Hims & Hers Asks Judge to Dismiss FTC Suit Over Health Data, Billing

Hims & Hers Health filed a motion on Thursday, October 22, asking a California federal judge to throw out the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit over how the telehealth company handles health data and subscriptions. According to a summary of the filing, Hims argues that its privacy policy told users it may share sensitive information with advertising partners. The ruling will show how far a policy disclosure can protect a consumer health company that also markets itself as private.

What did Hims file, and what does it want?

Hims asked the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California to dismiss the case. Quiver Quantitative reports that the motion targets all nine counts and also argues that regulators did not establish grounds for monetary or injunctive relief. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has set a January 7 hearing.

The FTC brought the case on July 29. In its press release, the agency said it was joined by Utah and by California, acting through Los Angeles County Counsel. It alleged that Hims shared sensitive health information about medical conditions with third-party advertising platforms while claiming its services protect privacy.

What does the FTC say Hims did wrong?

The complaint has two strands, one on privacy and one on billing.

• Privacy: CNBC reported that the agency says Hims shared users' sensitive health information with advertising platforms including Meta Platforms and Snap through tracking technologies embedded on its website. The complaint links the data to conditions such as obesity, hair loss and erectile dysfunction.
• Billing: The FTC alleges that Hims charges consumers for prescriptions almost immediately after they submit an intake form. It says this happens even though marketing tells them they will consult a provider to find a treatment that is "right for them."
• Cancellation: The agency also alleges the company made it hard to cancel subscriptions.

How does Hims answer the claims?

On privacy, Hims relies on the text of its own policy. MLex reports that the company says every visitor is directed to the policy and must acknowledge it when creating an account. It quotes the policy as saying Hims "may provide personal information to marketing and advertising partners." Hims calls the policy "judicially noticeable," which means it wants the court to read it at this early stage, without a trial.

Hims also argues that words like "private" and "discreet" described the convenience of online care. In its framing, those words were not a guarantee against sharing data with advertisers.

On billing, Bloomberg reports that Hims says the FTC misapplied the federal law on recurring online charges. The company describes its subscriptions as single-year contracts paid monthly that customers must affirmatively renew. Quiver adds that Hims cites checkout disclosures such as $147 every 90 days. It also says customers could cancel by phone, email or chat, and that broader online cancellation arrived in April 2023.

These are arguments in a motion, not findings. A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint, taken as true, states a claim. It does not decide what actually happened.

Why does this case matter beyond Hims?

The company is large enough that the outcome moves its numbers. Its second-quarter call highlights show revenue up nearly 40% to more than $753 million and nearly 3 million subscribers. They also show a GAAP net loss of $86 million, which included legal contingency accruals for the FTC litigation. The company's results release lists legal contingencies of $47.5 million for the quarter and $62.5 million for the first half. TipRanks, citing Bloomberg, says about $60 million has been set aside and the eventual cost is unclear.

The sources do not agree on every detail. Bloomberg, via Claims Journal, put Hims at about 2.6 million subscribers at the time of the suit, while the earnings summary says nearly 3 million at quarter-end. The length of the FTC probe is also reported differently: Bloomberg said more than a year, while NPR quoted Hims describing a three-year investigation. Treat the subscriber and probe-length figures as approximate until the filings are public.

How does this compare with earlier FTC health-privacy cases?

The FTC has pursued this theory before, and those cases ended in settlements. In February 2023, the FTC announced a proposed $1.5 million settlement with GoodRx. It was the first enforcement of the Health Breach Notification Rule and concerned ad-tracking tools that sent personal and health information to third parties.

The BetterHelp matter followed. HIPAA Journal reported that BetterHelp was accused of sharing sensitive data with platforms including Facebook and Snapchat despite privacy promises. The settlement banned it from sharing health data for advertising and required partial refunds.

Hims is contesting the claims in court instead. The FTC's theory is familiar, but this case adds a billing claim, and the court has not yet ruled on whether a policy disclosure defeats a "private" marketing promise. That is my reading of the sources, and it is why the January 7 hearing matters.

What should telehealth and digital health operators do now?

Do not wait for the ruling to check your own exposure. These steps follow from the allegations, not from any court guidance.

1. Inventory your trackers. List every pixel, SDK and tag on intake, checkout and post-purchase pages. Record what data each one receives.
2. Match marketing language to data flows. If copy says "private" or "discreet," confirm that no condition-linked data goes to ad platforms. The FTC complaint rests on that gap.
3. Make disclosure specific and visible. A policy acknowledged at account creation is the position Hims is defending. In my view, a plain notice at the point of data collection is a safer footing.
4. Review billing timing. State when the card is charged, and whether a clinician review comes first, on the screen where the user commits.
5. Make cancellation match sign-up. Online cancellation should be as easy to find as the purchase flow.

What to watch next

The first marker is the January 7 hearing before Judge Chhabria. A partial ruling that keeps the privacy claims alive would raise settlement pressure, while a dismissal of those counts would give other consumer health companies a template to copy.

The second marker is Hims' own disclosures. Its next quarterly filing should show whether the legal contingency accrual has grown beyond the $62.5 million reported for the first half. The third is the advertising platforms. Meta and Snap are named in the allegations as recipients of the data, not as defendants, and the sources do not say they face claims.

For business readers, the practical point is simple. Health data flowing to ad platforms is now being litigated, not just settled, and the answer will shape how consumer health brands build their funnels.