Hims CEO tells CNBC the FTC wanted a headline, and the stock recovers its losses

Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum told CNBC on August 18 that the Federal Trade Commission "wanted more of a headline than a real agreement here," describing nearly three years of investigation and failed settlement talks with the agency ^[1]. The comment came three weeks after the FTC, joined by California and Utah, sued the telehealth company on July 29 over how it markets and bills for prescriptions, including the weight-loss shots it sells alongside treatments for hair loss and erectile dysfunction ^[1][2].

The stock reaction has been sharp in both directions. Shares fell about 15 percent to $25.00 on the day the suit was filed ^[1]. By August 19, they had closed at $31.10, up 13.55 percent that day and above where they traded before the lawsuit existed ^[1].

The FTC's civil investigative demand dates to October 2023, and Hims has said in securities filings that it "engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the FTC, but these negotiations were unsuccessful" ^[1]. The company's legal accrual for the matter rose from $15 million as recently as May to roughly $60 million as of June 30, 2026, according to its second-quarter filing ^[1]. The FTC's complaint was authorized on a 2-0 vote, a tally that reflects only two filled seats on the five-member commission ^[1][2].

The nine-count complaint does not target the weight-loss drug itself. It alleges that Hims described its process as "100% online, private, and secure" and said medical information was "only accessed by the medical providers managing your care," while sharing customer data with at least fifteen advertising platforms, including Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google, through uploaded customer lists and tracking pixels ^[1]. Separately, the FTC and the two states allege the company enrolled people in automatically renewing subscriptions before they knew what, if anything, had been prescribed, and made cancellation difficult by requiring customers to click through an "add/remove items from order" menu rather than a clear cancel button ^[2]. Hims has called the case "an effort to generate headlines at our expense" and says it will "vigorously defend" itself, adding that the lawsuit "disregards substantial evidence" from the investigation and "contorts the law to try to manufacture claims" ^[1][2].

Why it matters for patients

For people who use Hims for a GLP-1 prescription or any other telehealth product, the case centers on two separate promises: that health information stays private, and that subscription charges and cancellation are clear. The FTC's complaint alleges both promises were broken for years, through 2023 for the privacy claims and, on the cancellation process, from at least 2019 through early 2025 ^[1][2]. None of this changes what a prescribed medication does in the body; it concerns what happens to the data entered on an intake form and how easy it is to stop a recurring charge. The allegations remain unproven, and Hims disputes them ^[2].

Patients weighing a subscription with any telehealth company may find it useful to know that the FTC has brought similar data-sharing cases against other telehealth firms, including GoodRx and BetterHelp, both of which resulted in penalties and consumer refunds ^[1]. Hims is not alone in facing scrutiny for pixel-based tracking; a 2022 audit by STAT News and The Markup found half of 50 telehealth sites tested, Hims among them, sent cart or checkout data to big tech companies ^[1].

What happens next

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ^[1][2]. The FTC is not seeking civil penalties under its own claims, but California and Utah are seeking penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under state law, along with injunctive relief that could permanently bar the practices described ^[1][2]. Hims' $60 million accrual is the company's own estimate and, per its filing, "may decrease or increase materially in future periods" ^[1]. A separate class action, Doe v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., is proceeding in the same court under federal wiretap and California privacy statutes ^[1].