A HUM Nutrition lawsuit filed in June 2026 accuses the Los Angeles supplement company of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and it is not the brand’s first trip to court: a 2021 class action targeted its website accessibility, and consumer complaints about its subscription billing have piled up in parallel. Here is what is on the record.
The 2026 TCPA Case: Futch v. HUM Nutrition
Celeste Futch sued HUM Nutrition, Inc. on June 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case no. 4:26-cv-05523). The complaint invokes the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. ยง 227, the federal statute that restricts robocalls, autodialed calls, and unsolicited text messages sent without proper consent.1PACER Monitor. Futch v HUM Nutrition Inc – Complaint Filing
The specific factual allegations are not yet public beyond the docket. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin is assigned to the case, with an initial case management conference set for September 24, 2026, in Oakland. No substantive motions have been filed.2PACER Monitor. Futch v HUM Nutrition, Inc
The 2021 ADA Website Accessibility Class Action
In September 2021, a plaintiff named Fischler filed a class action against HUM Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1:21-cv-05003), assigned to Judge Ann M. Donnelly. The case was brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.3Law360. Fischler v Hum Nutrition Inc Suits of this type typically allege that a retailer’s online store cannot be used by people with visual or other disabilities, often because it is not compatible with screen readers. The docket names Cooley LLP and Lipsky Lowe as counsel. No outcome is available in the public record reviewed.
Subscription Billing Complaints
Separate from formal litigation, HUM Nutrition has drawn a sustained volume of consumer complaints about its subscription program. Its Better Business Bureau profile, which is not BBB-accredited, showed an average rating of 1.04 out of 5 across 28 customer reviews as of mid-2026.4Better Business Bureau. Hum Nutrition, Inc – Customer Reviews Recurring themes in those complaints include:
- Customers say they were enrolled in recurring subscription plans without clear consent, and that canceling online was confusing.
- Reviewers reported charges for orders they say they never placed or received, including one customer who cited $518 in charges for undelivered products.
- Customers who joined the discounted “VIP Plan” and canceled before completing three orders reported being retroactively billed the difference between the discounted and full retail prices.
- Some users said the site’s checkout flow led them into unintended add-on purchases or processed orders without a clear final confirmation.
In its BBB responses, HUM Nutrition said it offers both monthly and VIP subscription options, that the terms are disclosed at checkout, and that reminder emails go out seven days before each shipment so customers can postpone or cancel. The company described the retroactive charge as a standard consequence of breaking the three-order VIP commitment rather than a hidden fee.4Better Business Bureau. Hum Nutrition, Inc – Customer Reviews
These complaints are not themselves a lawsuit, but they overlap with the marketing-and-billing conduct that TCPA cases typically police, which is why they sit alongside the Futch action rather than apart from it.
Trademark Opposition Against Loriinae Pty Ltd
One other proceeding is worth flagging so readers do not assume the company’s only disputes are consumer-facing. On December 30, 2024, HUM Nutrition filed an opposition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Loriinae Pty Ltd, an Australian entity (case no. 91296002). The matter was suspended as of the most recent status update, and the specific mark at issue is not identified in the public filings reviewed.5Law360. Hum Nutrition Inc v Loriinae Pty Ltd TTAB oppositions of this kind are typically brought when a company believes a pending trademark application conflicts with a mark it already owns.