Hims & Hers faces seven states as five join FTC privacy and billing suit

The Federal Trade Commission and seven states filed a first amended complaint against Hims & Hers Health, Inc. on November 10, 2026, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing adds Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin as co-plaintiffs to a case the FTC opened on July 29 with California and Utah, and it raises the number of counts from nine to sixteen.

The 68-page complaint, in case number 3:26-cv-07871, accuses the San Francisco telehealth company of three things: advertising "free" consultations while charging consumers for prescription subscriptions they had not yet seen, making those subscriptions hard to cancel, and sharing health information about millions of users with advertising platforms including Meta and Snap while telling those users the service was private. These are allegations. None has been proven in court, and Hims has said it will fight them.

In Short

Five more US states have joined the FTC's lawsuit against telehealth company Hims & Hers, which is accused of billing people for prescription subscriptions they never agreed to, making cancellation hard, and passing health details to Meta, Snap and other ad platforms. The amended complaint also makes public figures that were missing from the July version, including about 14 million customer email addresses uploaded to Meta and roughly 8 million tracking events tied to medical treatments. For anyone who runs subscription offers or health-related ad tracking, the case shows regulators reading audience names, pixel parameters and checkout fine print as evidence. Hims denies the claims, and the court has not ruled on any of them.

What changed between July and November

The most visible change is the caption. The July complaint listed three plaintiffs: the FTC, the People of the State of California acting through Los Angeles County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison, and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection. The amended version adds the State of Arizona through Attorney General Kristin K. Mayes, the Florida Attorney General's Department of Legal Affairs, the State of Nebraska through Attorney General Michael T. Hilgers, the Attorney General of Ohio, D. Andrew Wilson, and the State of Wisconsin, represented by its Department of Justice.

The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the amended filing, according to the FTC's announcement on November 10. The July complaint was authorized by the same 2-0 margin.

The count structure grew accordingly. The first nine counts carry over: three under Section 5 of the FTC Act (deceptive privacy representations, failure to disclose data sharing, and deceptive intake practices), three under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) covering disclosure, consent and cancellation, and two California counts under the False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, plus a Utah count under the state's Consumer Sales Practices Act. The new material is in Counts X through XVI:

• Count X - Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, deceptive practices and material omissions.
• Counts XI and XII - Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, one count for deceptive practices and one for unfair practices, the latter focused on health data sharing.
• Count XIII - Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
• Count XIV - Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, misrepresentations and the state's rule on limitations and exclusions in advertising.
• Count XV - Ohio's rule on misuse of the word "free".
• Count XVI - Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

A quieter change sits in the three ROSCA counts. In July, those were brought by the FTC alone. In the amended complaint, California, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin join them as well, relying on a provision of ROSCA that allows a state attorney general to sue for injunctive relief on behalf of residents. Utah does not join the ROSCA counts. The title also changed: the amended document is a complaint for "Permanent Injunction, Declaratory Judgment, Monetary Judgment, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief," with the declaratory judgment request coming from Ohio.

Then there is the detail. The public version of the July complaint was filed with redactions and ran to 48 pages. Several figures that did not appear in that version are spelled out in the November filing: the 14 million email addresses uploaded to Meta, the 10 million that Meta matched to user IDs, the 90 Lookalike Audiences, the roughly 8 million pixel and server events, the more than 1 million addresses in five Snap lists, the treatment codewords, a 2023 remark by Hims' chief executive about same-day cancellations, internal testing that cut cancellations by 18%, and a September 2023 message from two customer service agents describing the cancellation path as unclear.

Who the new plaintiffs are and what they can seek

Each state brings its own penalty regime, and the totals the complaint describes vary widely.

The FTC itself seeks a permanent injunction and monetary relief under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act and Section 5 of ROSCA.

Florida's claim stands out. Its two counts cite section 501.72 of the Florida Statutes, which treats the sale of sensitive personal data without prior consent or required notice as a violation of the state's consumer protection law. That is the only provision in the complaint that frames the data flows to advertising platforms as a possible sale of data, rather than as a broken privacy promise.

The "free consult" and the $0 checkout

Hims sells prescription treatments for sexual health, hair loss, skin, mental health and weight loss through the Hims and Hers websites and apps. It is neither a pharmacy nor a medical provider, according to the complaint. It contracts with doctors and nurse practitioners, owns or contracts with pharmacies, and it always sells prescription products as a subscription.

According to the complaint, Hims has advertised "free" consultations since at least 2019 across social media, television, radio and podcasts. One online advertisement reproduced in the filing reads "start your free consult" above the line "connect with a vetted provider online." Between at least 2021 and 2023, the Hims homepage offered "[f]ree, expert consultation[s]" and "free online visit[s]," and from early 2023 to early 2024 it carried the headline "Your free online visit starts here." Inside the intake process, the complaint cites lines such as "Free provider diagnosis: A licensed medical provider will assess what you shared today to determine if treatment is right for you."

The intake itself has four stages, according to the complaint: 5 to 15 questions about goals, account registration, a medical assessment of 25 to 50 questions, and a set of screens showing a likely treatment, its price and its refill cadence, followed by billing details and a submit button.

The final screen in a Hers anxiety and depression intake shown in the complaint presents a "3 Month Starter Plan" at $147 every three months, with "Due Now" listed as $0, the line "You will only be charged if prescribed," and a black button reading "Pay $0 today." Below the button, in smaller grey type, the terms read: "If prescribed medication, you are purchasing an automatically-renewing subscription and will be charged $147 for your first 90 days supply and $147 every 90 days thereafter until you cancel. Your second shipment will be charged and shipped 10 days early to prevent any gaps in your treatment."

The plaintiffs argue that this disclosure sits in "small, low-contrast font" under the call-to-action and still depends on the phrase "if prescribed," which they say leaves unclear whether and when a charge will happen. In most states, the complaint says, no consultation follows. Because most states do not require a real-time telehealth visit, Hims allows providers to review an intake and prescribe without further contact. At that point the consumer is charged, the order goes to a pharmacy and the subscription starts. "Most consumers have already been charged for and enrolled in a subscription before they even learn what treatment the provider has recommended," the complaint states.

Hims changed one screen in late 2025, after learning of the FTC investigation, according to the filing. The post-submission page now says "if approved, your prescription is charged to the card you provided and shipped to you directly." The plaintiffs say that wording still leaves the timing ambiguous, since the same page says the provider "will message you shortly about your prescription."

What Hims knew, according to the complaint

The plaintiffs lean heavily on internal documents. Hims tracked what it called "D0", or day zero, cancellations: customers who cancelled on the same day they were enrolled. A June 2022 analysis by its customer insights team found that same-day cancellers were confused that no provider interaction preceded the charge, or believed they could reject the prescription after a consultation.

In 2023, when data suggested that up to 10% of all subscription cancellations among mental health patients happened on day zero, the chief executive wrote, according to the complaint: "a near 10% D0 Cancellation is wild. Essentially it means whatever they received they did not want, right?"

A 2024 analysis of sexual health customers suggested that cancellations within seven days could be prevented by "providing clearer communications at checkout about pricing (i.e., customer doesn't always realize he's about to pay)." The same team coined a name for the complaint pattern: "checkout whiplash." Across many cancellation surveys, at least 10% of respondents said they had not realized they were signing up for a subscription, did not want one, or had not consented to being charged, the plaintiffs allege.

Consumer complaints quoted in the filing describe the experience in plainer terms. "24 hours later, I have a $897 charge on my card that I did NOT approve and was NOT made aware of," one reads. Another consumer, who had answered that they were open to medication but wanted more information, wrote: "It was a surprise when I was automatically prescribed Lexapro and charged $147 for a 3-month supply."

Refunds were limited by policy. From at least August 2022 to at least February 2025, agents were told to deny refunds to customers who said they were "confus[ed]" about billing, according to the complaint. Until around August 2023, a first order could be stopped only if it had no tracking number. From September 2023 to February 2025, agents could cancel a first order only if the request arrived within one hour of the provider writing the prescription.

Refills charged 10 days early

The complaint's second billing theory concerns refill dates. Consumers pick a cadence of one, three, six or 12 months during intake. Hims routinely charged the first refill 10 days before that cadence, according to the filing, which gives the example of a charge on day 20 of a monthly plan, with a cancellation deadline two days earlier, on day 18. Later refills could be processed up to two days early for holidays or "other operational reasons."

The plaintiffs say the refill policy appeared only in the fine print under the final button, required no acknowledgement, and was not followed by reminders of upcoming refill dates. Consumers who missed the deadline were charged for another month or more of medication, and refund policies then blocked their requests, according to the complaint.

Cancellation: phone queues, then "Add/remove items"

The cancellation allegations cover 2019 through early 2025. Before April 2023, most consumers outside California had to contact customer service, according to the complaint. Phone, email and chat all required a date of birth and a past order number first, even for non-live channels such as email. Agents missed hundreds of calls each week, the plaintiffs say, and responses could take days or as long as a week. Starting around late 2022, Hims removed its phone number from its FAQ pages, including the page that explained how to cancel.

In April 2023, Hims added an online cancellation flow to its websites for almost all consumers. The complaint walks through it screen by screen. The subscription page did not use the word "cancel." Consumers had to click a button labelled "Add/remove items from order," which led to a page that said "Any changes will apply to your subscription going forward." Only after unchecking every item did a "cancel subscription" option appear, and after that came between three and ten survey screens, with questions such as "Have you experienced side effects?" and "Is treatment too expensive for you?", plus retention offers.

Hims had tested this design, according to the plaintiffs. From 2019 to mid-2022 it offered online cancellation only to California consumers, as required by state law, and adjusted that flow to reduce cancellations. An internal 2020 research document reported that changes made in February of that year led to an 18% reduction in cancellations compared with the earlier California version. In June 2022, Hims introduced single-click cancellation in California and Colorado, where new laws required it. For the other states, in July 2022 and then in 2023, it chose the earlier California flow, which the complaint says it had "refined to successfully obstruct cancellations."

The evidence that the flow confused people came from Hims' own support data, according to the filing. A July 2023 review of chat logs found that July chats were "dominated by customers seeking to cancel their subscriptions," and that 40% of live chat contacts still concerned cancellation. In September 2023, two customer service agents wrote to the heads of the department that the path to cancel was a dark pattern, in their words: "The #1 chat reason is users trying to cancel and unable to do so on their own. The 'add or remove' items CTA [Call to Action] is the user's path to cancel, but it's a bit of a dark pattern and unclear that this is how to cancel." They proposed a test that would make cancellation clearer, adding that if cancel rates held steady while support contacts fell, "this could be a big win (for our business and also reputation)."

The mobile apps were worse, the plaintiffs say. Hims briefly introduced in-app self-serve cancellation in or around May 2023, then removed it after a spike in cancellation rates. Executives discussed by email whether better customer satisfaction was worth losing a million dollars in subscription revenue every quarter, according to the complaint, and the chief executive and founder suggested that Hims should not tell consumers about any future in-app cancellation option. In-app cancellation arrived in January 2024, mirroring the web flow.

Customer lists, pixels and codewords

The privacy section of the complaint is where advertising technology takes centre stage. The plaintiffs first set out what Hims promised. Until at least late August 2023, a homepage FAQ said patients' "medical records and sensitive information are only accessed by the medical providers managing your care." Online ads promised a "100% online, private, and secure process." Offline ads on TV, radio and podcasts described the service as "totally private." Paid influencers, whose posts Hims reviewed, edited and approved, described the service as "discreet." An April 2021 Instagram post reproduced in the complaint refers to Hims' "discreet and straightforward online process"; a September 2023 post tagged #himspartner says "the process is always simple, discreet, and completely online."

Against that, the complaint describes two channels through which, it alleges, health information reached Meta through at least May 2024.

Channel one: customer lists

Hims compiled email addresses of consumers who created accounts to seek a treatment, which Hims logged as a "Complete Registration" event, or who submitted an intake, logged as a "Purchase" event. It uploaded those lists to Meta's advertising platform to build Customer List Custom Audiences and Lookalike Audiences, according to the complaint.

Between September 2020 and June 2023, Hims uploaded approximately 14 million consumer email addresses to Meta for Custom Audiences, of which Meta matched approximately 10 million to Meta user IDs. Between March 2020 and September 2023, it used uploaded addresses to create 90 Lookalike Audiences. The complaint does not say whether the addresses were hashed before upload. The FTC said in July 2024 that hashing does not make data anonymous.

The audience names are central to the plaintiffs' theory. They include "All Time Hims ED Purchasers" and "Churned_ED_Customers." Some used codewords such as "Apollo," "Atlas" and "Zeus," as in "All-Time Zeus Purchasers" or "Hers Apollo Signups." The complaint says this did not hide anything, because Hims told Meta what the codewords meant, and internal Meta marketing communications listed them as "Apollo (MH)," "Atlas (PEJ)," and "Zeus (ED)": mental health, premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. One Lookalike Audience was named "Lookalike (US, 6% to 7%) - PE Purchasers w LTV," built, the plaintiffs say, from consumers Hims reported as interested in buying premature ejaculation treatment.

Channel two: the Meta Pixel and Conversions API

Hims also placed the Meta Pixel and Meta's Conversions API on its platforms. The complaint describes the first as code that lets Meta collect events on a website and the second as a direct connection between the advertiser's server and Meta's systems.

Hims shared Complete Registration and Purchase events with Meta through these tools approximately 8 million times, according to the filing. The event names were Meta's standard ones. The parameters were not. Complete Registration events often carried a custom Hims parameter naming the treatment type with the same codewords. Purchase events, which fired when an intake was submitted, included two custom parameters, "product_bucket" and "product_type," in which, for example, "M-R" meant mental health. Both event types also carried identifiers such as email and IP addresses. Internal Meta emails show that Meta understood the codewords and used the data in its advertising services, the plaintiffs allege.

With that event data, Hims built audiences with names such as "Hers - Complete Registration - MH - 30d," "Complete Registration - /ed - 14d," "Hims - Complete Registration - Apollo - 30d" and "New All ED Purchasers (90d)." Hims "was only able to create audiences with such specificity because it flouted the promises it made to its users," the complaint states.

Snap and thirteen other platforms

Snap received lists of hundreds of thousands of email addresses, according to the complaint, matched to Snapchat accounts. Five of those lists together held more than 1 million addresses. Their names, as quoted in the filing, included "All_Time_Hers_Psych_Signups," "AllTime_Hers_MH_SignUps_06092022," "AllTime_RX_PEJ_06082022" and "AllTime_Hims_SexualHealthProduct_Rx+OTC_Oct052022."

The complaint also lists pixels from at least thirteen more companies on the Hims website: Microsoft (Bing Pixel and Bing Image Pixel), Google (Google Ads Pixel and Google Ads S2S Pixel), Criteo, MediaBids.com, PartnerCentric, PebblePost.com, Pinterest, Podsights (now Spotify Ad Analytics), Reddit, StackAdapt, TikTok (a server-to-server pixel), the Trade Desk and X. Many of these captured similar Complete Registration and Purchase events, the plaintiffs say, though the complaint gives volume figures only for Meta and Snap.

None of these platforms is a defendant. The complaint describes what Meta knew about the codewords, but it brings no claim against Meta, Snap or any other company. The only defendant is Hims & Hers Health, Inc.

The ROSCA theory and the "free" count

ROSCA, in force since December 29, 2010, bars charging consumers online through a negative option feature unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms before taking billing details, obtains express informed consent before charging, and provides a simple way to stop recurring charges. Count IV goes further than a standard subscription claim. It lists Hims' practice of sharing sensitive health information with advertising platforms among the "material terms" it says Hims failed to disclose, alongside the timing of the first charge, the start of the subscription and the refill dates.

Ohio's Count XV is the narrowest, and the one aimed most directly at ad copy. It alleges that Hims used the word "free" in marketing a medical consultation without setting out, at the outset of the offer, all the terms on which receipt of the "free" service depended. The count rests on Ohio Administrative Code rule 109:4-3-04, which governs the use of that single word.

The complaint also argues Hims knew the rules. Since 2021, the plaintiffs say, its SEC filings have warned that its business could be hurt by "regulatory developments that affect [its] business, including in healthcare, data privacy and security, and consumer protection." The FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Hims in October 2023 covering potential FTC Act and ROSCA violations.

Hims' response

Hims has rejected the case from the start. On July 29, the company said in a statement posted on X that the lawsuit ignored evidence it had submitted during a nearly three-year investigation, that its privacy policy lets customers choose how their data is used, and that it would defend itself vigorously, according to Becker's Hospital Review. Hims shares fell as much as 16% during trading that day, according to Insurance Journal, which put the company's subscriber base at about 2.6 million.

After the amended complaint, a Hims spokesperson said on November 10 that the company would vigorously defend itself against the follow-on claims, which rely on the same flawed allegations as the government's lawsuit, according to Reuters.

Why this matters for marketers

Hims is not a niche advertiser. Its monthly active users rose 2,175% in Similarweb's Apps 100 ranking published in February 2024, and its search team has been cited as a case study, as when a former SEO leader described how Hims lifted blog keyword rankings 34% in three weeks without new content or links. The broader category is growing as well: telemedicine applications to ad certifier LegitScript rose 101% in a year, according to figures published in September.

The amended complaint arrives in a dense period for subscription enforcement. On October 29, the FTC and eight states sued Toast over hidden fees and hard-to-cancel plans, with ROSCA counts brought by every plaintiff and a plaintiff list that overlaps with the Hims case: California through Los Angeles County Counsel, Florida, Nebraska and Utah all appear in both. Earlier in 2026, the FTC alleged that JustAnswer trapped consumers in subscriptions costing up to 26 times the advertised price. In December 2025, Instacart agreed to pay $60 million under an order covering FTC Act and ROSCA violations, and in August 2025 Match Group settled for $14 million over practices that included a cumbersome cancellation process.

What these cases share is a reliance on ROSCA, a 2010 statute, rather than on the FTC's 2024 negative option rule, which industry groups challenged shortly after it was finalized. The Hims complaint does not cite that rule at all. Does the agency need a rule when a statute already requires disclosure, consent and simple cancellation? Its recent complaints, this one included, proceed under the statute alone. There is also a precedent for an amended complaint deepening a subscription case: in 2024 the government expanded its suit against Adobe, and Adobe disputed the updated complaint much as Hims is disputing this one.

The privacy half of the case lands on an equally active front. A federal jury in August 2025 found Meta violated California privacy law in collecting health data from the Flo period-tracking app. In October 2026, Washington's Supreme Court went the other way in a state wiretap case, as parents lost their Meta Pixel case against Seattle Children's Hospital. Privado projected that US companies face $1.4 billion in web tracking settlements in 2026, and in late October the FTC warned 25 health plan marketers and lead generators of penalties up to $53,088 per violation.

The Hims complaint differs from most pixel litigation in one respect. It is not a wiretap theory. The plaintiffs do not argue that tracking code was illegal in itself. They argue that Hims promised privacy and discretion in its ads, homepage and influencer posts, and then sent data to ad platforms that, through audience names and custom parameters, revealed which treatments people sought. For marketing teams, the evidence trail is the striking part: an audience label written for internal convenience, such as "Churned_ED_Customers," is now quoted in a federal complaint as proof of disclosure.

The same goes for checkout design. The plaintiffs reproduce the "Pay $0 today" button and the grey fine print beneath it, quote an internal analysis that coined "checkout whiplash," and cite Hims' own chat logs and agent messages about the cancellation path. The theory does not depend on any single screen being false. It depends on what the company's own research said consumers understood.

What happens next

The case remains in the Northern District of California. A complaint is the plaintiffs' account of events, and the FTC says it files one when it has "reason to believe" a law is being or is about to be violated; the court decides whether that is so. No ruling on the merits has been made, and the amended complaint does not set out a schedule.

The plaintiffs ask the court for a permanent injunction under the FTC Act, ROSCA and all seven state laws, monetary relief, a declaratory judgment under Ohio law, an equitable accounting and disgorgement of Utah revenue, and civil penalties, fines and forfeitures under each state's statute. Because several state penalties are counted per violation, the scale of any eventual liability would depend on how the court counts violations across hundreds of thousands of consumers, an issue the complaint leaves open.

Timeline

• November 2017 - Hims launches ForHims.com to address men's health via telehealth.
• November 2018 - Hims adds the Hers brand for women's health.
• Since at least 2019 - Hims ads describe medical consultations as "free"; Hims begins paying influencers to promote its services.
• 2019 to mid-2022 - Online cancellation is available only to California consumers; Hims tests and adjusts that flow.
• February 2020 - Changes to the California cancellation flow lead to an 18% reduction in cancellations, per an internal 2020 document.
• March 2020 to September 2023 - Hims creates 90 Lookalike Audiences on Meta from uploaded consumer email addresses.
• September 2020 to June 2023 - Hims uploads approximately 14 million consumer email addresses to Meta; about 10 million are matched to Meta user IDs.
• 2021 to 2023 - The Hims homepage advertises "free" consultations and online visits.
• April 2021 - An influencer post describes Hims' "discreet and straightforward online process."
• June 2022 - A Hims customer insights analysis examines same-day ("D0") cancellations; single-click cancellation launches in California and Colorado.
• July 2022 - The online cancellation flow reaches consumers in seven states.
• August 2022 to February 2025 - Agents are told to deny refunds to customers who say they were confused about billing.
• Late 2022 - Hims begins removing its phone number from FAQ pages.
• 2023 - Hims' chief executive calls a near 10% same-day cancellation rate among mental health patients "wild."
• April 2023 - The online cancellation flow is extended to almost all consumers on the websites.
• May 2023 - In-app self-serve cancellation is briefly introduced, then removed.
• July 2023 - A chat log review finds 40% of live chat contacts concern cancellation.
• Late August 2023 - The homepage FAQ promising that only providers access medical records is still live.
• September 2023 - Two customer service agents call the cancellation path "a bit of a dark pattern."
• October 2023 - The FTC issues a Civil Investigative Demand to Hims.
• January 2024 - Hims launches self-serve cancellation in its mobile apps.
• February 2024 - Similarweb's Apps 100 ranking shows Hims' monthly active users up 2,175%.
• 2024 - A Hims customer insights analysis coins the term "checkout whiplash."
• May 2024 - Health information sharing with Meta, Snap and others continues through at least this month, according to the complaint.
• July 2024 - The FTC says hashing does not make data anonymous; Adobe disputes the FTC's expanded subscription complaint.
• October 2024 - Industry groups challenge the FTC's newly finalized click-to-cancel rule.
• August 2025 - A jury finds Meta violated California privacy law over Flo health data; Match Group settles FTC charges for $14 million.
• Late 2025 - Hims changes its post-submission screen to mention charges, after learning of the FTC investigation.
• December 2025 - Instacart agrees to a $60 million FTC order.
• January 13, 2026 - The FTC sues JustAnswer over hidden subscriptions.
• March 2026 - A former Hims SEO leader describes a 34% keyword ranking lift in three weeks.
• July 29, 2026 - The FTC, California (through Los Angeles County Counsel) and Utah sue Hims & Hers in the Northern District of California, with nine counts.
• September 2026 - Telemedicine applications to LegitScript are reported up 101% in a year.
• October 8, 2026 - Washington's Supreme Court rules against parents in the Seattle Children's Meta Pixel case.
• October 29, 2026 - The FTC and eight states sue Toast; the FTC warns 25 health plan lead generators.
• November 5, 2026 - Privado projects $1.4 billion in US web tracking settlements for 2026.
• November 10, 2026 - The FTC and seven states file the first amended complaint, adding Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin and raising the count total to 16; Hims says it will defend itself.

Related PPC Land coverage

• FTC and eight states sue Toast over hidden fees and $0 hardware claims - A multistate ROSCA case filed in the same court twelve days before the Hims amendment, with several of the same state plaintiffs.
• FTC: JustAnswer trapped consumers in hidden subscriptions that cost 26 times the advertised price - The FTC's January 2026 complaint over $1 and $5 offers that led to monthly fees of $28 to $125.
• Instacart hit with $60 million fine for hidden fees and subscription traps - A December 2025 stipulated order resolving FTC Act and ROSCA claims.
• Match Group settles FTC charges for $14 million over deceptive dating practices - An August 2025 settlement that requires simple cancellation mechanisms.
• Adobe refutes FTC's updated complaint on subscription practices - How Adobe answered an expanded government complaint over early termination fees and cancellation in 2024.
• Industry groups challenge FTC's landmark "Click to Cancel" rule - The October 2024 legal challenge by NCTA, the Electronic Security Association and the IAB.
• Jury finds Meta violated privacy law collecting health data - The August 2025 verdict over health data from the Flo app.
• Parents lose Meta Pixel wiretap case against Seattle Children's Hospital - The Washington Supreme Court's October 2026 ruling on pixel tracking at a hospital.
• FTC Warns: Hashed data not anonymous, companies risk deceptive practice claims - The FTC's July 2024 position on hashed identifiers.
• US companies face $1.4bn in web tracking settlements in 2026, Privado says - A projection of website and app privacy class action settlements for 2026.
• Health plan lead generators face up to $53,088 per violation, FTC warns - Warning letters sent to 25 health plan marketers in October 2026.
• Telemedicine applications to ad certifier LegitScript jump 101% in a year - Growth in telemedicine advertisers seeking certification.
• No new content, no links: how Hims lifted keyword rankings 34% in 3 weeks - A former Hims SEO leader's account of seven E-E-A-T changes.
• Temu, Hims, Lisa AI top Similarweb's Apps 100 ranking - Similarweb's 2024 ranking, in which Hims' monthly active users rose 2,175%.

Summary

Who: The Federal Trade Commission and seven states (California through Los Angeles County Counsel, Utah, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin) against Hims & Hers Health, Inc., a San Francisco telehealth company. Meta, Snap and thirteen other ad technology companies are named in the complaint as recipients of data but are not defendants.

What: A first amended complaint that adds five state plaintiffs and seven counts, for 16 in total. It alleges that Hims advertised "free" consultations while charging consumers for prescription subscriptions almost immediately after intake, charged refills early, obstructed cancellation, and shared health information with advertising platforms, including about 14 million email addresses uploaded to Meta and roughly 8 million pixel and server events, despite promising privacy. Hims denies the claims.

When: The amended complaint was filed and announced on November 10, 2026. The original complaint was filed on July 29, 2026. The alleged conduct spans 2019 to 2025, with data sharing through at least May 2024.

Where: The US District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:26-cv-07871. The conduct affected consumers across the United States, with state claims covering seven states.

Why: The plaintiffs say Hims' ads, intake screens and privacy claims misled consumers, and that its own research showed customers did not understand they were buying subscriptions. For advertisers, the case shows regulators treating audience names, pixel parameters, checkout fine print and internal research as evidence, and the new state counts open the door to per-violation civil penalties.