The $1 Question That Became a $79-a-Month Subscription

JustAnswer.com and its network of specialized advice sites — including AskALawyerOnCall.com, AskAVeterinarianOnline.com, and AskWomensHealth.com — advertise access to expert help for as little as $1 or $5. According to the Federal Trade Commission, that nominal fee was not the actual price of admission: consumers who entered payment information were simultaneously enrolled in a recurring monthly subscription costing between $28 and $125, on top of the advertised join fee.DOCUMENTED

The FTC sued JustAnswer LLC and its founder and CEO, Andrew Kurtzig, in January 2026, alleging violations of the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act and the FTC Act. JustAnswer has since moved to dismiss the case, arguing its billing practices fully comply with applicable disclosure and consent requirements.DOCUMENTED

What the complaint alleges

According to the FTC, JustAnswer falsely represented that consumers could “join” the platform and receive expert advice for a low, one-time fee, when in reality every consumer who provided payment information was simultaneously enrolled in an automatically renewing monthly subscription.DOCUMENTED The complaint alleges that while JustAnswer provided some information about the required subscription on its website, it did not disclose the terms clearly and conspicuously as ROSCA requires, and that as a result consumers provided their credit card information without affirmatively consenting to the ongoing monthly charge.DOCUMENTED

The pre-checked box allegation

A specific detail in the complaint concerns the design of JustAnswer's payment form: in some versions, a consent checkbox related to the subscription terms was pre-checked by default, meaning a consumer did not need to click on it at all to complete their enrollment — and even where a checkbox existed, the FTC alleges it omitted any language specifying the actual price consumers would be charged.DOCUMENTED A pre-checked box inverts the ordinary function of an opt-in consent mechanism: rather than requiring an affirmative action to agree to a term, it requires an affirmative action to decline one, a distinction regulators have treated as central to whether a consumer's enrollment reflects genuine, informed consent under ROSCA.REVIEWED

How JustAnswer has responded

JustAnswer has pushed back directly on the FTC's characterization of its practices. In its April 2026 motion to dismiss, the company argued that its payment pages clearly and conspicuously disclose the key subscription terms — the monthly fee, the autorenewal feature, and the timing of charges — directly adjacent to the “Confirm now” button, and that consumers provide express informed consent simply by completing the transaction after seeing those disclosures.DOCUMENTED That dispute over what actually appeared on the payment screen, and how prominently, sits at the center of the case: both sides agree some disclosure existed, but disagree sharply about whether it met the “clear and conspicuous” standard ROSCA requires.

Why this case fits a broader enforcement pattern

The FTC brought the JustAnswer case amid a sustained wave of negative-option enforcement actions following the 2025 court decision vacating the agency's broader Click-to-Cancel rule on procedural grounds — a ruling that did not disturb the agency's independent authority to enforce ROSCA and Section 5 directly against specific companies.REVIEWED Cases brought in the same period against other subscription-based services reflect a consistent legal theory: that a low advertised “join” or “trial” fee paired with an inadequately disclosed recurring subscription violates ROSCA regardless of whether the rule specifically written to address that pattern remains in effect.

What the case seeks and where it stands

The FTC's complaint seeks a court order prohibiting the challenged conduct, monetary relief for affected consumers, and civil penalties against both JustAnswer and Kurtzig individually.DOCUMENTED Because JustAnswer has moved to dismiss the case and contests the underlying allegations, none of the claims described here have been resolved or proven in court as of this reporting, and the litigation remains ongoing.REVIEWED

The company says its payment page clearly discloses the subscription terms next to the "Confirm now" button. The FTC says a pre-checked consent box, in some versions, meant consumers never had to click on anything to be enrolled.

Why the case matters

For consumers using any online platform advertising access for a small “join” or “trial” fee, the JustAnswer case illustrates exactly the kind of billing screen worth reading carefully before entering payment information: checking specifically for a pre-checked consent box, and for language disclosing a recurring monthly charge near, rather than far from, the final payment button. Whatever the court ultimately decides about JustAnswer's specific disclosures, the underlying dispute highlights how much can turn on the precise placement and prominence of a few lines of text on a checkout page.

Why naming the CEO individually raises the stakes

Including Andrew Kurtzig personally in the complaint, rather than pursuing only the corporate entity, exposes him to potential civil penalties and monetary relief obligations distinct from whatever the company itself might owe, reflecting the FTC's consistent practice of pursuing individual executives who exercise direct control over the specific billing and disclosure practices being challenged. That personal exposure often shapes how aggressively a company defends a case, since a settlement affecting only the corporate entity would leave the named executive's personal liability unresolved.

What a motion to dismiss does and does not decide

A motion to dismiss asks a court to rule that even accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, they do not describe a legal violation — it is a procedural and legal challenge, not a factual one, and a court's decision to deny such a motion does not mean the underlying allegations have been proven, only that the case may proceed toward discovery and eventually trial or settlement. Whatever the court decides on JustAnswer's motion, the underlying factual dispute over what the payment page actually displayed remains to be resolved through the litigation process.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.