Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementMedium RiskMultistate

Minnesota AG secures multistate settlement with GS Labs over COVID-19 testing practices

GS LabsJune 10, 2026Minnesota Attorney General

Summary

Attorney General Ellison announced a $4.87 million multistate settlement with GS Labs for overcharging patients, charging unlawful administrative fees, and failing to deliver timely COVID-19 test results. The settlement includes $3.63 million in restitution to affected consumers and $1.25 million to the multistate group, along with injunctive relief if GS Labs resumes operations.

Remedy

GS Labs will pay $3,628,718.34 in restitution to patients and $1.25 million to the multistate group. If GS Labs resumes testing, it must disclose maximum turnaround times, report results within advertised timeframes, cease charging above-market rates to cash-paying patients, stop charging administrative fees, and cannot unjustifiably increase prices during emergencies.

Monetary PenaltyConsumer RefundsInjunctionReporting Requirements

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with healthcare testing providers, particularly clauses related to pricing transparency, fee disclosures, and service level commitments. Key areas include: (1) pricing provisions ensuring advertised cash prices reflect actual charges and any discounts are clearly disclosed; (2) prohibitions on charging administrative fees beyond what is contractually agreed; (3) service level agreements (SLAs) guaranteeing turnaround times for test results with penalties for delays; (4) compliance with state and federal consumer protection laws regarding emergency pricing; and (5) indemnification clauses for misrepresentations or overcharges. Customer-facing contracts (e.g., patient intake forms) should also be updated to ensure clear disclosure of all fees and expected service timelines.

Contract Search Terms

COVID-19 testingcash price disclosureadministrative feestest result turnaround timepandemic pricingconsumer restitutionadvertising accuracyprice gouging clauseemergency pricing restrictions

Laws Cited

Minnesota Consumer Fraud ActMinnesota False Statement in Advertising ActMinnesota Unlawful Trade Practices ActMinnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

GS Labs

Industry

Healthcare

Multistate Coalition

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"GS Labs"
Fine Amount
"$4.87 million multistate settlement"
Violation Types
"GS Labs intentionally advertised inflated “cash prices” for COVID-19 tests, sometimes as high as $380 per test or nearly $1,000 for multi-panel tests, that were used to justify overcharging patients with insurance coverage."
Violation Types
"Despite advertising that patients with insurance would have no out-of-pocket costs, the company charged administrative fees as high as $49 per test to about 70,000 patients."
Remedy Summary
"GS Labs will pay $3,628,718.34 in restitution to patients, including $1,843,375.99 for cash-paying patients that were overcharged for tests, $1,749,568.35 for patients that were charged administrative fees, and $33,692 for cash-paying patients that did not receive test results within three days."
Is Multistate
"Minnesota co-leads bipartisan 18-state group in settlement"

Related Enforcement Actions

CO

GS Labs

$4.9M

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and a bipartisan coalition of 18 attorneys general announced a $4.87 million settlement with GS Labs, a former COVID-19 rapid testing business. The company was found to have violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by falsely advertising test results with no wait times, same day appointments, and no out-of-pocket expenses, while overcharging consumers and insurance providers.

MN

Sanford Health and North Memorial Health

The Minnesota Attorney General entered into a 10-year oversight agreement with Sanford Health and North Memorial Health to allow their merger to proceed, conditioned on commitments to invest $600 million in Minnesota hospitals, maintain core services including the Level 1 trauma center at Robbinsdale Hospital, honor collective-bargaining agreements, and maintain charity care and government program participation. The agreement also requires quarterly meetings and annual reporting to the Attorney General for 10 years.

MN

X.AI

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed an opposition to X.AI's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block enforcement of Minnesota's anti-nudification law, which bans commercial platforms from allowing users to generate synthetic intimate images of real people. The court previously denied X.AI's motion for a temporary restraining order, and the law took effect August 1, 2026. The AG argues X.AI cannot show irreparable harm and is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims.

MN

Stevens Community Medical Center

$1.4M

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison reached a settlement with Stevens Community Medical Center (SCMC) over allegations that SCMC improperly calculated discounts required for uninsured patients with household incomes under $125,000, violating the Minnesota Hospital Agreement and state law. As a result, some uninsured patients were billed up to 20.5% more than allowed. SCMC must provide up to $1,412,776.25 in refunds or medical-debt reductions to potentially eligible patients.

MN

Unlock Partnership Solutions, Inc.

$945K

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a settlement with Unlock Partnership Solutions, Inc. over allegations that its 'home equity agreements' were actually unlawful mortgage loans that violated Minnesota's predatory interest rate caps and disclosure requirements. Unlock agreed to pay $944,626 in monetary and debt relief, cease lending unless licensed, and comply with Minnesota mortgage laws.

MN

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Attorney General Ellison joined a coalition of 23 other states and DC to sue the Trump administration over a policy that would allow the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to share sensitive TANF recipient data with other federal agencies. The lawsuit argues the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause, and seeks to block its implementation.