AINEWS
The complaint says tracking pixels on Hims & Hers' intake forms sent sensitive health responses, including premature ejaculation and mental health, to Meta and Snap for ad targeting.
On 2026-07-29, the Federal Trade Commission sued Hims & Hers Health, alleging the telehealth company allowed health intake data to flow to Meta and Snap through tracking pixels embedded in its intake forms. The data, according to the complaint, included responses about premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, mental health, hair loss, and obesity. The civil enforcement action, filed jointly with state co-plaintiffs, caps a nearly three-year investigation the FTC opened in 2023.
A patient answering questions for ED medication, antidepressants, or weight-loss treatment typed into a webpage. Embedded tracking pixels fired on that page, sending intake responses to Meta and Snap as events. Inside Meta's and Snap's advertising platforms, those events became optimization signals, the kinds of inputs that determine who sees which ad next. The intake form for a sensitive health condition was also an ad-tech funnel.
The complaint's specific allegations name premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, hair loss, obesity, and mental health as sensitive health categories allegedly disclosed. The redacted complaint lists Meta and Snap as data recipients via tracking pixels; the company has not named other ad platforms in its public response.
Hims & Hers is a San Francisco-based telehealth platform that connects consumers with clinicians for prescription and over-the-counter medications, including the sexual-health, hair-loss, and weight-loss treatments at the center of the FTC's allegations. The company's pitch has always been discretion: order online, skip the in-person visit. The FTC's theory turns that promise inside out, because the same intake form that spared a patient an awkward clinic visit also put the answers into ad-tech pipelines.
The second material harm in the complaint is billing. The FTC alleges Hims & Hers charged consumers before a clinician consultation, and auto-enrolled customers in subscriptions before they could review or approve the terms. CBS News reports the complaint cites named consumer complaints about hard-to-cancel recurring charges. The two harms are independent: a consumer could have intake data disclosed to Meta and Snap without being wrongly billed, or be wrongly billed without data disclosure. Both are alleged in the same filing.
Hims & Hers denies the allegations in a statement posted to X and its investor relations page. The company accuses the FTC of "ignoring established state laws and industry standards in telehealth" and "contorting the law to try to manufacture claims." The company calls the suit "an effort to generate headlines at our expense." On the data-sharing allegations, Hims & Hers does not explicitly deny disclosure to Meta and Snap. It asserts that its Privacy Policy gives customers the information needed to make "informed decisions" about how their data is used.
That gap is the case. The FTC's theory is not that disclosure happened in secret; the company's privacy policy is on its website. The theory is that the policy did not adequately disclose that intake responses were sent to ad platforms, or that the consent obtained was not meaningful for sensitive health data. If the company can show it disclosed the data flow and obtained informed consent at the time, the case reduces to a notice dispute. If it cannot, the FTC has the mechanism it needs to establish unlawful disclosure.
The structural question the action surfaces is portable. Any consumer health company running growth on Meta or Snap ad funnels faces the same plumbing: a tracking pixel on an intake page sends events to ad platforms, and events from a health questionnaire are, by definition, health data. The FTC's complaint is specific to Hims & Hers, but the mechanism is not. The next filings in this docket, and the multistate co-plaintiffs behind them, will indicate whether the theory travels.
The action is styled "FTC and States," implying state attorneys general have joined the federal complaint. The full state roster is not visible in the press release. The complaint is e-filed and partially redacted; specific customer counts and dollar figures cited in coverage remain unverified against the unredacted docket.