Regulators Deliver Actions against HelloFresh

In the three-plus years since TINA.org first alerted regulators to HelloFresh’s deceptive marketing of “free” meals and shady subscription practices, there have been a number of notable regulatory actions against the meal-kit giant. These include (starting with the most recent):

• In November 2025, Oregon’s Department of Justice reached a settlement with HelloFresh after an investigation found the company advertised “free” meals that were never free. In reality, the free meals – advertised in promotions that used language such as “10 free meals” – were discounts spread across multiple weekly orders that required consumers to spend hundreds of dollars to receive the full promotion. (In a previous promotion for “17 free meals,” TINA.org found that customers needed to spend more than $500 to get the discount equivalent of 17 meals.) The Oregon DOJ’s investigation also determined that HelloFresh failed to clearly disclose important terms related to its “free shipping” and “free gift” offers, such as the fact that free shipping only applied to the first box. In addition to paying more than $100,000, the settlement required that HelloFresh make marketing changes, including, when appropriate, clearly stating how many boxes a customer must purchase to receive the full value of any advertised discount.
• In August 2025, a California state court ordered HelloFresh to pay $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a group of district attorneys alleging that the company enrolled consumers in autorenewing subscriptions without adequate notice or authorization and then, adding insult to injury, made it difficult to cancel. (Our 2022 investigation similarly found that after luring consumers to its website with false promises of “free” meals, HelloFresh failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms of its autorenewal plans, while employing dark patterns and other deceptive tactics to ensnare consumers and keep them trapped in its subscriptions.) Under the settlement with California regulators, HelloFresh must clearly disclose subscription terms, obtain proper consent and provide an easy way to cancel.
• In May 2023, the National Advertising Division issued a case decision finding that important terms relating to a HelloFresh offer for “16 free meals” – including that the free meals were spread across multiple shipments and not, as ads suggested, shipped out once consumers signed up for a meal plan – were hidden behind a hyperlink and therefore not properly disclosed to consumers. NAD recommended that HelloFresh modify its ads to clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms of such offers in close proximity to its “free” claims. A few months later, in October 2023, NAD once again called on HelloFresh to ensure that the conditions of its “free” meal offers are made clear to consumers after a compliance review found that some material terms (including that subscriptions automatically renew and actual savings vary by plan) were still not being adequately disclosed in ads.

That’s all for now. While we welcome the actions taken by authorities thus far, these outcomes also underscore the need for other regulators – including the ones to whom TINA.org complained (i.e., officials at the FTC and in Connecticut and Massachusetts) to step up and play their part in protecting consumers.

HelloFresh did not respond to a request for comment.

Find more of our coverage on HelloFresh.