}. These marketing claims conflict directly with watchdog pieces and consumer complaints that allege deceptive ads, deepfakes, and misleading ingredient lists. The sources disagree: consumer watchdog and tech reporting emphasize scam indicators and lack of clinical backing ^[5], while promotional pages assert product quality and evidence-based formulation ^{[9] [10]}.

6. What a consumer should take from the records and how to escalate

The pattern in the sources suggests repeated consumer reports of deceptive advertising and poor post-sale support ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Because the provided items do not show enforcement by courts or regulators, consumers concerned about losses are advised — per a Trustpilot reviewer’s suggestion — to contact their state consumer protection agency and consider reporting to the BBB Scam Tracker and the FTC; the sources recommend consulting consumer-protection channels and, if necessary, legal counsel for potential group action ^{[8] [5]}.

Limitations and final note: All factual assertions above are drawn from the supplied documents; available sources do not mention any court rulings or official regulatory enforcement actions against Neurocept (not found in current reporting).