Case Overview | Type: False Advertising Class Actions Roundup | Updated: April 2026 | Cases Covered: 5

Hidden Fees, Free Gifts That Aren't Free, and Misleading Medical Claims: False Advertising Lawsuits to Watch in April 2026

From hotel booking pages to subscription box emails, a wave of new false advertising lawsuits and regulatory actions filed in early 2026 signals growing legal scrutiny of deceptive pricing and marketing practices. Companies across industries — travel, retail, technology, and healthcare — are facing allegations that their marketing materials misled consumers into paying more than expected or buying products based on claims that don't hold up.

Here's a look at five notable cases making headlines this spring.

1. Empire Hotel — Drip Pricing on Hotel Rooms

Status: Newly Filed Class Action

Who May Qualify: Consumers who booked rooms at Empire Hotel and were charged undisclosed fees at checkout

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Empire Hotel employs a practice known as "drip pricing" — a strategy in which a low base rate is advertised upfront, only for mandatory fees to be added later in the booking process. According to the complaint, this approach creates the false impression that rooms are cheaper than consumers will actually pay, allowing the hotel to appear more competitively priced than it truly is.

The lawsuit alleges that these concealed charges — sometimes called "junk fees" — are not disclosed clearly or conspicuously until after consumers have already invested time in the booking process, making it less likely they will abandon their purchase. The plaintiff claims this constitutes a deceptive business practice under consumer protection law.

How to follow this case: Monitor court filings for updates on class certification and any potential settlement developments.

2. FabFitFun — "Free Gift" Email Marketing

Status: Newly Filed Class Action

Who May Qualify: Consumers who received FabFitFun marketing emails referencing a "free gift" and subsequently made a purchase

FabFitFun, Inc., the subscription lifestyle box company, is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging its email marketing campaigns contain misleading subject lines. According to the complaint, FabFitFun sends consumers emails with subject lines that promise a "free gift" — but the lawsuit alleges that any gift included with a purchase was not, in fact, free.

The plaintiff claims that the use of the word "free" in a promotional context, when consumers must spend money to receive the item, constitutes deceptive advertising under applicable consumer protection statutes. According to the filing, consumers who opened these emails were induced to make purchases they might not otherwise have made — or would have made on different terms — had they known the "gift" was contingent on a transaction.

The Federal Trade Commission has long maintained guidance on the use of the word "free" in advertising, stating that offers should have no strings attached or clearly disclose any conditions.

How to follow this case: Check for class certification filings as the lawsuit progresses through court.

3. StubHub — $10 Million FTC Settlement Over Hidden Ticket Fees

Status: Settlement Reached

Estimated Refund: Up to $10 million in consumer refunds (amounts will vary)

Who May Qualify: Consumers who purchased tickets through StubHub and were charged undisclosed mandatory fees

In a significant regulatory action, the Federal Trade Commission announced that StubHub Holdings, Inc. — the nation's largest ticket resale marketplace — will pay $10 million to resolve charges that the company deceptively advertised ticket prices without clearly disclosing the total cost consumers would actually pay, including all mandatory fees.

According to the FTC's announcement, StubHub displayed lower base prices prominently while burying mandatory service and delivery fees further in the checkout process — a practice the FTC says violates both the FTC Act and the agency's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which took effect in 2025 and specifically addresses all-in pricing transparency for live-event tickets.

"Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in the agency's statement. "Today's settlement underscores the Commission's commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised."

Consumers who purchased tickets through StubHub during the relevant period may be eligible to receive a portion of the $10 million fund, pending the finalization of distribution details.

How to claim: Visit the FTC's official website for updates on the consumer refund process as details are announced.

4. Lenovo — Marketing Texts Sent at Unlawful Hours

Status: Newly Filed Class Action

Who May Qualify: Consumers who received Lenovo marketing text messages outside of legally permitted hours

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Lenovo United States Inc. sent promotional text messages to consumers at hours prohibited under applicable telemarketing regulations. According to the complaint, federal and state laws governing telephone solicitations restrict the hours during which companies may contact consumers with marketing messages — and the lawsuit alleges Lenovo violated those restrictions.

While this case is primarily framed as a telemarketing compliance matter rather than a traditional false advertising claim, the underlying allegation — that Lenovo used unsolicited communications to market its products outside of legally permitted windows — places it within the broader landscape of deceptive or unlawful marketing practices.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and related regulations set specific time-of-day restrictions for marketing contacts. Consumers who received Lenovo text messages at unusual hours could potentially be part of the proposed class.

How to follow this case: Monitor TCPA class action developments for information on class certification and potential settlement negotiations.

5. Cord Blood Registry — States Sue Over Misleading Stem Cell Storage Claims

Status: State Attorney General Lawsuits Filed

Who May Qualify: Parents who paid for cord blood storage services from Cord Blood Registry (CBR) based on advertised health benefit claims

Two state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Cord Blood Registry (CBR), one of the largest cord blood banking companies in the United States, alleging the company misled parents about the medical benefits of storing their newborns' stem cells. Texas filed suit last month, with a second state joining the legal action.

According to reports from Drugs.com Daily MedNews, the lawsuits allege that CBR made or implied therapeutic benefit claims for cord blood banking that were not adequately supported by scientific evidence. The complaints suggest that parents were persuaded to pay for storage services — which can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars — based on marketing representations about potential future medical uses that regulators and medical authorities have not broadly validated for most families.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has previously noted that private cord blood banking is not recommended for most families as a form of "biological insurance," given the low likelihood of use and unproven benefits in most scenarios.

The state-level suits seek to hold the company accountable under consumer protection laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive business practices.

How to follow this case: Consumers who purchased CBR services may wish to monitor developments in the Texas lawsuit and any related multistate actions for information on potential remedies.

Key Takeaways

• Drip pricing is under increasing legal fire. From hotel rooms to event tickets, the practice of advertising low base prices while hiding mandatory fees is drawing attention from both private plaintiffs and federal regulators. The FTC's StubHub settlement signals that enforcement in this area is active and consequential.
• "Free" is a legally loaded word. Marketing language that uses terms like "free gift" without meeting FTC standards for unconditional offers can form the basis of a class action. Consumers should be aware that promotional language may not always mean what it appears to say.
• State attorneys general are active enforcers. The cord blood banking case is a reminder that consumer protection enforcement doesn't only come from private lawsuits — state AGs are increasingly pursuing companies that make health-related marketing claims without sufficient scientific backing.
• TCPA restrictions apply to marketing texts. Companies that contact consumers via text message must comply with time-of-day restrictions and other telemarketing rules. Consumers who receive texts at odd hours may have legal standing under federal law.
• FTC refund processes take time. If you purchased tickets through StubHub, the $10 million settlement may result in a refund, but distribution details are still being finalized. Checking the FTC's website directly is the most reliable way to stay informed.

Have you encountered hidden fees, misleading marketing emails, or unexpected charges from any of these companies? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action lawsuits and legal developments as a news service. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.