Are there any lawsuits pending against Neurocept for unlawfully using Dr. Ben Carson's name and likeness (AI) in promoting their products.

1. Why the files show industry-wide litigation but not Neurocept specifically

The documents collected emphasize a pattern: several companies face suits or complaints for alleged unauthorized commercial use of celebrity images, voices, or likenesses, notably a class action against NeoCortext (Reface) and a complaint involving ElevenLabs, both raising California right-of-publicity issues and concerns over generative AI uses ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These entries serve as industry context, demonstrating legal theories plaintiffs are using — unauthorized advertising use and misappropriation under publicity statutes. However, none of the analyses or complaint texts provided identify Neurocept as a defendant or mention Dr. Ben Carson in connection with active litigation, so the materials document the legal landscape rather than confirm any lawsuit against Neurocept itself ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. Where Dr. Ben Carson’s name appears in the record and what it means

One analysis notes marketing associations linking Dr. Carson’s name to brain supplements without verified endorsement, but it expressly states there is no credible evidence tying him to an endorsement or litigation in these sources ^[5]. That content illustrates how celebrity reputations can be used in marketing narratives and why consumers and attorneys scrutinize such uses, but it does not document a legal filing alleging Neurocept unlawfully used Dr. Carson’s likeness. In short, the presence of his name in marketing criticism is distinct from proof of a pending right-of-publicity lawsuit, and the collection lacks any pleading or case caption alleging Neurocept misused Dr. Carson’s name.

3. Parallel cases show legal theories plaintiffs might use against any company

The referenced lawsuits and complaints provide a template for potential claims: plaintiffs allege use of likenesses for advertising without consent, violations of state publicity statutes, and misuse of AI-generated content — theories central to suits against NeoCortext/Reface and ElevenLabs ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These examples make clear that companies employing AI in marketing face tangible liability risks and that plaintiffs are pursuing class actions and statutory claims. Nevertheless, the documents do not show these theories have been pressed against Neurocept in court or that a plaintiff has filed on behalf of Dr. Carson or his estate.

4. Conflicting signals in the dataset and possible motives behind coverage

The materials mix consumer-warning articles about alleged supplements, public-interest reporting, and legal filings against unrelated AI firms; this blend can create a misleading impression that any company using a “Neuro” brand is legally exposed or under suit ^{[6] [4]}. Some sources focus on exposing scams and deceptive marketing, another on immigration enforcement matters unrelated to publicity law, indicating editorial or consumer-protection agendas that may prioritize cautionary narratives. The dataset’s inconsistencies underscore that while industry litigation is real, there is no substitute for direct court filings or formal complaints naming Neurocept and Dr. Carson in these materials.

5. What remains unresolved and the practical next steps to confirm the claim

To move beyond the negative evidence here — i.e., absence of any Neurocept-Dr. Carson suit in the supplied sources — the next factual steps are clear: search federal and state dockets for filings naming Neurocept or its legal variants, review press releases from Dr. Carson or his representatives, and check recent complaints against companies using “Neuro” branding; only formal filings or verified statements will substantiate a pending lawsuit. The documents provided outline the legal doctrines and analogous cases plaintiffs rely on ^{[1] [3] [2]}, but they do not establish a pending action against Neurocept for using Dr. Ben Carson’s name or likeness.