FTC Sues Lens.com Over Hidden Checkout Fees and AutoRefill

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by Nevada and Utah, sued contact lens retailer Lens.com Inc. on October 2, 2026, alleging that a mandatory “Taxes & fees” charge sat below a red “Continue” button on an interim checkout screen where most shoppers would never see it. The 51-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada as Case No. 2:26-cv-03232, also names affiliate Speed Commerce LLC and owner Cary Samourkachian, and it reaches the company’s AutoRefill subscription program under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).

The allegations have not been proven. They still matter to any store that adds its own fee line at checkout or sells on autoship, because the government built the case on general deception law and a subscription statute rather than on a fee rule written for a specific industry.

How the complaint says the fee stayed out of view

According to the complaint, Lens.com advertised low per-box prices in Google sponsored product listings and on its own product pages, next to a promise of “NO HIDDEN FEES.” Shoppers then entered prescription and doctor details and reached a Shipping Information screen with a prominent red “Continue” button. The only place the “Taxes & fees” line appeared, the FTC says, was an Order Summary further down that same screen, below the button. A shopper who clicked “Continue” went to a Submit Order screen that showed an order total but, per the complaint, no separate fee line.

The filing walks through a February 2026 order for eight boxes of Proclear 1 Day lenses, a one-year supply. The cart screen showed $18.29 per box, or $146.32 after a $220 mail-in rebate. The hidden Order Summary added $273.44 in “Taxes & fees” and $9.95 in shipping, for an order total of $649.71, or $429.71 after the rebate. By EC4IM’s arithmetic, the fee alone came to about 1.9 times the advertised one-year price.

The FTC’s announcement says the hidden fees “routinely double” advertised prices and have cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. The complaint also cites an August 2022 internal PowerPoint, sent to Samourkachian, that acknowledged the checkout showed the full cost only to shoppers who scrolled past the “Continue” button and suggested a clearer layout. The FTC alleges the purchase flow was not materially changed afterward, including after the agency issued a Civil Investigative Demand in August 2025.

Why the fee label is a separate allegation

The complaint treats the words “Taxes & fees” as a problem on their own. The FTC argues the label tells shoppers that at least part of the charge is sales tax the retailer collects and remits. Lens.com sells into states with no state sales tax, the complaint notes, including Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, and into states that exempt contact lenses, such as Virginia, Florida, and New Jersey, yet the same lump sum appeared on those orders.

A small information icon beside the line opened a pop-up, which the complaint quotes as saying the “taxes are tax recovery charges for tax obligations where applicable and the fees are compensation for servicing your order.” The FTC’s position, stated in the filing, is that “the charge is not, even in part, for sales taxes.”

That distinction carries over to other industries. A redesigned checkout that moves the same line above the button would answer the placement claim, but not a claim that the name of the charge misstates what it pays for.

AutoRefill and the two ROSCA counts

Since at least April 2024, according to the complaint, Lens.com has sold lenses through AutoRefill plans that ship and bill every three months, six months, or year, promoted with “Save 5% OFF every future AutoRefill order.” Section 4 of ROSCA bars charging for an online negative option offer, meaning a plan that treats a customer’s silence as permission to keep billing, unless the seller discloses all material terms before collecting billing information, gets express informed consent, and provides a simple way to stop recurring charges.

The FTC’s Count II lists three terms it says Lens.com failed to disclose before taking card details: the existence and amount of the “Taxes & fees” charge, the date by which a subscriber must cancel or change an order to avoid the next charge, and the method of cancelling. Cancellation instructions lived in AutoRefill FAQs reached through a Help menu at the bottom of the site, which the complaint says sits outside the purchase flow. Count III alleges the company charged subscribers without express informed consent.

Utah adds a claim under its Automatic Renewal Contracts Act, which, as quoted in the complaint, requires a notice at least 30 but not more than 60 days before an automatic renewal. EC4IM covered the federal side of these obligations in its guide to FTC negative option and subscription rules for autoship brands.

A fee case brought without a fee rule

The FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 16 C.F.R. Part 464, requires total-price disclosure and bans misleading fee descriptions, but it defines covered goods and services as live-event tickets and short-term lodging only. Contact lenses fall outside it, and the complaint does not cite it. Count I instead rests on Section 5 of the FTC Act, the general ban on deceptive practices, and alleges three false or misleading claims: that lenses could be bought at the advertised prices, that Lens.com charged no hidden fees, and that part of the fee paid sales tax.

Count IV is less familiar. It invokes Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a provision aimed at obtaining financial account information through false statements, often called pretexting. The FTC alleges the price and “no hidden fees” claims were false statements used to obtain shoppers’ bank account, credit card, and debit card numbers. The complaint says the agency can enforce that section as if it were a trade regulation rule, which opens the door to consumer redress under Section 19 of the FTC Act.

Nevada brings three counts under its Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Utah adds one under its Consumer Sales Practices Act, for nine counts in total. The plaintiffs ask for a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and state civil penalties. The Commission voted 2-0 to file.

What the filing signals for high-risk checkouts

Analysis. Regulated sellers add their own lines at checkout for many reasons, including “processing,” “handling,” “compliance,” and “age verification” fees, and supplement, CBD, and wellness brands lean heavily on autoship. Nothing in the Lens.com complaint says those fees are unlawful. The theory is narrower: a mandatory charge that is left out of the advertised price, shown only below a call to action, or labeled in a way that suggests a government tax can support a Section 5 claim, and the same gaps inside a subscription flow can add ROSCA counts.

The screens at issue are the kind store developers control directly. The complaint reproduces product pages, cart screens, the Shipping Information page, the Submit Order page, and the fee pop-up as numbered figures, many dated February 24, 2026. Underwriting for a supplement autoship merchant account, whether with an incumbent acquirer or through a specialty broker such as Organic Payment Gateways for supplement-friendly processing, usually includes a look at the live site, so those same pages carry weight with risk teams as well as regulators. Teams on Shopify that pass third-party gateway costs to buyers face a related labeling question, covered in EC4IM’s report on Shopify third-party gateway surcharges.

What happens next

The FTC notes that it files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” the law is being violated and that “the case will be decided by the court.” No court has made findings against any defendant. EC4IM found no public response from Lens.com in coverage reviewed through October 7 and did not contact the company before publication. The case now moves to service and the defendants’ response in the District of Nevada.

The Lens.com suit puts three checkout details in front of a federal court at once: where a mandatory fee appears relative to the button that moves a shopper forward, whether the fee’s name matches what it funds, and whether subscription cancellation terms sit inside the flow where the card is collected. For stores that run fee lines or autoship programs, the complaint and its figures offer a concrete reference for how regulators read those screens, while the outcome remains with the court.

FTC Lens.com Suit Targets Below-the-Fold Checkout Fees and Autoship Disclosures