The FTC says Lens.com doubled the price shoppers saw in Google ads

The Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of Utah and Nevada filed a joint complaint on October 2, 2026 alleging that Lens.com’s “Taxes & fees” charge routinely doubles the price the contact-lens seller advertises, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. The complaint also alleges the low prices appeared in Google search ads and on the retailer’s website while a much higher figure showed up only at checkout.

The filing is a set of allegations. No court has ruled, nothing has been settled, and the agency’s announcement does not report any finding that Lens.com broke the law. The relief the plaintiffs seek is described below.

The complaint and what it alleges

The FTC’s announcement of the lawsuit uses the word “alleges” throughout. It says the FTC, Utah and Nevada allege that Lens.com advertises artificially low prices, and that the joint complaint alleges the hidden fees “routinely double the price it advertises.” The press release gives no example prices from the Google ads, so the precise gap on any single pair of lenses is not part of the public summary.

The named defendants are Lens.com Inc., its owner Cary Samourkachian and an affiliated company, Speed Commerce LLC. The case sits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the same court where earlier consumer suits over the same fee label are pending, and the two states joined the FTC as co-plaintiffs rather than filing separate actions.

FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Christopher Mufarrige said: “Millions of Americans rely on contact lenses to perform their daily tasks. Lens.com advertised one price for contact lenses but charged a substantially higher price at checkout, deceiving consumers about the cost of this healthcare necessity.”

Six statutes and the AutoRefill claims

The price claim is only one part of the complaint. The FTC lists violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, along with state law: the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Utah Automatic Renewal Contracts Act and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The press release also describes alleged deceptive practices around Lens.com’s AutoRefill subscription and inadequate cancellation disclosures, and it says the “Taxes & fees” label itself is misleading.

The FTC’s case page for Lens.com, Inc. carries the complaint as a PDF and shows that the relief requested is a permanent injunction, monetary judgments, civil penalty judgments and other relief. The press release does not name a dollar amount. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize staff to file the complaint.

Earlier consumer suits over the same fee

The government complaint is not the first legal challenge to how Lens.com presents the charge. Truth in Advertising’s case tracker lists five consumer class actions filed in the same federal court between February and April 2024, alleging that the retailer fails to include all of its mandatory fees in advertised prices and mislabels a processing fee as “Taxes & Fees” even though none of it is tax. All five were pending when the tracker was last updated, with no resolution announced.

One of them has produced a ruling. Bloomberg Law reported that U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey let a false advertising claim in the case brought by Adam Nail proceed, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an undisclosed fee claim, while dismissing claims for injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement. That ruling decided only whether the claim could go forward, not whether the allegation is true.

The factual questions and the fee rule that does not apply

For the FTC and the two states, the central factual questions are the ones in the press release: whether the “Taxes & fees” line was a mandatory charge not reflected in the advertised price, whether it routinely doubled that price as alleged, and whether shoppers could see it before checkout. The agency describes the lenses as a healthcare necessity, which is the frame Mufarrige used, and a court would also weigh the alleged AutoRefill and cancellation-disclosure practices that the complaint adds to the pricing claim.

The FTC’s separate Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, effective May 12, 2025, requires total-price display for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, but it covers only those two industries and is not among the statutes the press release lists against Lens.com. The government’s case therefore rests on general deception law, the online-sales statute and the state consumer-protection acts, which is why the complaint has to prove the pricing was misleading rather than simply that a fee was added late.

Consumer costs of “hundreds of millions of dollars” are, in the complaint’s own figure, also an allegation rather than an adjudicated total. Lens.com’s response to the complaint is not part of the FTC’s announcement, and the record available at the time of writing contains no statement from the company.

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

More from Morning Overview