Fixing the Subscription Trap
The FTC’s Negative Option Rule do-over – and what’s at stake.
Multiple class-action lawsuits alleging that Lens.com fails to include all of its mandatory fees in advertised prices were transferred to be heard by the same court. Some of the lawsuits also allege that Lens.com misleadingly calls a processing fee “Taxes & Fees.” Click here and here to see the court orders. More information on the lawsuits is below.
| Case Name (Date) |
Allegations | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Franks et al. v. Lens.com, Inc. 24-cv-724, D. Nev. (April 2024) |
Failing to include a processing fee in advertised prices | Pending |
| Nail et al. v. Lens.com, Inc. 24-cv-1149, D. Nev. (March 2024) |
Failing to include a processing fee (which is misleadingly called “Taxes & Fees” when no portion of the fee is due to taxes) in advertised prices | Pending |
| Martin et al. v. Lens.com, Inc. 24-cv-2160, D. Nev. (Feb. 2024) |
Failing to include a processing fee (which is misleadingly called “Taxes & Fees” when no portion of the fee is due to taxes) in advertised prices | Pending |
| Gonneville et al. v. Lens.com, Inc. 24-cv-1151, D. Nev. (Feb. 2024) |
Failing to include a processing fee in advertised prices | Pending |
| Fitzpatrick et al. v. Lens.com, Inc. 24-cv-2203, D. Nev. (Feb. 2024) |
Failing to include a processing fee (which is misleadingly called “Taxes & Fees” when no portion of the fee is due to taxes) in advertised prices | Pending |
The FTC’s Negative Option Rule do-over – and what’s at stake.
Be wary of questionable and deceptive claims in origin stories.
Mounting lawsuits accuse Meta of breaking privacy promises.
Breaking down the fine print of this March Madness commercial.
Advertised $19.99 price deserves an official review.