Federal Regulators Move Against Telehealth Firms Over Prescription Practices
A pattern of enforcement actions against direct-to-consumer prescription platforms reveals a structural tension between pandemic-era regulatory flexibility and longstanding consumer protection law.
Federal regulators have opened enforcement actions against multiple telehealth companies accused of deceptive practices in prescribing medications for conditions including ADHD, weight loss, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction, according to reporting by the New York Post published September 19, 2026.
The telehealth sector expanded rapidly following the COVID-19 public health emergency, during which the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services issued temporary waivers allowing controlled substances to be prescribed via telemedicine without an in-person evaluation. Those waivers, first issued in March 2020, enabled a new class of direct-to-consumer platforms to emerge offering prescription approvals within minutes of a patient completing an online questionnaire.
The Federal Trade Commission has primary jurisdiction over deceptive advertising claims made by commercial health services. Under Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45), the agency may pursue companies that make material misrepresentations to consumers. Separately, the DEA retains authority over how controlled substances are prescribed, including whether a legitimate physician-patient relationship existed before a prescription was issued.
The specific companies named in active enforcement proceedings were not fully identified in the available source material. The public record that would disclose named respondents and alleged violations in detail includes FTC administrative complaints, which are published on ftc.gov, and DEA Show Cause Orders, which are published in the Federal Register upon issuance.
The business model common to many telehealth platforms involves a consumer completing a symptom questionnaire, which is then reviewed by a contracted physician or nurse practitioner, often in a state different from the consumer's. A prescription, if approved, is then routed to a partner pharmacy. Critics of this model, including medical associations, have argued the brief review period does not constitute a sufficient clinical evaluation. Proponents argue the model increases access for patients who lack transportation, insurance, or proximity to specialists.
Congress addressed the underlying regulatory question in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which extended pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities through December 31, 2024. Congress subsequently extended certain provisions again through December 31, 2026, under the Telehealth Modernization Act provisions included in later spending legislation. The precise statutory text governing the current extension can be found in the relevant public laws filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
Lobbyist disclosure records filed with the Senate Office of Public Records under the Lobbying Disclosure Act show that telehealth industry groups have been active on Capitol Hill during this period. A search of lda.senate.gov for the term "telehealth" for the period January 2023 through June 2026 returns filings from multiple registrants. Specific dollar amounts per company and per legislative target are itemized within those individual LD-2 quarterly disclosure forms, which are publicly searchable.
The FTC has previously taken action in adjacent areas. In 2023, the commission finalized a rule strengthening restrictions on subscription cancellation practices, which critics said some telehealth companies had used to make it difficult for patients to stop recurring prescription deliveries. That rule, titled the Negative Option Rule, was published in the Federal Register at 88 Fed. Reg. 24716.
The DEA's own regulatory posture on telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances has shifted during this period. In 2023, the agency proposed a rule that would have required at least one in-person visit before a telehealth provider could prescribe a Schedule II or III controlled substance. Following public comment, the DEA withdrew the proposed rule and issued a revised framework. The current status of that rulemaking is tracked on regulations.gov under docket DEA-2023-0012.
What remains unknown from available public records is the total number of consumers who received prescriptions through platforms currently under investigation, the aggregate value of revenue generated under those prescriptions, and whether any referrals to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution have been made. FTC administrative complaint files, DEA investigation records released under FOIA, and any corresponding federal court filings in district courts would be the documents needed to answer those questions fully.