The Federal Trade Commission, joined by the attorneys general of Utah and Nevada, has filed a new consumer-protection action against Lens.com, alleging the online contact-lens seller misrepresented prices in search advertisements and on its website over an extended period. According to regulators, the company used pricing tactics that made products appear cheaper than they actually were, a theory that puts digital advertising, checkout design, and price disclosures squarely at issue.

The case is notable not only because of the parties involved, but because it reflects continued FTC focus on “drip pricing” and other online marketing practices that can distort a consumer’s understanding of total cost.

A new proposed consumer class action in the District of Nevada puts Vitauthority LLC’s supplement marketing under scrutiny. In Mathieson v. Vitauthority LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02828, the plaintiff challenges how the company allegedly marketed and sold certain products, teeing up the kind of labeling and advertising dispute that continues to drive class action filings in the health-and-wellness space.

Although the complaint details will matter, the putative class appears to center on consumers who purchased Vitauthority products and allegedly paid a premium based on the company’s representations.

A newly filed putative class action in the Northern District of California takes aim at supplement maker Pharmavite LLC, placing the company’s marketing and labeling practices under the microscope. In Spencer et al v. Pharmavite LLC, filed May 29, 2026, the named plaintiffs appear to be pursuing claims on behalf of consumers who purchased Pharmavite products allegedly marketed in a misleading manner.

While the complaint will provide the precise contours of the proposed class, cases like this typically define the class as purchasers of the challenged products during a specified limitations period, often on a statewide or nationwide basis depending on the claims asserted.