Case File: Nano Hearing Aids and the Vermont Attorney General

Case File

Product or seller: Nano Hearing Aids. The brand is now operated by Hearing At Home, LLC, which the Vermont Attorney General describes as the successor to Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC.
The claim: Over-the-counter hearing aids marketed with an online “hearing test,” staff described as hearing specialists, perpetual sales, U.S. design, and language implying FDA approval.
The finding: The State of Vermont sued in January 2023 alleging nine categories of deceptive practice. In February 2025 the successor company settled its part of the case for a $41,500 consumer restitution fund and $100,000 in civil penalties, both suspended until the company can pay. The State said it would continue its action against the previous owners.
Red flags present: The FDA badge, the perpetual sale, the return trap, amplifier sold as hearing aid.
Status: On Watchlist. Partial settlement; enforcement continuing against former owners per the State. Last checked September 11, 2026.
Right of reply: Any company named here may respond through our Corrections Policy. Responses are published in full, unedited, alongside this entry.

Sources: the Vermont Attorney General’s January 3, 2023 lawsuit announcement and February 6, 2025 settlement announcement, and the company’s own February 10, 2025 press release. All linked below.

Evidence level: Records. Evaluated by Scott West. Data scientist. 40 years of hearing loss.

What was claimed

Nano sold over-the-counter hearing aids online, and according to the Vermont Attorney General’s January 3, 2023 announcement it sold more than $200,000 of products and warranties to roughly 800 Vermont consumers between January 2018 and July 2021. The sales pitch, as the State described it, rested on an online “hearing test” presented as an accurate test that “works as free audiologist consultation,” staff who identified themselves as hearing specialists, products permanently listed as on sale, a claim of American design, and marketing that implied FDA approval.

Every one of those is a tactic with its own article on this site. This Case File is what the tactics look like when a state prosecutor lists them.

What the State alleged

The lawsuit, filed in Vermont Superior Court under the Consumer Protection Act by then Attorney General Susanne Young, alleged that the company:

Misrepresented the character and quality of its hearing products.
Operated a deceptive online hearing test, described as an “accurate hearing test” in under ten minutes that “works as free audiologist consultation.”
Implied that professional audiologists reviewed test results when they did not.
Had staff identify themselves as “hearing specialists” without medical training.
Pressured dissatisfied customers to keep devices past the 45-day refund period.
Listed products as perpetually on sale.
Claimed U.S. design for products designed in China.
Unlawfully promoted the products for children.
Implied FDA approval the products did not have.

The State sought consumer refunds, disgorgement of profits, and civil penalties. Attorney General Young’s statement at the time: “Vermonters experiencing hearing loss should not be discouraged from seeking the professional diagnoses and care they need.”

An “accurate hearing test” in under ten minutes that “works as free audiologist consultation.” The State called it deceptive. So do we.

How it was resolved

On February 6, 2025, Attorney General Charity Clark announced a settlement with Hearing At Home, LLC, the entity that now operates the Nano Hearing Aids brand as successor to Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC. The terms as announced:

A restitution fund of $41,500 for consumers to recoup the purchase price of their devices.
Civil penalties of $100,000 to the State of Vermont.
Both amounts suspended until the company has the ability to pay, which the announcement attributes to the company’s financial position.
The settlement does not dismiss the case in its entirety. In the State’s words, it “will proceed with its enforcement action against Nano Hearing Aids’ previous owners.”

Four days later the company issued its own press release titled “Nano Hearing Aids Resolves Lawsuit with State of Vermont, Paving the Way for a New Era of Growth and Innovation.” We link it in full because that is the company’s account, and readers should have both. In summary, the company says the conduct predates its current ownership, which it dates to March 2021; that the Attorney General credited “more than two years of unprecedented cooperation and proactive steps” by the new owners; and that it is pursuing its former owner and its prior law firm over the matter. Its chief executive, Ryan Zackon, called the settlement “a turning point.”

Why this matters beyond Vermont

The settlement covers Vermont consumers. The marketing was national. If you bought from this brand in another state during the period the State describes, the allegations are the same, and your state attorney general accepts complaints. The FDA’s own page on over-the-counter hearing aids is the reference for what “FDA approved” does and does not mean, which is the claim at the centre of the case.

A brand under new ownership can change. The way to tell is the same as always: the FDA listing, the return terms in writing, and whether the sale ever ends. We will update this entry as the State’s continuing action produces a record.

Right of reply

This entry reports what public records say. The company’s own press release on the settlement is linked above as its account. If the company disputes any of it, or the record has changed, our Corrections Policy explains how to tell us. Responses are published here in full, and corrections are dated and visible.

What to buy instead

For mild to moderate loss, start with Real Choices, where every product shows its FDA listing so you can check it yourself, and the return terms are quoted in full.

Sources

Transcripts of the two Attorney General announcements were saved by Sound Judgment on September 11, 2026. Evaluated by Scott West. Data scientist. 40 years of hearing loss. Method: How We Evaluate.