Lens.com's 'Taxes & fees' line contained no sales tax, the FTC says in new lawsuit

Lens.com told shoppers there were "NO HIDDEN FEES," then added a "Taxes & fees" line that contained no sales tax at all, according to a lawsuit the Federal Trade Commission filed on October 2 with the attorneys general of Utah and Nevada. In the agency's own test purchase, a one-year supply advertised at $146.32 would have been charged at $649.71.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Nevada, names Lens.com Inc., an affiliate called Speed Commerce LLC and owner Cary Samourkachian. These are allegations. A court will decide the case, and the FTC's materials do not include a response from the company.

The test order that quadrupled

The filing walks through an undercover purchase dated February 24, 2026. A sponsored Google ad showed Proclear 1 Day lenses at $18.29 a box. Eight boxes, enough for both eyes for a year, came to $146.32 in the shopping cart.

That figure assumed a $220 mail-in rebate that the buyer has to claim afterward. Before the rebate, the subtotal was $366.32. Then came $273.44 in "Taxes & fees" and $9.95 for shipping, for an order total of $649.71, or $429.71 if the rebate was eventually paid.

The FTC says the card charge would have been more than four times the advertised total plus shipping. It describes this path as the typical experience on the site, not an outlier.

A tax line with no tax in it

The label is the unusual part of the case. Regulators say a reasonable shopper reads "Taxes" as state sales tax that a store is required to collect. Yet the complaint notes Lens.com sells into Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, which have no state sales tax, and into Virginia, Florida and New Jersey, which exempt contact lenses.

The filing quotes the company's own customer service chats as evidence. One agent told a customer the amount was "tax recovery charges, not sales taxes," plus compensation for processing and handling the order. The agencies conclude the charge is not for sales tax, even in part.

Where the line appears matters too. According to the complaint, it sits in an order summary below the visible part of an interim checkout screen, while a prominent "Continue" button invites shoppers to move on without scrolling. Anyone who follows the prompt never sees it.

Why a banking privacy law is in the mix

Beyond the FTC Act, the suit cites the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act over the AutoRefill subscription, which Lens.com has offered since at least April 2024. The agencies say the same low prices pull people into recurring shipments, and that cancellation steps and deadlines are kept outside the purchase flow.

It also invokes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, better known for financial privacy. The theory is that false price claims were used to obtain customers' credit and debit card details. Utah and Nevada add claims under their own consumer protection statutes.

The complaint says thousands of customers have complained about being charged more than they expected, and that the practice brought in hundreds of millions of dollars. It puts the stakes in context: nearly 50 million Americans wear contacts, and daily lenses cost about $750 a year on average.

The Commission voted 2-0 to file. The agencies are asking for a permanent injunction, and no hearing date appears in the materials released so far.