FTC and states sue Lens.com over alleged hidden fees and subscriptions
Oct 11, 2026 edition · GC-2026-0177 · Published 2026-10-11 · Version 4 · Pending litigation
The FTC and Utah and Nevada allege that Lens.com’s low advertised prices concealed substantial mandatory fees. Their complaint also challenges AutoRefill price and cancellation disclosures. The case concerns alleged consumer deception in the purchase process and remains for the court to decide.
What happened
The FTC’s announcement describes a joint lawsuit with Utah and Nevada against Lens.com, owner Cary Samourkachian and affiliated Speed Commerce LLC. The complaint alleges that low prices in search ads and on the website became much higher prices at checkout through mandatory charges labelled Taxes & fees. According to the agencies, those charges routinely doubled advertised prices, were positioned outside the visible portion of checkout and could be bypassed by following a prominent Continue prompt without seeing the fee line.
The allegations also concern the nature of the label and recurring purchases. The FTC says the label suggested sales taxes even where contact lenses were tax-exempt, and that AutoRefill enrollment did not clearly disclose the same mandatory fees before billing information was obtained. The complaint further challenges disclosure of cancellation instructions and the deadline to avoid the next shipment. It alleges federal and state consumer-protection violations and was filed in federal court in Nevada. These are complaint allegations, not a judgment or settlement; the FTC states that the court will decide the case.
Scope and timing
- Authority status
- Pending litigation
- Applicability
- Operationally relevant
- Audience
- Provider networks, Health-tech
- Jurisdiction
- Federal, Utah, Nevada
Why it matters
For consumer health products, a low advertised price may mislead if mandatory fees emerge later or recurring charges obscure the actual cost. Price, subscription and cancellation disclosures need review as one purchase journey.
Recommended action
Review advertised total prices, fee disclosure, affirmative subscription consent and cancellation flows for direct-to-consumer health products.
Case details
- agencies
- Federal Trade Commission, Utah Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General
- entities
- Lens.com Inc., Cary Samourkachian, Speed Commerce LLC
- action Type
- Civil complaint
- event Date
- 2026-10-02
- alleged Conduct
- Alleged deceptive prices, hidden fees and negative-option practices.
- resolution
- Civil complaint pending. No judgment or liability determination is asserted.
Operational lessons
- Review advertised total prices, fee disclosure, affirmative subscription consent and cancellation flows for direct-to-consumer health products.
Sources
- FTC and states sue Lens.com for misrepresenting contact-lens pricesOfficial · FTC · 2026-10-02 · Source review 2026-10-11
Complete edition and supplemental material
This finding in the complete approved report →Regulatory horizons, CIA trends and implementation trackers remain in the full report.
Read the entire Enforcement Briefing report →