9 ms·

I'm not sure why the hims investors ever thought that this was legal

kps 9mo ago
The charitable assumption is that investors weren't aware it was a problem.
InsideOutSanta 9mo ago
They probably didn't, they just took the bet that this was one of the crimes that are currently legal, like crypto scams, environmental crimes, bribery, and tay evasion for the rich.
- sincerely 9mo ago
  Hims has donated $1M to the current administration, which supports this theory
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  Pretty sure you don't have to be rich to get away with avoiding Taylor Swift.
badrequest 9mo ago
Some of the most profitable ventures this century have been objectively illegal, but when you know you won't go to prison for violating the law, why would you care to follow it?
- pixl97 9mo ago
  The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally.
  - CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
    Also: human dissection (grave robbing) translating the Bible into English silk production outside of China (death penalty for exporting worm eggs) rubber production in Asia (seeds smuggled out of Brazil) the Underground Railroad heliocentrism AIDS treatment (see Dallas Buyers Club) Needle exchange programs for IV drug users Ridesharing/airbnb/napster (obvious ones) SF gay marriage licenses (in defiance of CA law)
    - graemep 9mo ago
      Translating the Bible into English was not illegal. I very much doubt Bede or the monks of Lindisfarne were breaking the law! The same for heliocentrism. No one took Copernicus to court. With silk and rubber the smuggling was illegal, the actual cultivation was not Grave robbing was illegal (and still is) but dissection was not. Needle exchange was illegal in some US states but was legal in many other countries.
      - chihuahua 9mo ago
        Reference to support the claim that translating the bible into English was banned (William Tyndale was executed for doing it): https://nobimu.no/en/subject-articles/banned-translations-of-the-bible https://nobimu.no/en/subject-articles/banned-translations-of... You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point.
        yorwba 9mo ago
        Unauthorized Bible translations were prohibited in England at the time, but Tyndale was executed in the Netherlands, where there was no such ban: https://books.google.de/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC&pg=P315&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1 https://books.google.de/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC&pg=P315&source...
        graemep 9mo ago
        The context of this is the list of examples was of things done illegally for the first time - it lists these things as "also" in response to a claim that water was *first* chlorinated illegally. While there were bans or a requirement for authorisation of translations of the Bible in certain times and places (mostly the 1300s to 1500s) the first translations of (parts of the) Bible into English had been done centuries before this, some as early at the 7th century. This makes them some of the oldest written works we know of in English at all. They were also done by the church. > You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point. When did this happen? Tyndale was tried and executed by the secular authorities in a place where there were no laws against translating the Bible. The earliest translations into English were done by the Church.
  - maxbond 9mo ago
    > The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally. I tried to find a source on this but it doesn't seem to be true? The first chapter of this book describes the history of chlorination: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Chlorination_of_water_%28IA_chlorinationofwa00race%29.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Chlorina... (which is a source Wikipedia cites) and it doesn't appear to mention anything about illegally chlorinating water. After looking in that book I asked ChatGPT to find a source for the claim, and it reported the claim was false. Chlorination was initially controversial but I can't find anything claiming it was illegal?
    - pixl97 9mo ago
      >Jersey City v. Jersey Water Supply Company
      - maxbond 9mo ago
        Thank you for replying, I appreciate it. I enjoyed learning more about this history. Making a citation invites the risk of being contradicted, and I respect that. I do still disagree for the following reasons: - Jersey City started chlorinating in 1908; Maidstone, England started chlorinating in 1897 and Lincoln, England started chlorinating in 1905. So Jersey City wasn't the first to chlorinate their water. However, Jersey City seems to be the first deployment in the United States, so perhaps that is what you meant. If this were the only issue I would concede the point. - This was a civil matter and not a criminal matter. - The dispute wasn't whether chlorination was legal or acceptable but whether it was sufficient to deliver "pure and wholesome" water. The city wanted them to build a sewer. The utility didn't really dispute that there was a water quality issue but they built a chlorination plant instead of building a sewer (while the lawsuit was still ongoing). - The water utility won. They demonstrated that chlorination was sufficient. That's the impression I took from Wikipedia and this writeup: https://www.dolmetsch.com/chlorination_history.pdf https://www.dolmetsch.com/chlorination_history.pdf (Starting on page 4)
nerdsniper 9mo ago
It probably is legal at the moment, but the rules may be changed to make it illegal. But also Uber and Lyft were super illegal when they were invested in. To some extent, YCombinator partners are on the record[0] supporting the idea of their startups doing illegal things. Generally they'll frame this as challenging outdated regulations, but they acknowledge that the founders whose strategies they fully support sometimes come into office hours and discuss how they're worried that the strategy puts them at risk of going to jail. There are different kinds of illegal, and Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care. The jury is very much still out. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-ZIiwiN1o&t=8m46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-ZIiwiN1o&t=8m46s
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  > Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care Well, no: the thing that's a lot cheaper is a placebo at best, and they were just referred to the DOJ for prosecution. The rest is more expensive
  - nerdsniper 9mo ago
    Hims offered semaglutide for $99/month. That’s a 90% discount on unsubsidized consumer prices for injectable semaglutide. I also don’t see any evidence that they sold a placebo, but I’m just catching up now, perhaps I missed where they’re selling something with a different active ingredient which does not work.
    - simulator5g 9mo ago
      Its in the article that you didn't read lol
      - nerdsniper 9mo ago
        I've since read TFA, as well as many other articles, official correspondence, and case law around the issue. I understand that without the additional ingredients of SNAC/sodium caprate/sodium caprylate, the bioavailability is probably too low to have a clinical effect at oral doses <15mg/day. I read the actual FDA referral to the DOJ. They don't mention anything about any of what this article touches on. It's not clear that the referral makes correct claims about anything illegal going on. In statements, the FDA says that compounding pharmacies "cannot state compounded drugs use the same active ingredient as the FDA-approved drugs". That's a very brand-new interpretation of rules, and might not stand up to judicial scrutiny. In the context of "shouldn't investors have known that Hims business model is illegal??" -- it makes sense that investors couldn't have known ahead of time that the FDA would claim this. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hims-hers-health-inc-dba-hers-09092025 https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-c...
marticode 9mo ago
AFAIK it's a meme stock, reality doesn't matter anymore than it matters for Tesla or Gamestock.
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  I am bored to tears by this and it is simultaneously heart-breaking. My MD friend wasted $100K on MicroStrategy, ignoring my advice when he asked for it a couple months ago, and he's like "It's fine I'm not 65." and then proceeded to explain he absolutely should hold it because Trump will add it to Bitcoin strategic reserve. Been following the market for 30 years and I've never seen loss per share > $10. They lost $42/share. Didn't make a dent in our conversation, I think he just ignored it twice.
loeg 9mo ago
Investors, or management?

kps 9mo ago

The charitable assumption is that investors weren't aware it was a problem.

They probably didn't, they just took the bet that this was one of the crimes that are currently legal, like crypto scams, environmental crimes, bribery, and tay evasion for the rich.

sincerely 9mo ago
Hims has donated $1M to the current administration, which supports this theory
JasonADrury 9mo ago
Pretty sure you don't have to be rich to get away with avoiding Taylor Swift.

badrequest 9mo ago

Some of the most profitable ventures this century have been objectively illegal, but when you know you won't go to prison for violating the law, why would you care to follow it?

pixl97 9mo ago
The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally.
- CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
  Also: human dissection (grave robbing) translating the Bible into English silk production outside of China (death penalty for exporting worm eggs) rubber production in Asia (seeds smuggled out of Brazil) the Underground Railroad heliocentrism AIDS treatment (see Dallas Buyers Club) Needle exchange programs for IV drug users Ridesharing/airbnb/napster (obvious ones) SF gay marriage licenses (in defiance of CA law)
  - graemep 9mo ago
    Translating the Bible into English was not illegal. I very much doubt Bede or the monks of Lindisfarne were breaking the law! The same for heliocentrism. No one took Copernicus to court. With silk and rubber the smuggling was illegal, the actual cultivation was not Grave robbing was illegal (and still is) but dissection was not. Needle exchange was illegal in some US states but was legal in many other countries.
    - chihuahua 9mo ago
      Reference to support the claim that translating the bible into English was banned (William Tyndale was executed for doing it): https://nobimu.no/en/subject-articles/banned-translations-of-the-bible https://nobimu.no/en/subject-articles/banned-translations-of... You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point.
      - yorwba 9mo ago
        Unauthorized Bible translations were prohibited in England at the time, but Tyndale was executed in the Netherlands, where there was no such ban: https://books.google.de/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC&pg=P315&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1 https://books.google.de/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC&pg=P315&source...
      - graemep 9mo ago
        The context of this is the list of examples was of things done illegally for the first time - it lists these things as "also" in response to a claim that water was *first* chlorinated illegally. While there were bans or a requirement for authorisation of translations of the Bible in certain times and places (mostly the 1300s to 1500s) the first translations of (parts of the) Bible into English had been done centuries before this, some as early at the 7th century. This makes them some of the oldest written works we know of in English at all. They were also done by the church. > You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point. When did this happen? Tyndale was tried and executed by the secular authorities in a place where there were no laws against translating the Bible. The earliest translations into English were done by the Church.
- maxbond 9mo ago
  > The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally. I tried to find a source on this but it doesn't seem to be true? The first chapter of this book describes the history of chlorination: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Chlorination_of_water_%28IA_chlorinationofwa00race%29.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Chlorina... (which is a source Wikipedia cites) and it doesn't appear to mention anything about illegally chlorinating water. After looking in that book I asked ChatGPT to find a source for the claim, and it reported the claim was false. Chlorination was initially controversial but I can't find anything claiming it was illegal?
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    >Jersey City v. Jersey Water Supply Company
    - maxbond 9mo ago
      Thank you for replying, I appreciate it. I enjoyed learning more about this history. Making a citation invites the risk of being contradicted, and I respect that. I do still disagree for the following reasons: - Jersey City started chlorinating in 1908; Maidstone, England started chlorinating in 1897 and Lincoln, England started chlorinating in 1905. So Jersey City wasn't the first to chlorinate their water. However, Jersey City seems to be the first deployment in the United States, so perhaps that is what you meant. If this were the only issue I would concede the point. - This was a civil matter and not a criminal matter. - The dispute wasn't whether chlorination was legal or acceptable but whether it was sufficient to deliver "pure and wholesome" water. The city wanted them to build a sewer. The utility didn't really dispute that there was a water quality issue but they built a chlorination plant instead of building a sewer (while the lawsuit was still ongoing). - The water utility won. They demonstrated that chlorination was sufficient. That's the impression I took from Wikipedia and this writeup: https://www.dolmetsch.com/chlorination_history.pdf https://www.dolmetsch.com/chlorination_history.pdf (Starting on page 4)

nerdsniper 9mo ago

It probably is legal at the moment, but the rules may be changed to make it illegal. But also Uber and Lyft were super illegal when they were invested in. To some extent, YCombinator partners are on the record[0] supporting the idea of their startups doing illegal things. Generally they'll frame this as challenging outdated regulations, but they acknowledge that the founders whose strategies they fully support sometimes come into office hours and discuss how they're worried that the strategy puts them at risk of going to jail. There are different kinds of illegal, and Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care. The jury is very much still out. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-ZIiwiN1o&t=8m46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-ZIiwiN1o&t=8m46s

refulgentis 9mo ago
> Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care Well, no: the thing that's a lot cheaper is a placebo at best, and they were just referred to the DOJ for prosecution. The rest is more expensive
- nerdsniper 9mo ago
  Hims offered semaglutide for $99/month. That’s a 90% discount on unsubsidized consumer prices for injectable semaglutide. I also don’t see any evidence that they sold a placebo, but I’m just catching up now, perhaps I missed where they’re selling something with a different active ingredient which does not work.
  - simulator5g 9mo ago
    Its in the article that you didn't read lol
    - nerdsniper 9mo ago
      I've since read TFA, as well as many other articles, official correspondence, and case law around the issue. I understand that without the additional ingredients of SNAC/sodium caprate/sodium caprylate, the bioavailability is probably too low to have a clinical effect at oral doses <15mg/day. I read the actual FDA referral to the DOJ. They don't mention anything about any of what this article touches on. It's not clear that the referral makes correct claims about anything illegal going on. In statements, the FDA says that compounding pharmacies "cannot state compounded drugs use the same active ingredient as the FDA-approved drugs". That's a very brand-new interpretation of rules, and might not stand up to judicial scrutiny. In the context of "shouldn't investors have known that Hims business model is illegal??" -- it makes sense that investors couldn't have known ahead of time that the FDA would claim this. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hims-hers-health-inc-dba-hers-09092025 https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-c...

marticode 9mo ago

AFAIK it's a meme stock, reality doesn't matter anymore than it matters for Tesla or Gamestock.

refulgentis 9mo ago
I am bored to tears by this and it is simultaneously heart-breaking. My MD friend wasted $100K on MicroStrategy, ignoring my advice when he asked for it a couple months ago, and he's like "It's fine I'm not 65." and then proceeded to explain he absolutely should hold it because Trump will add it to Bitcoin strategic reserve. Been following the market for 30 years and I've never seen loss per share > $10. They lost $42/share. Didn't make a dent in our conversation, I think he just ignored it twice.

loeg 9mo ago

Investors, or management?