Which state attorneys general have opened inquiries or lawsuits against Neurocept and what are the allegations?

1. What the available documents actually cover — a quick map

The documents you supplied are a mixture of law‑firm newsletters, state press releases, legal news and opinion pieces that discuss state attorneys general taking high‑profile enforcement actions across a range of topics — antitrust, consumer protection, federal policy challenges and corporate settlements — but none of the listed items mention Neurocept or any actions against it ^{[4] [3] [5] [6] [7]}. For example, the Troutman Pepper monitor summarizes broader AG activity ^[4] and Morgan Lewis discusses increased antitrust enforcement by state AGs ^[5], but neither references Neurocept.

2. Specific, cited examples in your results — context for how AGs are acting

The sample items illustrate how state attorneys general are using their offices to pursue a wide range of cases: New York’s AG led a multistate settlement with Purdue Pharma (a $7.4 billion in‑principle settlement noted in a press release) showing coordinated, high‑stakes litigation by AGs ^[7]; other entries describe coalitions suing federal agencies over policy decisions, such as New York joining a multi‑state suit over SNAP suspensions ^[8] and 22 AGs suing to block an NIH policy change affecting indirect research costs ^[9]. These examples show the types of claims AGs typically bring — consumer fraud, public‑health liability, antitrust, and challenges to federal administration policy — which can guide expectations about what an AG inquiry into a company like Neurocept might look like, absent direct reporting on that company ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

3. What you should expect from AG inquiries into medical or life‑sciences firms

When state AGs investigate health‑care or pharmaceutical companies, they commonly allege violations of state consumer protection or fraud statutes, deceptive marketing, unsafe products, or antitrust conduct; multistate coalitions and high‑dollar settlements are frequent outcomes ^{[5] [7]}. The supplied materials also show AGs pursuing wide coalitions (dozens of AGs in opioid litigation) and using both state and federal causes of action depending on the issue ^{[7] [9]}. But again, available sources do not mention Neurocept specifically, so these are contextual patterns rather than Neurocept‑specific findings (not found in current reporting).

4. Example of unrelated, but illustrative, AG litigation in the results

The Texas attorney general Ken Paxton’s suit against the maker of Tylenol is in these search results and exemplifies how AGs may bring consumer‑protection claims alleging failure to warn or deceptive practices; news coverage notes Paxton sued the manufacturer alleging violations of state fraud and deceptive practices laws after public claims about Tylenol and neurodevelopmental risks ^{[1] [2]}. That case is unrelated to Neurocept but is useful background on the sorts of legal theories an AG might use against a medical company ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Limitations and next steps you can take

Limitation: The supplied set of documents contains no reporting, press release, complaint, or newsletter item that names Neurocept or details an AG inquiry or lawsuit against it; therefore I cannot truthfully list state AGs or allegations targeting Neurocept from these sources (not found in current reporting). To answer your original question specifically, provide media reports, court filings, or AG press releases that mention Neurocept, or allow me to run a fresh search beyond the documents you supplied.

If you want, I can:

• Run a new search (if you enable broader web access) for Neurocept plus “attorney general,” “lawsuit,” “investigation,” or state names; or
• Use these documents to draft a template of likely legal theories AGs would employ against a life‑sciences firm, based on precedent in the provided sources ^{[5] [7] [8]}.