The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.
The agencies sued to stop the alleged practices. This is a complaint, and no injunction or other remedy has yet been ordered.
Review vendor and customer-facing e-commerce, advertising, and subscription agreements for obligations to display the total price—including mandatory fees—clearly and before purchase or collection of billing information. For subscription and payment vendors, confirm data-processing and checkout-design terms require clear affirmative authorization, prominent renewal and cancellation disclosures, and accessible cancellation flows; assign responsibility for auditing price claims and checkout interfaces. Update customer terms and privacy or subscription notices where they describe recurring charges, cancellation steps, or fees so they match the actual purchase flow.
Entity
Lens.com Inc.
Industry
Retail"contact lens retailer Lens.com Inc."
"October 2, 2026"
"Lens.com hides the “Taxes & fees” line item during the checkout process, hiding the line item below the viewable portion of the screen while encouraging consumers to click a prominent “Continue” button to proceed with the checkout process rather than scroll down."
"The FTC, Utah and Nevada allege these practices violate the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act), the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (Utah CSPA), the Utah Automatic Renewal Contracts Act (Utah ARCA) and Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Nevada DTPA)."
"Today, the Federal Trade Commission, joined by the Utah and Nevada Attorneys General, sued to stop a long-running deceptive pricing scheme run by contact lens retailer Lens.com Inc."
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.