Hims & Hers Asks a Federal Court to Dismiss the FTC's Privacy and Subscription Lawsuit

Hims & Hers Health, Inc. has asked a federal judge to throw out the privacy and subscription lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission and two state regulators. The telehealth company filed its motion to dismiss on October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that the government's complaint fails to state a legal claim on any count.

The motion is the first substantive defense filing since the case began. It does not decide anything: the allegations in the government's complaint are still unproven, and a judge now has to weigh whether they can proceed. For a direct-to-consumer telehealth business whose model depends on online intake and recurring billing, the questions at issue reach well beyond one company.

What Hims asked the court to do

In the filing, Hims asked the court to dismiss all nine counts of the complaint. It contends the government's claims lack the specificity the law requires and that the conduct described was disclosed to consumers. The company also argues that regulators have not established grounds for the monetary or injunctive relief they seek. Reporting on the filing says Hims has reserved about $60 million in connection with the dispute, though the eventual cost is not yet known.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who has scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 7, 2027. Until the judge rules, every count in the complaint stays live.

The allegations Hims is trying to dismiss

The FTC, the People of the State of California (through the Los Angeles County Counsel), and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection sued Hims on July 29, 2026 (Case No. 3:26-cv-07871). The July 2026 complaint brings nine counts across federal and state law:

• Three counts under Section 5 of the FTC Act: deceptive privacy practices, failure to disclose the sharing of health information with advertising platforms, and deceptive intake practices.
• Three counts under ROSCA: failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms, failure to obtain express informed consent, and failure to provide a simple cancellation mechanism.
• Three state-law counts: violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

On the privacy side, the complaint alleges Hims told users their sensitive health information was accessed only by the medical providers giving care, and that its services were private and discreet, while the company shared that information with advertising platforms such as Meta and Snap. According to the complaint, Hims did this by handing over customer lists and by using tracking tools, including the Meta Pixel and Conversions API, to send consumers' website actions (what the complaint calls Events) to those platforms.

On the billing side, the complaint alleges Hims advertised free consultations and showed a $0 charge at intake, then enrolled customers in recurring subscriptions as soon as a provider issued a prescription, and made cancellation unnecessarily hard. The government asks the court for a permanent injunction, monetary relief, an equitable accounting and disgorgement of revenue, and civil penalties under state law.

Hims' privacy argument

Hims counters that its privacy policy, which users acknowledge when they create an account, stated the company may provide personal information to marketing and advertising partners and that this covered sensitive information such as health data. The company argues that the words private and discreet described the convenience of getting care online, not a promise never to share data with advertisers. On that reading, it says, a reasonable consumer was informed by the policy and the FTC's deception theory does not hold.

Hims' subscription and cancellation argument

Hims describes its plans as fixed-term contracts, up to 12 months, paid in installments, and says they do not renew automatically and forever, so they fall outside ROSCA's negative-option rules. It says charges occur only when a prescription is issued, and that intake screens disclosed the price and renewal timing before a user submitted an order (citing a checkout example of $147 for an initial 90-day supply and $147 every 90 days after). On cancellation, the company says customers could cancel by phone, email, or chat, and that it added online cancellation in 2023.

What happens next

The motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the evidence. If Judge Chhabria denies it, in whole or in part, the surviving counts move into discovery and the case continues. If he grants it, some or all claims could be dismissed, sometimes with leave for the government to refile an amended complaint. The January 7, 2027 hearing is the next scheduled milestone.

What this means for telehealth

Two issues in this case are common across the direct-to-consumer telehealth sector. The first is web and app tracking: pixels and conversion tools that pass user activity to advertising platforms are widely used, and regulators have treated health-related data moving through them as sensitive. The second is subscription design: much of telehealth, from men's health to weight-loss programs, runs on recurring billing, which ROSCA and state automatic-renewal laws govern. How the court reads disclosure and consent here will matter to how other telehealth companies document their intake flows and cancellation paths.

Limits and what is not yet decided

Nothing in the case has been decided. The government's allegations are unproven, and Hims' motion is one side's argument that the complaint should not go forward. A ruling on the motion will not resolve whether the underlying conduct violated the law, only whether the claims can proceed. This article is general information about a pending lawsuit, not legal advice; people with questions about their own accounts, data, or billing should consult the company's current terms and a licensed attorney.