FTC Sues Hims & Hers Over Billing, Cancellations, and Data Sharing

FTC Sues Hims & Hers Over Billing, Cancellations, and Data Sharing

The Federal Trade Commission, joined by Utah and Los Angeles County, filed a federal complaint against Hims & Hers Health, Inc. on July 29, 2026, alleging deceptive billing, buried subscription cancellations, and health data shared with Meta and Snap. The case is Docket No. 3:26-cv-07871 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Information last verified on July 30, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This is a federal civil enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, with parallel state-law claims brought by the State of Utah (its Division of Consumer Protection, through the Utah Attorney General's office) and by Los Angeles County Counsel on behalf of the People of the State of California. It applies nationwide to Hims & Hers' consumer-facing practices; it is not a criminal case and, as of July 30, 2026, no court has ruled on any claim.

What Happened

On July 29, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission, joined by the State of Utah and by Los Angeles County Counsel acting on behalf of the People of California, filed a civil complaint against telehealth company Hims & Hers Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-07871 (FTC press release).

The FTC alleges Hims & Hers typically billed consumers for prescription treatments as soon as they submitted an online intake form, meaning payment was collected before a medical provider ever reviewed the request, even though the company told consumers they would consult with a provider to find a treatment "right for them." The complaint frames this as contradicting the company's own representations about how its service works.

On cancellation, the FTC alleges that before 2023, most consumers could only cancel by contacting customer service through phone, email, or chat, a process regulators say created unnecessary hurdles. According to the complaint, when Hims & Hers rolled out a one-click cancellation option to most states in 2023, the option remained buried behind an "add/remove items from order" button, and a consumer had to click through several additional screens before the word "cancel" ever appeared. The FTC further alleges the company advertised monthly or quarterly refill schedules but actually processed refill charges roughly 10 days earlier than a reasonable consumer would expect, while requiring cancellation two days before that earlier date, a gap regulators say made the deadline easy to miss.

On data sharing, the FTC alleges Hims & Hers shared consumers' sensitive health information with Meta Platforms and Snap Inc., despite telling users their information would stay private. Specifically, the complaint alleges the company shared lists of certain customers directly with those platforms and separately shared "Events," meaning specific actions visitors took on the Hims & Hers website, through third-party tracking technology embedded in the site (Forbes; Washington Post).

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the challenged practices, monetary relief for affected consumers, disgorgement of profits the FTC says were obtained through the alleged conduct, and civil penalties. It is titled a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief" (FTC complaint, PDF). None of this relief has been granted. The case is at the complaint stage; every allegation above is a claim the FTC and the joining state and county authorities must still prove, and Hims & Hers has not been found liable for anything.

Hims & Hers responded publicly the same day, stating the lawsuit "disregards substantial evidence" the company provided during what it described as a nearly three-year FTC investigation, and that the agency "contorts the law to try to manufacture claims." The company said it intends to fight the case (CNBC).

What the Law Actually Says

The federal count rests on two statutes. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in commerce and is the FTC's primary general-purpose consumer protection tool; it does not itself list specific billing rules, but lets the agency challenge conduct that misleads consumers or causes substantial, unavoidable harm. The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) is more specific to this case: it requires that businesses selling goods or services online through a recurring "negative option" (a subscription that auto-renews unless the consumer cancels) clearly disclose the material terms, obtain the consumer's informed consent before charging, and provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges.

It matters here that ROSCA and the FTC's now-vacated "click-to-cancel" rule are not the same thing. In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC's amended Negative Option Rule, the regulation that would have imposed detailed, prescriptive click-to-cancel mechanics, after finding the agency's rulemaking process violated the Administrative Procedure Act. That vacatur did not repeal ROSCA itself. ROSCA, the underlying statute Congress passed, remains in force, and it is the statute the FTC cites against Hims & Hers in this complaint rather than the vacated rule. The FTC opened a new rulemaking notice in March 2026 aimed at reviving a click-to-cancel regulation, but that process is separate from, and unresolved as of, this lawsuit.

Utah's parallel claim is brought under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, that state's general deceptive-practices statute. The California claim, brought by Los Angeles County Counsel acting on behalf of the People of the State of California, invokes California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and related provisions), which authorize government attorneys, including county counsel, to sue over unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices affecting state residents. For the health-data allegations specifically, California also maintains dedicated health and consumer privacy statutes; readers can review our overview of California's health-data privacy protections for how the state treats health-related personal information outside of HIPAA's narrower scope, and our explainer on cookie banner and tracking-consent requirements for how website tracking pixels like those the FTC describes are regulated more broadly.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. This complaint sits at the intersection of two enforcement trends the FTC has pursued with increasing frequency: subscription cancellation design and the sharing of health-adjacent data with advertising platforms. Neither theory is new. The FTC's $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon in September 2025 over Prime enrollment and cancellation "dark patterns" shows the agency treating ROSCA as a serious civil-penalty statute even after the broader click-to-cancel rule was vacated in court; our coverage of that Amazon Prime settlement walks through how that case resolved. What makes the Hims & Hers complaint distinct is pairing a subscription-design theory with a health-data-sharing theory against a telehealth company, where the underlying product, prescription medication, raises the sensitivity of the data allegedly shared with Meta and Snap well above an ordinary e-commerce subscription.

Because this is a filed complaint and not a settlement or judgment, none of the specific factual allegations, the intake-to-billing sequence, the cancellation menu design, the refill timing, or the scope of data shared with the ad platforms, has been established as true in any legal sense. Litigation can end in a negotiated settlement (as Amazon's did), a narrowed set of claims, a dismissal of some or all counts, or a trial. The presence of three separate government plaintiffs, a federal agency, a state attorney general's office, and a county counsel's office, means the case could also proceed on different tracks or timelines for each plaintiff's claims. Readers should treat every allegation in this article, and in any other coverage of the case published before a ruling or settlement, as exactly that: an allegation.

How This Affects You

This section is general information about the legal landscape this case sits in; it is not individualized advice about your own subscriptions, accounts, or legal rights, and it does not evaluate whether any particular company's practices are lawful.

Consumers who use subscription-based telehealth, retail, or streaming services can generally locate a service's cancellation process and billing schedule in their account settings or the company's terms of service, and can compare what they find against how the service describes its billing and cancellation terms in its marketing. For a look at how other jurisdictions have moved to regulate subscription cancellation design directly, see our coverage of New York City's click-to-cancel and junk-fee rules and Virginia's own click-to-cancel statute, both of which impose cancellation requirements independent of the federal rulemaking discussed above.

On the data side, consumers concerned about health-related information being shared with advertising platforms can review a site's privacy policy for references to "pixels," "tracking technologies," or third-party advertising partners, and can consult our explainer on how automated tracking tools intersect with data privacy law for background on how these mechanisms typically work. Anyone who believes they were personally harmed by billing or data-sharing practices at any company, including Hims & Hers, can file a complaint with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov or with their state attorney general's consumer protection division; neither this article nor Recording Law is a party to the case or in a position to advise on individual claims.

This article provides general legal information for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It describes allegations from a filed civil complaint that has not been resolved by any court. Consult a licensed attorney for advice about your specific situation.

Last updated: 2026-07-30. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-30.