Hims & Hers FTC Lawsuit 2026, Seven States and Federal Regulators Challenge Medical Privacy and Billing Practices

Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is facing an expanded federal consumer-protection lawsuit after five additional states joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in challenging the telehealth company’s handling of sensitive medical information, subscription billing and customer cancellations.

On November 10, 2026, the FTC filed a 68-page amended complaint adding Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin as co-plaintiffs to a case originally brought on July 29, 2026 with Utah and California, acting through Los Angeles County Counsel. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (FTC v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-07871-VC). It is an active enforcement action, the allegations are contested, and Hims & Hers has said it will vigorously defend itself.

The lawsuit alleges that Hims & Hers shared sensitive information about consumers’ medical treatment interests with advertising platforms, including Meta and Snap, despite marketing its services as private and discreet.

Regulators also accuse the company of charging customers for prescription subscriptions before they had a meaningful opportunity to discuss recommended treatments, and of making recurring subscriptions unnecessarily difficult to cancel.

One of the most significant allegations concerns advertising data. The FTC claims Hims uploaded approximately 14 million customer email-address entries to Meta between September 2020 and June 2023 and used information about customers’ treatment interests to build advertising audiences.

The company disputes the allegations. A Hims & Hers spokesperson said the company “will vigorously defend ourselves against these follow-on claims, which rely on the same flawed allegations advanced in the government’s lawsuit.”

No court has found Hims & Hers liable, no consumer compensation fund has been established, and there is no FTC settlement claim form.

This case is separate from the company’s previously reported February 2026 cybersecurity incident and the private class actions arising from that event.

Below is what the expanded lawsuit alleges, which seven jurisdictions are involved, which federal and state laws are at issue, whether customers could eventually receive refunds, and what people concerned about their medical privacy or subscription charges can do now.

Important: This article reports allegations made in a court filing. An allegation is not a finding of wrongdoing. This is general legal information, not legal or medical advice.

Key Takeaways

• The FTC amended its lawsuit on November 10, 2026, adding Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. With Utah and California (through Los Angeles County Counsel), that makes seven state-level plaintiffs plus the FTC.
• The case alleges three practices: sharing sensitive health-related information with advertising platforms, charging customers before a meaningful treatment consultation, and making recurring subscriptions hard to cancel.
• The claims arise under the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and state consumer-protection laws. It is not a HIPAA enforcement action.
• The “14 million” figure refers to email-address entries allegedly uploaded to Meta, not 14 million confirmed patients with exposed medical records.
• The company’s roughly $60 million accounting accrual is not a settlement fund and is not a consumer refund pool.
• No refund program, claim form or claim deadline exists for this government case.
• Hims & Hers denies the allegations. The case is in its early stages.

Hims & Hers FTC Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Defendant	Hims & Hers Health, Inc.
Federal regulator	Federal Trade Commission (Commission vote to authorize amended complaint: 2–0)
Original lawsuit	July 29, 2026
Amended complaint	November 10, 2026 (Document 67, 68 pages)
New states	Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin
Original state jurisdictions	Utah and California, through Los Angeles County Counsel
Total state jurisdictions	Seven
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Case number	3:26-cv-07871-VC
Judge	Vince Chhabria
FTC file number	X260029
Principal allegations	Misleading medical privacy assurances, billing practices and subscription cancellations
Advertising platforms identified	Meta, Snap and others
Federal laws	FTC Act and Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)
State laws	Consumer-protection statutes of the seven participating jurisdictions
Relief sought	Permanent injunctions, monetary judgments, restitution and civil penalties
Company response	Denies allegations and intends to defend the case
Settlement reached?	No
Consumer refund available?	No
Current status	Pending federal litigation, early stage

What Happened on November 10, 2026?

The FTC expanded its existing lawsuit rather than filing a completely separate federal enforcement case.

The amended complaint, filed as Document 67, adds claims brought by five state governments under their own consumer-protection laws. It also incorporates additional details about the scope of data allegedly shared with advertising platforms.

The seven jurisdictions now involved are:

1. California, represented by Los Angeles County Counsel on behalf of the People of California.
2. Utah, through its Division of Consumer Protection.
3. Arizona, through its attorney general.
4. Florida, through its attorney general.
5. Nebraska, through its attorney general.
6. Ohio, through its attorney general.
7. Wisconsin.

The FTC remains a separate federal plaintiff. The agency said its commissioners voted 2–0 to authorize the amended complaint.

Why does adding five states matter?

The additional states can seek relief under their own consumer-protection statutes. Depending on the law and the allegations, that may include injunctions, monetary relief, restitution, civil penalties and other remedies.

The expansion also shows that the alleged practices are being challenged by authorities across multiple jurisdictions, which can increase settlement pressure and the number of legal theories the court must address.

However, adding states does not establish that the company violated any law. The government must still prove its claims, and Hims & Hers has the opportunity to contest them.

Core Allegations: Three Alleged Practices

Hims & Hers is a telehealth provider offering online treatments for conditions such as hair loss, erectile dysfunction, mental health and weight management. The FTC and state plaintiffs allege three categories of unlawful conduct:

1. Improper sharing of sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms such as Meta and Snap, despite representing that its services maintain consumer privacy.
2. Deceptive billing: failing to clearly disclose that consumers are charged for prescriptions nearly immediately after submitting an intake form, even while telling users they will consult with a medical provider to find a treatment “right for them.”
3. Difficult cancellation of recurring subscriptions, allegedly in violation of ROSCA and related consumer-protection laws.

What Medical Information Does the FTC Say Hims & Hers Shared?

The privacy allegations concern how the company allegedly used information collected when consumers visited its websites, created accounts or sought medical treatments.

The FTC says Hims marketed its services as private and discreet and represented that sensitive information would be accessed only by medical professionals involved in a customer’s care.

According to the amended complaint, the company nevertheless shared information with advertising platforms through customer lists and website tracking technologies.

What information could reveal a person’s medical concerns?

A customer’s interest in a particular treatment may reveal sensitive information even without a complete medical record being shared.

Examples discussed in the complaint include interest in treatments for:

• Erectile dysfunction.
• Premature ejaculation.
• Mental health conditions.
• Other sexual-health concerns.

The FTC alleges that advertising audiences were named or categorized in ways that communicated these treatment interests to outside advertising companies.

The complaint does not establish that every customer’s entire medical record, diagnosis history or prescription record was transmitted to an advertiser.

Its central allegation is that information linking identifiable consumers to sensitive treatment interests was shared contrary to privacy assurances.

Did Hims & Hers Share 14 Million Customers’ Information With Meta?

The number requires careful interpretation.

The November 10 complaint alleges that between September 2020 and June 2023, Hims uploaded approximately 14 million consumer email addresses to Meta to create advertising audiences.

According to regulators, Meta matched approximately 10 million of those email-address entries with Meta user identifiers.

The complaint separately alleges that Hims created 90 lookalike advertising audiences between March 2020 and September 2023.

The 14 million figure should not be described as 14 million confirmed unique patients whose full medical files were exposed.

The complaint describes uploaded email-address information and advertising audience activity. The number of unique people affected and the precise information associated with each individual are separate factual questions.

How could advertising audiences expose treatment interests?

The FTC identifies audience labels that referred to particular products or conditions.

It alleges some labels used codewords such as Apollo, Atlas and Zeus.

According to the complaint, the meaning of those labels was available to Meta through marketing communications, potentially connecting particular users with mental health, premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction treatment interests.

The government argues that these practices contradicted the company’s privacy representations. Hims & Hers disputes the broader claims.

What Is the Alleged Role of Meta Pixel and Snap?

The complaint describes two methods of alleged information sharing.

Customer-list uploads

Regulators say Hims uploaded lists of customer email addresses to advertising platforms.

Those lists were allegedly connected to whether users had registered for certain treatments or completed treatment-related intake forms.

Advertisers can use such lists to match customer records with social-media accounts or develop advertising audiences.

Website tracking technology

The FTC also alleges Hims used tracking tools that recorded events associated with visitors’ interactions with its websites. Reporting on the original complaint states these included the Meta Pixel and Meta’s Conversions API.

Events could include registering for treatment or progressing through a medical intake process.

The government contends that these events, together with treatment-related categories, transmitted sensitive information to advertising platforms.

The complaint identifies Meta and Snap as major examples.

It also refers to other advertising technologies associated with companies such as Google, Microsoft, Pinterest, TikTok and Reddit.

The allegation is about how health-related information was used for advertising, not a claim that Meta or Snap hacked Hims & Hers.

This distinction is essential when comparing the case with conventional data breach lawsuits.

What Does the FTC Allege About Prescription Billing?

The second major part of the case concerns when customers were charged and whether they understood what they were purchasing.

Hims & Hers offers telehealth services for conditions such as hair loss, sexual health, mental health and weight management.

Customers seeking certain prescription treatments complete an online intake process that collects information about their medical history and treatment interests.

Regulators say Hims advertised opportunities for customers to consult healthcare providers before deciding on treatment. According to the complaint, the company tells consumers they can connect with a medical provider to determine an appropriate treatment, yet collects billing information during the intake process.

The complaint alleges that customers were instead often enrolled in a recurring prescription plan and charged shortly after a provider reviewed their intake responses.

What was allegedly misleading?

The FTC points to advertising and checkout representations suggesting consumers would not pay until a provider prescribed treatment, and that they would consult with a provider to find a treatment “right for them.”

Regulators say many consumers reasonably understood that they would have an opportunity to discuss and approve a treatment before committing to payment.

According to the complaint, some customers were charged and enrolled without receiving the consultation experience they expected. Trade reporting on the original complaint states the lawsuit alleges most consumers do not receive a consultation with a provider.

Does the FTC claim no doctor ever reviewed prescriptions?

No.

The distinction is between a medical provider reviewing an intake form and a consumer receiving a meaningful consultation before accepting a recommended treatment.

The FTC alleges customers did not always receive the opportunity for dialogue they believed had been promised.

The complaint does not establish that every prescription issued through Hims & Hers lacked medical review.

Why Are Subscription Cancellations Part of the Lawsuit?

The FTC also challenges the company’s recurring-subscription practices.

The complaint alleges that consumers were not always clearly told when refill charges would occur, and that some were unable to cancel before their next shipment was processed. It also alleges they encountered obstacles when trying to cancel.

Before April 2023

According to regulators, most customers had to contact customer service by telephone, email or chat to cancel.

The FTC alleges that customer-service delays and additional verification requirements sometimes prevented timely cancellations.

After online cancellation became more widely available

The complaint says the company introduced an online cancellation process for most consumers in 2023.

However, regulators allege the option was difficult to find.

The process allegedly directed customers through screens for adding or removing products before showing a cancellation option.

Even after selecting cancellation, consumers allegedly had to complete additional questions or confirmation steps.

The FTC argues those procedures created unnecessary barriers to stopping recurring charges.

These allegations concern historical practices described in the complaint. They should not be treated as a verified walkthrough of the company’s current cancellation interface.

What Laws Does the Lawsuit Rely On?

The amended complaint asserts violations of the FTC Act, ROSCA, and the consumer-protection statutes of the participating states (Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin).

FTC Act, Section 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45)

Section 5(a) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

• Deception generally requires a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably and that is material to their decisions.
• Unfairness under 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) requires substantial consumer injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition.

The FTC contends that assurances about medical privacy and billing were misleading because the company’s actual practices allegedly differed from consumers’ reasonable expectations. The agency also alleges material information about data sharing and subscription charges was inadequately disclosed.

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)

ROSCA regulates certain online purchases involving automatically renewing or recurring-payment arrangements (negative option features).

Under 15 U.S.C. § 8403, a seller generally must:

1. Clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information.
2. Obtain the consumer’s express informed consent before charging the consumer.
3. Provide simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges.

A ROSCA violation is treated as a violation of an FTC rule under 15 U.S.C. § 8404, which opens the door to civil penalties and consumer redress. 15 U.S.C. § 8405 separately authorizes state attorneys general to enforce ROSCA. Regulators allege that the company’s subscription practices violated these requirements.

What remedies can regulators seek?

Remedy	Legal basis and notes
Injunctive relief	FTC Act Section 13(b) (15 U.S.C. § 53(b)) authorizes permanent injunctions.
Civil penalties	ROSCA violations are treated as rule violations, which can carry civil penalties under 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). The per-violation amount exceeds $50,000 and is adjusted annually for inflation.
Consumer redress	Available through FTC Act Section 19 (15 U.S.C. § 57b) in appropriate cases.
Limit on equitable money under Section 13(b)	In AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67 (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 13(b) does not authorize the FTC to obtain equitable monetary relief such as restitution. This is why ROSCA and Section 19 theories matter for money claims.
State remedies	Injunctions, restitution, civil penalties and costs under each state’s consumer-protection statute.

Whether any remedy is ultimately awarded depends on the court.

What state laws are involved?

State	Principal consumer-protection law
California	Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.)
Utah	Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (Utah Code § 13-11-1 et seq.)
Arizona	Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.)
Florida	Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.)
Nebraska	Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-301 et seq.)
Ohio	Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01 et seq.)
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Wis. Stat. § 100.18 and related provisions)

These claims expand the potential forms of relief the government plaintiffs may request, subject to the court’s determination.

Other laws that often arise in health-data and subscription cases

The following laws are not confirmed as pleaded counts in the amended complaint, but they form the legal backdrop for similar cases and help readers understand the landscape:

Law	Why it matters
FTC Health Breach Notification Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 318)	Applies to vendors of personal health records and related entities, and covers unauthorized disclosures, not just hacks. The FTC used it against GoodRx and Premom. Whether it is pleaded here is not confirmed.
HIPAA (45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164)	Applies only to covered entities and business associates. Enforced by HHS Office for Civil Rights and state attorneys general. No private right of action.
Washington My Health My Data Act (RCW 19.373)	Requires consent for collecting and sharing consumer health data and allows private lawsuits. Reported analysis of the original complaint indicated the states were not relying on dedicated consumer-health-data statutes for their privacy claims.
Nevada SB 370 and Connecticut consumer health data provisions	State laws regulating consumer health data and geofencing around health facilities.
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 56 et seq.) and CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	Regulate medical information and treat health data as sensitive personal information.
California Automatic Renewal Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq.)	Sets disclosure, consent and cancellation rules for automatic renewals.
FTC Negative Option Rule (“click-to-cancel,” 16 C.F.R. Part 425)	The FTC finalized amendments in October 2024, but the Eighth Circuit vacated them in July 2025 on procedural grounds. ROSCA remains the main federal subscription statute.
Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631)	Frequently invoked in private pixel-tracking class actions, separate from this government case.

Is This a HIPAA Violation Lawsuit?

The November 10 amended complaint is not a federal HIPAA enforcement action.

The government’s pleaded federal claims arise primarily under the FTC Act and ROSCA, alongside state consumer-protection statutes.

HIPAA imposes privacy requirements on covered healthcare entities and their business associates, but its application depends on the entity, the data and the circumstances.

The FTC can separately pursue misleading health-data privacy representations under consumer-protection law.

Even where HIPAA applies, the law generally does not provide an individual private right to sue directly for damages. Enforcement is carried out by the HHS Office for Civil Rights and, in some cases, state attorneys general.

HHS has also issued guidance on online tracking technologies used by HIPAA-regulated entities. In 2024, a federal court in Texas (American Hospital Association v. Becerra) vacated part of that guidance concerning certain IP-address and URL tracking combinations. That ruling shows how unsettled the law on tracking technologies remains.

Consumers should therefore not assume that this FTC lawsuit establishes a HIPAA violation or automatically entitles every patient to statutory compensation.

How Have Similar Health-Privacy and Subscription Cases Ended?

The FTC has brought other actions involving digital health companies and recurring billing. These cases involved different facts, and none predicts the outcome here:

• GoodRx (2023): The FTC alleged sharing of prescription and health information with advertising platforms. The company agreed to a civil penalty of about $1.5 million, the first action under the Health Breach Notification Rule.
• BetterHelp (2023): The FTC alleged sharing of mental health questionnaire data with advertisers. The company agreed to pay about $7.8 million, used for consumer refunds.
• Premom / Easy Healthcare (2023): Alleged sharing of fertility-tracking data, resolved with relatively modest penalties.
• Cerebral (2024): Alleged sharing of sensitive mental health information and cancellation problems, resolved with about $7 million in monetary relief.
• Amazon Prime (2025): A ROSCA case resolved with a settlement reported at about $2.5 billion, including civil penalties and consumer refunds, showing how ROSCA cases can produce refunds.

Those outcomes show regulators can obtain refunds and penalties in health-data and subscription cases. They do not mean a similar result is guaranteed here.

What Has Hims & Hers Said in Response?

Hims & Hers disputes the government’s allegations.

When the lawsuit was first filed in July, the company characterized it as an attempt to generate headlines and said it ignores evidence provided during a nearly three-year FTC investigation.

Following the November 10 amendment, a company spokesperson stated that the company “will vigorously defend ourselves against these follow-on claims, which rely on the same flawed allegations advanced in the government’s lawsuit.” The statement was reported by Reuters.

In its November 2026 SEC filing, Hims & Hers disclosed that it had attempted to negotiate a resolution with the FTC before the July lawsuit, but those discussions were unsuccessful.

The company also stated that it believes it has substantial legal arguments and intends to defend the case.

Trade reporting also noted that the company’s shares fell about 12% on July 29, 2026 after news of the original lawsuit, and that a plaintiffs’ law firm announced a separate investigation into whether the board breached fiduciary duties. Those are separate matters from the government case.

Has the company filed a motion to dismiss?

Yes.

Hims & Hers filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on October 22, 2026.

The company’s November 9 SEC filing identified a January 14, 2027 hearing date for that motion.

Because regulators filed an amended complaint the following day, the court may adjust the briefing schedule or the motion proceedings.

No ruling dismissing or resolving the amended lawsuit had been verified as of November 11, 2026.

Did Hims & Hers Set Aside $60 Million for the Lawsuit?

Yes, but it is important to understand what that means.

In its third-quarter 2026 SEC filing, the company reported a legal contingency accrual of approximately $60 million for the FTC matter as of September 30, 2026.

That is an accounting estimate concerning possible litigation-related obligations.

It is not:

• A court-approved $60 million settlement.
• A fund reserved for automatic payments to customers.
• A guaranteed consumer refund amount.
• An admission of liability.

The company cautioned that the figure could change materially as the case progresses.

It also said the ultimate outcome and potential additional financial exposure remained uncertain.

Could Hims & Hers Customers Eventually Receive Refunds?

Potentially, but there is no approved consumer compensation program.

The amended complaint requests monetary relief and other remedies, including restitution and applicable civil penalties.

If regulators prevail or the parties reach a settlement, some customers could potentially become eligible for refunds or other forms of relief, depending on the terms.

However, a government enforcement lawsuit is different from a consumer class action.

A court does not automatically order equal payments to everyone who used the service. Civil penalties are generally paid to the government, while redress or restitution, if ordered or agreed, depends on the order or settlement terms.

Who could potentially be affected?

Relevant consumers may include people who:

• Used the Hims or Hers platform to seek treatment for sensitive health conditions.
• Believe their treatment-related information was shared for advertising without adequate disclosure.
• Experienced unexpected prescription charges.
• Were enrolled in recurring subscriptions without understanding the terms.
• Encountered difficulty canceling subscriptions or stopping refill charges.

These are potential categories of concern, not an approved settlement class definition.

The FTC has not published a claim period or eligibility list for a refund program.

Is there a Hims & Hers FTC claim form?

No.

There is currently no settlement administrator, approved refund claim form, claim deadline or payment schedule for this government case. Be cautious of any website, email or text claiming to offer a “Hims & Hers FTC refund” for a fee or personal information. Genuine FTC refund programs do not charge fees.

What Should Customers Do if They Believe They Were Improperly Charged?

People who believe they were enrolled or billed without proper authorization can take practical steps without waiting for the lawsuit.

First, review their account’s current subscription status and billing history.

Next, request cancellation through the company’s current official customer-support or account-management process.

Keep written records of the request and any confirmation.

Consumers should also preserve receipts, statements, advertisements, screenshots, subscription terms and communications about treatment recommendations.

If a charge is disputed, contact the card issuer or bank promptly. Applicable federal protections, such as billing-error procedures for credit cards under the Fair Credit Billing Act, and dispute deadlines may depend on the payment method and circumstances.

A complaint can also be submitted to the FTC through:

https://reportfraud.ftc.gov

Consumers can separately contact their state attorney general or consumer-protection agency.

Reporting a complaint does not automatically add someone to the lawsuit or guarantee a refund.

What if You Are Concerned About Your Medical Privacy?

The FTC’s allegations concern the possibility that information about treatment interests was used for advertising in ways customers did not expect.

Consumers may wish to review the service’s current privacy disclosures and any available marketing or data-sharing preferences.

They can also ask the company about applicable rights to access, correct, delete or restrict certain personal information under state privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act where it applies.

The available rights and exceptions differ by state and by the type of medical data involved.

Practical steps include reviewing social-media ad settings to limit off-platform activity tracking, using browser privacy tools, and being cautious about sharing health details on websites that use advertising trackers.

The FTC case does not establish that every Hims & Hers account was affected or that all patient health records were exposed.

Is This the Same as the Hims & Hers Data Breach Class Action?

No. These are different legal matters.

The existing AllAboutLawyer article Hims & Hers Class Action Lawsuit, Your Medical Data Was Exposed — Here Is What Is Happening discusses separate litigation arising from a February 2026 cybersecurity incident involving the company’s customer-support systems.

That incident allegedly involved unauthorized access to information maintained through a third-party service platform.

The FTC lawsuit, by contrast, challenges the company’s alleged voluntary use of information for advertising and its prescription subscription practices.

Issue	FTC privacy and billing lawsuit	February 2026 data breach litigation
Main concern	Alleged misleading sharing and subscription practices	Alleged unauthorized access during a cyberattack
Government enforcement	FTC and seven state jurisdictions	Separate private litigation
Principal events	Advertising and subscription practices over multiple years	February 2026 incident
Current consumer settlement	None	No approved settlement identified in existing coverage
Claim form	None	None identified

There is also a separate putative privacy class action, Doe v. Hims & Hers Health Inc., which the company says concerns substantially the same underlying advertising-data allegations as the FTC case.

That private case is distinct from both the FTC enforcement action and the February cybersecurity incident.

How Does This Compare With Other Healthcare Website Tracking Cases?

Healthcare website privacy disputes increasingly involve tracking tools rather than conventional cyberattacks.

For example, Fertility Centers of Illinois $375,000 Privacy Settlement, Claim an Estimated $30 to $60 If You Used fcionline.com (Deadline December 3, 2026) concerns allegations involving Meta Pixel and Google tracking tools on a fertility provider’s website.

Another example is USC Arcadia Hospital Pixel Tracking Class Action Settlement, $200,000 Fund, Who Qualifies and the December 7 Deadline.

Those are separate private settlements with their own eligibility rules.

Neither creates a payment right for Hims & Hers users.

Unlike those cases, the FTC’s Hims & Hers action also directly challenges prescription subscription billing and cancellation procedures.

Hims & Hers FTC Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Development
2017	Hims begins offering telehealth services
2018	Hers launches as a related service
2019 onward	Period during which regulators allege problematic billing and cancellation practices
March 2020–September 2023	Period of certain alleged advertising-audience activities
September 2020–June 2023	Approximately 14 million email-address entries allegedly uploaded to Meta
October 2023	FTC issues civil investigative demand
Through at least May 2024	Alleged sensitive information sharing described by regulators
July 29, 2026	FTC, Utah and California representatives file original lawsuit
August 31, 2026	FTC posts additional complaint materials
October 22, 2026	Hims & Hers files motion to dismiss
November 9, 2026	Company files quarterly financial report discussing litigation
November 10, 2026	Five additional states join through amended complaint; FTC votes 2–0 to authorize
November 11, 2026	Lawsuit remains pending; no approved consumer refund
January 14, 2027	Motion hearing date identified in company filing, subject to procedural changes

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the FTC suing Hims & Hers?

Yes. The FTC filed its original lawsuit in July 2026 and amended it on November 10, adding five state plaintiffs.

Which seven states are involved?

California, Utah, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. California’s participation is through Los Angeles County Counsel.

Is Hims & Hers accused of sharing medical data with Facebook?

The FTC alleges the company shared sensitive treatment-related information with Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram, including through customer-list uploads and tracking technologies.

Did Hims & Hers share information with Snapchat?

The amended complaint alleges the company uploaded customer lists to Snap that contained information associated with particular treatment interests.

Were 14 million patients affected?

The complaint alleges approximately 14 million email-address entries were uploaded to Meta during a defined period. This does not establish that 14 million unique patients had complete medical records exposed.

Did the company illegally charge customers?

That is one of the government’s allegations. No court has yet determined that the challenged charges violated the law.

Can I get a refund from Hims & Hers?

There is no approved FTC refund program. Consumers with specific disputed charges can request assistance from the company or their payment provider.

Is there a $60 million Hims & Hers settlement?

No. The company disclosed a roughly $60 million litigation contingency accrual. That is not a settlement fund.

Does the lawsuit involve HIPAA?

The government complaint is brought under the FTC Act, ROSCA and state consumer-protection laws. It is not a HIPAA enforcement proceeding.

What is ROSCA?

The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405) requires clear disclosure of material terms, express informed consent and simple cancellation for online recurring-payment offers.

What penalties could Hims & Hers face?

The government seeks permanent injunctions, monetary judgments, restitution and civil penalties. Whether any are awarded is up to the court or a settlement.

Is this a class action?

The FTC lawsuit is a government enforcement action, not a certified private class action. Separate private lawsuits have also been filed against the company.

Has Hims & Hers admitted wrongdoing?

No. The company disputes the allegations and intends to defend the lawsuit.

Do customers need to submit a claim?

No court-approved claim form exists for the FTC action.

Will every Hims & Hers customer be included in a future refund?

Not necessarily. Any future compensation process would have its own eligibility rules.

Where can consumers report suspected deceptive billing?

Consumers can submit complaints to the FTC at https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ and contact relevant state consumer-protection authorities.

Should I stop using Hims & Hers?

That is a personal decision. The allegations are unproven. Consumers worried about subscriptions can review and cancel through official channels, and those concerned about privacy can review the company’s privacy settings and policies.

What Happens Next in the Hims & Hers FTC Lawsuit?

The case will continue in the Northern District of California.

The court must address the amended allegations and the company’s legal defenses.

Possible developments include further motion practice, discovery concerning data-sharing arrangements and subscription systems, and eventual settlement negotiations or trial proceedings.

The government’s requested remedies include orders stopping unlawful practices, monetary relief and penalties where authorized.

The case is in its early stages. No rulings on the merits have been issued, and the allegations have not been proven in court.

For consumers, the next meaningful developments will be rulings on the company’s dismissal arguments, any changes to its business practices and any court-approved compensation arrangement.

As the litigation proceeds, further developments, including any motions, discovery or potential resolution, will be handled through the federal court process in the Northern District of California. AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when significant court action occurs.

The Bottom Line

The November 10, 2026 expansion of the Hims & Hers FTC lawsuit adds five states to an existing federal consumer-protection case.

Regulators now representing seven state jurisdictions, together with the FTC, accuse the telehealth company of misleading customers about medical privacy, prescription charges and recurring subscription cancellations.

The amended complaint contains detailed allegations about advertising-data sharing, including approximately 14 million email-address entries uploaded to Meta during an earlier period.

Hims & Hers disputes those claims.

No liability finding, settlement, consumer refund amount or claim deadline has been established.

Consumers who believe they experienced unauthorized charges can preserve their records and use existing billing-dispute and complaint procedures.

Anyone following the lawsuit should distinguish this government enforcement action from the company’s separate February 2026 data breach litigation.

Official Court Documents and Sources

1. FTC — November 10, 2026 Announcement: Five States Join Hims & Hers Lawsuit — Official explanation of the expanded enforcement case.
2. FTC — First Amended Complaint, November 10, 2026 (PDF) — The 68-page court filing, Document 67, containing privacy, billing, cancellation and state-law allegations.
3. FTC — Official Case Docket and Proceedings — FTC Case No. X260029 and federal lawsuit No. 3:26-cv-07871-VC.
4. FTC — Original July 29, 2026 Lawsuit Announcement — Background on the initial case and allegations.
5. Hims & Hers — Third-Quarter 2026 SEC Form 10-Q — Company’s litigation disclosures, October motion to dismiss, $60 million accrual and related private cases.
6. Federal Court Docket — FTC v. Hims & Hers Health Inc. — Federal case record.
7. Reuters — Five States Join FTC Suit Against Hims & Hers, November 10, 2026 — Independent reporting and company response.
8. FTC Act — 15 U.S.C. § 45 — Federal prohibition against unfair or deceptive practices.
9. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act — 15 U.S.C. § 8403 — Requirements concerning online negative-option transactions.
10. FTC — Report Fraud — Official consumer complaint portal.
11. Venable — FTC and States Take Action Against Hims & Hers: Key Privacy Takeaways — Legal analysis of the original complaint.
12. Alston & Bird — FTC and States Sue Hims & Hers over Subscription Billing, Cancellation, and Health Data Practices — ROSCA analysis.
13. Troutman Pepper Privacy — Subscriptions Meet Sensitive Data: The FTC and States Sue Hims & Hers — Analysis of the combined privacy and subscription theories.
14. MobiHealthNews — FTC, States Sue Hims & Hers Over Alleged Health Data Sharing — Reporting on Meta Pixel and Conversions API allegations.
15. ConsumerAffairs — FTC Sues Hims & Hers Over Alleged Privacy Violations and Deceptive Billing — Company’s initial response.
16. FTC Health Breach Notification Rule — 16 C.F.R. Part 318 — Federal rule on unauthorized disclosures of health information by non-HIPAA entities.
17. HIPAA Privacy Rule — 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 — Federal health-privacy regulations.

Research and authorship: Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher at AllAboutLawyer.com, using the November 10 amended complaint, official FTC announcements, Hims & Hers’ November 2026 SEC filing, federal court records, Reuters reporting and published legal analyses.

How we verify: We compare news reports against primary documents (court filings, agency releases and SEC filings) and clearly separate allegations from findings. We update this article when significant court action occurs.

Verification note: The complaint establishes what regulators allege, not that the alleged practices were unlawful. The approximately 14 million figure refers to uploaded email-address entries and must not be treated as a confirmed count of unique patients. The company’s $60 million litigation accrual is not a consumer settlement. Statutes and past enforcement cases are summarized for context and do not predict the outcome of this case.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal-information website, not a law firm. This article provides general legal information and news reporting, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations remain contested, and any future consumer relief depends on court proceedings or another legally authorized resolution. Consumers with specific legal questions should consult a licensed attorney.