Published: October 8, 2026

The Federal Trade Commission has signaled that health care pricing is not merely a billing or transparency issue. It is also an advertising and consumer protection issue.

In the span of four days, the FTC sued online contact lens retailer Lens.com over allegedly deceptive pricing practices and issued warning letters to 24 of the nation’s largest health care services companies warning that incomplete, inaccurate or untimely pricing information may violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Combined, these actions send a clear message to the health care industry to review their pricing structures and practices for clarity and transparency. However, the significance extends beyond the health care industry to any business that presents a price directly to consumers, including med spas, wellness businesses and subscription services. Every consumer-facing business should consider whether the advertised price, viewed in context, accurately communicates what the consumer will actually pay at the time of purchasing the product or service.

Below, we examine the FTC’s latest actions and outline key takeaways, considerations and compliance strategies for health care providers, wellness businesses and any other business that markets products or services directly to consumers.

Two FTC Actions in Four Days Put Advertised Pricing in the Spotlight

October 2: FTC sues Lens.com over allegedly deceptive pricing

On October 2, 2026, the FTC, joined by the State of Nevada and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, sued Lens.com, Inc., its affiliate Speed Commerce, LLC and the companies’ owner, Cary Samourkachian. According to the complaint, Lens.com advertised low contact lens prices in sponsored Google search ads and on its website, promised “NO HIDDEN FEES” and then added a substantial, mandatory “Taxes & fees” charge during checkout that “routinely doubles the initially advertised price.”

The FTC alleges that the charge appeared below the portion of the checkout screen visible to consumers, while a prominent “Continue” button encouraged consumers to proceed without seeing it.

The FTC also alleges that the “Taxes & fees” label was itself misleading because it implied that the charge consisted of sales tax even though many states exempt contact lenses from sales tax or impose no sales tax at all.

The complaint further alleges that Lens.com used the same advertised prices to enroll consumers in AutoRefill, a negative option subscription program that automatically ships and charges for replacement lenses at set intervals, without disclosing the “Taxes & fees” charge before obtaining billing information, and that cancellation terms appeared only on pages outside the purchase flow. In addition to Section 5 of the FTC Act, the complaint asserts claims under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Nevada and Utah consumer protection and automatic renewal laws.

October 5: FTC warns 24 health care companies about pricing

Four days later, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent warning letters to 24 of the nation’s largest health care services companies.

The letters remind recipients of their obligation under Section 5 to provide patients with timely, accurate and complete pricing information and warn that failing to do so may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice. The letters characterize the price of health care services as a material term, describe existing federal price transparency requirements as a “regulatory floor” and caution that “the CMS rules do not provide a safe harbor from liability under the FTC Act.”

The letters focus on non-emergency services that are scheduled in advance. The FTC specifically warns that pricing disclosures may be deceptive when they omit charges such as physician or facility fees and therefore present only part of the expected cost.

The two actions are different in form, but they point to the same underlying concern: whether the price communicated to a consumer accurately reflects the economic commitment the consumer is being asked to make.

The FTC’s Pricing Transparency Expectations Extend to Any For-Profit Consumer-Facing Business

Section 5 applies broadly to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC’s .com Disclosures guide likewise makes clear that the same consumer protection principles apply whether a claim appears in a traditional advertisement, on a website, on a mobile device or through another digital medium.

“Clear and Conspicuous” Does Not Mean “Disclosed Somewhere”

Disclosures required to prevent an advertisement from being deceptive or unfair must be “clearly and conspicuously” displayed in a way that the reasonable consumer will perceive and understand the qualifying disclosure. The FTC’s standard for disclosures is functional rather than formulaic. The Commission focuses on whether consumers are likely to notice, read and understand the information in the context of the advertisement as a whole.

The FTC’s .com Disclosures guide instructs advertisers to consider the placement of a disclosure and its proximity to the claim, its prominence, whether it is unavoidable and whether other elements of the advertisement distract from it. The guide advises that disclosures be placed “as close as possible” to the claims they qualify to avoid consumer confusion, and is particularly instructive on pricing, cautioning that disclosures integral to a claim, including information about cost, generally should be disclosed prominently and adjacent to the price claim, not via a hyperlink. However, the FTC does recognize that in certain instances the additional fee details may be too substantial to appear adjacent to the price claim, and in such event a hyperlink may be the most appropriate approach, provided the hyperlink appears adjacent to the price and is clearly labeled to communicate the specific nature of the information it contains. The FTC provides the following key considerations for evaluating the effectiveness of hyperlinks with material pricing disclosures:

● the labeling or description of the hyperlink;

● consistency in the use of hyperlink styles;

● the placement and prominence of the hyperlink on the webpage or screen; and

● the handling of the disclosure on the click-through page or screen.

Later Disclosure May Not Cure a Misleading Price

One key issue in the Lens.com case is the additional “Taxes & fees” at checkout, highlighting the FTC’s well-established position that a disclosure is not necessarily enough to cure an otherwise misleading claim.

The FTC’s .com Disclosures guide explains that a disclosure will not change the net impression of an advertisement if consumers do not notice or comprehend it. It also cautions that if a disclosure is necessary to prevent an advertisement from being deceptive and cannot be made clearly and conspicuously, the advertisement is probably misleading and should not be disseminated. That principle has particular force in the context of pricing, as the FTC has long held that claims or omissions involving the cost of a product or service are likely to be material.

Under the FTC’s deception framework, a representation, omission or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is material. Since the FTC presumes that information concerning cost is material, businesses advertising a price directly to consumers should have processes and procedures in place to consistently evaluate pricing claims for transparency and clarity, including strict guidelines for the placement, content and conspicuousness of pricing disclosures.

Memberships and Automatic Renewals Create a Separate Pricing Risk

Businesses that use memberships, subscriptions or automatic renewal programs face an additional layer of regulatory risk. The Lens.com complaint illustrates the unique issues arising from subscriptions with automatic payments and renewals, as the FTC alleges the company used its advertised prices to induce consumers to enroll in AutoRefill without clearly and conspicuously disclosing material pricing and cancellation information before obtaining billing information as required by ROSCA.

ROSCA applies to any seller that charges consumers for goods or services sold online through a “negative option feature,” meaning an offer in which the consumer’s silence or failure to cancel is treated as acceptance. That covers automatic renewals, continuity plans and free-to-pay conversions. For online transactions involving negative option features, ROSCA requires sellers to clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtain the consumer’s express informed consent before charging and provide simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges. Accordingly, a business using a recurring payment model should evaluate not only the amount of the membership fee, but also how the recurring obligation is presented, when billing information is collected and whether the consumer can readily understand and terminate the arrangement.

The Bottom Line: Follow the Consumer’s Experience

The most important takeaway for businesses is to evaluate pricing from the consumer’s side of the screen. Adding a disclosure is not enough. Businesses must ensure that any information intended to qualify or limit a pricing claim is clearly and conspicuously displayed in close proximity to the price, and is consistently communicated across the website and purchasing process. Companies should also have policies and procedures in place to ensure the consistent application of these controls across all marketing and promotional materials. A business that can demonstrate that its advertised price, clear and conspicuous qualifying disclosures and purchasing process work together to convey a truthful and complete picture of the total cost, consistent with its documented policies and procedures, will be well positioned to withstand FTC scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a health care business advertise a starting price?

Yes. Starting prices are not inherently prohibited. The question is whether the presentation misleads consumers about what they will actually pay. A starting price should be described as such. Where additional mandatory charges or conditions limiting who qualifies apply, those qualifications should be disclosed clearly and close to the starting price, in a manner that allows the consumer to understand the price before making the purchasing decision.

Under FTC guidance, a disclosure can qualify or limit a price claim to avoid a misleading impression, but it cannot cure a false claim.

What does the FTC mean by “clear and conspicuous” disclosure?

The FTC evaluates whether consumers are likely to notice, read and understand the disclosure in the context of the advertisement’s overall impression.

Relevant considerations include placement, proximity to the claim, prominence, whether the disclosure is unavoidable, competing distractions and the clarity of the language. The FTC’s .com Disclosures guide advises that disclosures be placed as close as possible to the claims they qualify and be effective on the devices and platforms through which consumers encounter the advertising.

The legal question is not simply whether a disclosure exists. It is whether the information necessary to prevent deception was effectively conveyed to the reasonable consumer.

Can a business disclose additional fees on another webpage?

This is generally not advisable because costs are considered material to the consumer’s purchasing decision. The more material the information is to the consumer’s purchasing decision, the less reasonable it is to assume that a disclosure appearing elsewhere will adequately qualify the original price claim.

However, when the additional pricing details are too substantial to appear adjacent to the price claim, a hyperlink may be the most appropriate approach. The seller must still ensure that the disclosure is clear and conspicuous such that a reasonable consumer will not be misled under the circumstances. In these instances, the FTC will consider whether the labeling or description of the hyperlink clearly identifies the nature of the information it contains; the placement and prominence of the hyperlink on the webpage or screen; and the handling of the disclosure on the click-through page or screen when determining if the consumer could reasonably understand the final price before making the purchasing decision.

What should businesses review in light of the FTC’s recent actions?

At a minimum, a business should examine its advertised prices, mandatory fees, fee descriptions, estimates, online booking and checkout processes, membership pricing, recurring charges and cancellation procedures from the perspective of a consumer. This analysis should also consider consumer complaints and online reviews concerning unexpected charges. Complaints can be evidence that the company’s disclosures are not being properly understood. The Lens.com complaint, for example, relies heavily on the company’s own complaint records as evidence of deceptive practices. Companies should also be evaluating their internal policies and procedures regarding claims reviews, pricing and consumer complaints to ensure team members developing and approving marketing materials are listening to the feedback, have clear instructions and are consistently adhering to the company’s standards.  

Can an owner or executive be held personally liable?

Yes. The FTC named Lens.com’s owner individually, alleging that he controlled the company’s pricing practices and was aware of consumer complaints.

Individual liability is fact-dependent, but owners and executives should not assume that exposure stops at the corporate entity. Courts have held individuals liable for injunctive relief under the FTC Act where they participated directly in the deceptive practices or had authority to control them, and liable for monetary relief where they also had knowledge of the practices, including reckless indifference to their deceptive nature. Although the FTC can no longer obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, it can still seek civil penalties and consumer redress for ROSCA violations under other provisions.