The Konnektive/La Pura settlement stems from consumer complaints about how La Pura cosmetic and supplement products were sold online—often through “free trial” or low-cost introductory offers that allegedly led to unexpected follow-on charges. In *Tan v. Quick Box, LLC*, plaintiffs alleged that marketing materials and checkout flows made product terms, pricing, or continuity billing unclear, and that consumers were billed for La Pura products during the covered period (June 16, 2016, through preliminary approval). Konnektive—described as a provider of the computer systems used to help process or manage these sales—denies wrongdoing but agreed to an up-to-$5 million settlement to avoid continued litigation, with the final fund amount set at $2 million or $5 million depending on a bench-trial outcome. The lawsuit matters because it targets not only the brand, but also a key enabling vendor in the “direct-to-consumer” sales stack, signaling that companies supporting online sales operations can face exposure when consumers allege deceptive enrollment, negative-option plans, or hidden fees. It also sits within a broader wave of class actions over subscription-style billing and “risk-free” trials, alongside related litigation like the separate Quick Box fulfillment settlement referenced in the notice, which involves similar allegations but focuses on order fulfillment rather than sales systems. These cases unfold against consumer-protection rules and enforcement priorities that require clear, conspicuous disclosure of all material terms—especially for online recurring charges—including federal and state unfair-and-deceptive-acts laws, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) framework for online negative-option features, and the FTC’s ongoing scrutiny of subscription and continuity programs in digital advertising and checkout design