Five more states joined the FTC’s suit claiming Hims & Hers shared health data with Meta and Snap

Five more states, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, signed on as co-plaintiffs on Nov. 10 in the Federal Trade Commission’s federal court case against telehealth seller Hims & Hers Health. The amended complaint keeps its central privacy allegation intact: that the company promised patients their health information would stay private while passing details to advertising platforms, Meta and Snap among them. Utah and California were already on board when the agency sued in July, which puts seven states alongside the FTC.

Tech news in one quick read: Get the most interesting stories in startups, tech and programming, each with a short TLDR, in one daily email from TLDR.

Subscribe to TLDR →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.

Every statement below describes allegations in a complaint. The court will decide whether any of it is proven, and the FTC’s announcement carries no response from the company.

Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin join Utah and California

The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize staff to file the amended complaint, according to the FTC’s Nov. 10 announcement. The case sits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was first filed on July 29, 2026 by the agency with Utah and California as partners. California is acting through Los Angeles County Counsel. Hims & Hers is a San Francisco-based seller of prescription treatments directly to consumers. Each newcomer brings its own consumer protection statute, while Utah’s claims rest on its Consumer Sales Practices Act and California’s on its False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, per the July announcement. The amended complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and the consumer protection laws of Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Utah and California.

The filing itself is posted on the FTC’s case timeline entry for Nov. 10, where it is listed as a first amended complaint. It asks for a permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment, a monetary judgment, a civil penalty judgment and other relief. Adding states widens the group of officials who can pursue penalties under their own laws, which a federal agency acting alone cannot do.

The Meta and Snap data-sharing allegation

The privacy count is the one the new states were drawn to, and the original complaint spelled out the mechanics. The FTC’s July announcement says Hims & Hers sent customer lists to advertising platforms and used tracking technologies that relayed website “Events” to Meta, Snap and other third parties. Those events can reveal that a person was looking at, or signed up for, a particular prescription treatment.

The agency contrasts that conduct with what the company told patients. Hims & Hers advertised that it would protect patient privacy, according to the complaint, and marketed a service in which a consumer could connect with a medical provider to find a treatment that is “right for them.”

Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said when the case was filed in July that the agency “will not hesitate to act on behalf of consumers.” The November release adds no new quotation from an official, so the July statement remains the agency’s on-record framing of the dispute.

Billing and cancellation claims under ROSCA

Privacy is only one of three groups of claims. The second concerns how and when customers are charged. The FTC alleges that Hims & Hers bills for prescriptions almost immediately after a person submits an intake form, before most customers get a consultation with a provider or a chance to approve the treatment, and then enrolls them in recurring subscriptions. The company’s marketing, the agency says, also told consumers they would not be charged until medication was prescribed.

The third group covers leaving. Before 2023, the complaint says, most customers could cancel only by phone, email or chat. When online cancellation arrived that year, the cancel button was allegedly tucked behind an “add/remove items” option and several further steps. The agency also alleges the company did not clearly say when monthly refills would ship, which made it harder to cancel before the next charge. Those allegations are brought under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, the federal law that governs online negative-option subscriptions, in addition to the FTC Act. The Commission’s stated standard for filing is that it has reason to believe the law is being violated and that a proceeding is in the public interest.

Relief sought and the Northern District of California docket

The FTC’s own page for the matter, listed as FTC v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., is where later filings should appear. For now the record consists of the July complaint and the Nov. 10 amendment, and the FTC states that the case “will be decided by the court” after the Commission found reason to believe the law was being violated.

What remains open is the size of any monetary or civil penalty judgment, which the amended complaint requests but does not quantify in the FTC’s public summary. With seven state plaintiffs now named, the next filings from the company will show whether it contests the privacy allegations, the billing allegations, or both, and whether the added states change how a court weighs the penalties each of them can seek.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

Tech news in one quick read: Subscribe to TLDR →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.