Fay Nutrition, the telehealth platform that connects users with insurance-billed registered dietitians, is facing two federal class action lawsuits filed in 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Both suits center on the same core grievance: consumers say they were told sessions would cost $0 or be fully covered by insurance, then received unexpected charges after the fact.
The Two Cases
The first suit, McGrath et al v. Fay Nutrition, LLC (Case No. 1:25-cv-10343), was filed on August 28, 2025 by Siri & Glimstad and is classified under “Personal Property: Other.”1Law360. McGrath et al v. Fay Nutrition, LLC The second, Sasaki v. Fay Nutrition, LLC (Case No. 1:25-cv-11859), was filed by Bursor & Fisher under “Other Statutory Actions,” a category that often covers privacy and consumer-protection statutes.2Law360. Sasaki v. Fay Nutrition, LLC
Both cases are assigned to Judge Jeremy C. Daniel and remain at an early stage. No rulings on the merits have been reported, and the full statutory theories in each complaint are not laid out in the available docket summaries.
What Consumers Say Happened
The lawsuits track a pattern that appears repeatedly in Better Business Bureau records, which show 188 complaints against Fay Nutrition over the prior three years. Billing accounted for the largest share, with 60 complaints.3Better Business Bureau. Fay Nutrition Complaints
The stories are consistent. Users say they provided insurance information, were quoted “$0” or “fully covered,” and then received out-of-pocket bills after their appointments. Some describe being charged retroactively for sessions that had already happened. Others say Fay changed how it submitted claims without notice, such as billing under the company name instead of the individual dietitian, which changed how insurers processed the charge.3Better Business Bureau. Fay Nutrition Complaints
A second thread runs through the complaints: consumers say there was no way to reach a person. Fay does not publish a customer service phone number, and complainants describe sending online forms and emails that went unanswered. In its BBB responses, the company routinely directed users to verify their identity through a “secure message” via an online contact form. Several complainants rejected those replies, saying they had already tried the same forms repeatedly.3Better Business Bureau. Fay Nutrition Complaints
How Fay Explains Its Pricing
Fay has publicly addressed pricing transparency without referencing the lawsuits or BBB complaints. The company offers what it calls the “Fay Guarantee,” which it says protects users if the final session cost differs from what they expected, “including a refund if needed.”4Fay Nutrition. Transparent Pricing: When We Can’t Guarantee the Exact Price
An online tool checks insurance eligibility and generates a price estimate before booking. Fay reports that roughly 95% of insured users pay nothing out of pocket based on historical claims data. The company also says healthcare pricing is inherently hard to predict: insurers sometimes provide incomplete or outdated data, deductibles and copays vary by plan, and final claim adjudication happens only after services are rendered.4Fay Nutrition. Transparent Pricing: When We Can’t Guarantee the Exact Price
The central question in the litigation is whether the gap between a $0 quote and the final bill is an unavoidable feature of insurance-based care, or whether Fay’s own marketing and processes turned an ordinary estimating problem into a pattern of surprise charges.
The Privacy Piece in Sasaki
The Sasaki filing’s “Other Statutory Actions” label points toward privacy-based claims, though the complaint text itself is not available in the research. Fay’s own privacy disclosures show practices similar to those that have driven a wave of telehealth privacy suits.
Fay’s website privacy policy, last updated April 2026, says the company uses cookies, web beacons (pixel tags), and local storage for analytics and interest-based advertising, and shares personal information with “advertising partners / ad networks” for cross-context behavioral advertising. The categories shared include contact data, device identifiers, approximate location, online activity data, and inferences drawn from user behavior. The policy specifically references opt-out links for Google and Facebook ad targeting.5Fay Nutrition. Privacy Policy
The policy states that it does not apply to Protected Health Information collected during healthcare services, which is governed by a separate HIPAA notice. That HIPAA notice permits disclosure of PHI for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations, and notes that disclosures for research are allowed “subject to conditions.”6Fay Nutrition. Notice of Privacy Practices Whether that line between website tracking and clinical data holds up in court is likely to be contested.
The Arbitration Clause Everyone Should Read
One provision in Fay’s terms could shape how, or whether, these class claims move forward. The terms require binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association under its commercial rules, waive the right to a class action or jury trial, and cap Fay’s total liability at $100.7Fay Nutrition. Policies
There is a significant limit, though. The arbitration clause in the publicly available terms is written to cover Fay’s “Virtual Items Program,” not the company’s general nutrition services.7Fay Nutrition. Policies Whether Fay tries to enforce a broader arbitration agreement against the class plaintiffs, and whether such an agreement would survive judicial review, has not yet been tested in these cases.
Where the Cases Stand
Both suits were filed within a few months of each other in 2025, both are before the same judge, and both track allegations that the BBB record has been documenting for years. Nothing has been decided on the merits. Consumers who believe they were billed for sessions after being told they would cost nothing can watch the dockets under the two case numbers above, and preserve their own records, including screenshots of any price quotes given at booking and correspondence with the company about disputed charges.