Investing
LensCrafters to pay eyeglass customers $39 million over Accufit claims
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People are pictured in a LensCrafters store, a brand owned by EssilorLuxottica SA, in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., November 30, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) – LensCrafters agreed to pay $39 million to settle a lawsuit by prescription eyeglass customers who accused the eyewear chain of misleading them about how well its Accufit technology could measure their eyes.
A preliminary settlement of the nearly six-year-old class- action lawsuit was filed on Monday night in federal court in Brooklyn, and requires a judge’s approval.
LensCrafters was accused of violating New York, California and Florida consumer protection laws by saying Accufit was five times more precise, down to 1/10th of a millimeter, than other measurement methods, and gave customers “clearer, crisper vision” to let them “see the world more clearly.”
Customers said the claims were false because LensCrafters’ manufacturing processes did not support its claims, and that an update would not be clinically significant.
They claimed to pay more for their glasses than if LensCrafters had not overpromised and underdelivered.
The settlement covers all U.S. customers of LensCrafters who since Sept. 5, 2013, bought prescription glasses after being fitted with Accufit. They are eligible to receive up to $50 for each pair.
LensCrafters and its lawyers did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment.
The company denied wrongdoing and stood by the quality of its eyewear, but settled to avoid the cost, inconvenience and distraction of further litigation, court papers show.
LensCrafters said it operates 955 stores in 49 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, with no stores in Wyoming.
Its parent EssilorLuxottica is based in the Paris suburb of Charenton-le-Pont.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to seek up to $13 million from the settlement for legal fees.
The case is Allegra et al v Luxottica Retail North America, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 17-05216.
Read the full article here