Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica slams ‘grab bag’ lawsuits claiming eyewear monopoly
By Mike Scarcella
Oct 3 (Reuters) -Eyewear giant EssilorLuxottica has asked a U.S. judge to throw out what it called “misguided” consumer lawsuits accusing the Ray-Ban maker of monopolizing markets for designer frames and prescription lenses, causing customers to pay higher prices.
In a court filing, EssilorLuxottica on Wednesday told U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in Manhattan that the consumer plaintiffs had not presented enough facts to justify their claims that the company and affiliated entities were violating U.S. antitrust law.
A series of lawsuits first filed last year and later consolidated in Manhattan alleged EssilorLuxottica used serial acquisitions of rivals and restrictive sales and distribution agreements to unlawfully dominate markets for eye products.
“Their claims amount to nothing more than a contention that building a successful company over many decades is unlawful,” EssilorLuxottica’s court filing said. It added: “That is not an antitrust violation; it is good business.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and neither did EssilorLuxottica and its attorneys.
Italian eyewear giant Luxottica in 2018 merged with French lens maker Essilor in a $58 billion deal, forming EssilorLuxottica.
EssilorLuxottica owns major retail outlets including LensCrafters, Sunglasses Hut and For Eyes, and also popular eyewear brands such as Persol, Oliver Peoples, and Oakley.
Two related lawsuits seek class action status for buyers who purchased products from EssilorLuxottica and related business entities and who indirectly bought items through third-parties such as optometrists.
The plaintiffs said EssilorLuxottica had formed a web of anticompetitive agreements providing consumers only “an illusion of choice in a competition-free ecosystem.”
EssilorLuxottica captured more than half of the nearly $8.5 billion U.S. retail market for premium eyewear, the consumers alleged.
In its bid to dismiss the lawsuit, EssilorLuxottica said it and its affiliated companies operated in a highly competitive industry, and that the plaintiffs’ “grab bag” of antitrust claims failed to allege that the company was excluding potential rivals.
New market entrants like Warby Parker “have quickly built substantial eyewear businesses under their own new brands,” EssilorLuxottica said.
In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-04826-MKV-GS.
For direct purchasers: Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek; David Cialkowski of Zimmerman Reed; Heidi Silton of Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Alec Schultz of Hilgers Graben
For indirect purchasers: Richard Paul III and Laura Fellows of Paul LLP
For defendants: Christopher Yates, Belinda Lee and Lawrence Buterman of Latham & Watkins
Read more:
EssilorLuxottica extends smart glasses partnership with Meta
Ray-Ban maker Luxottica accused of anti-union behavior at U.S. Georgia plant
EU, U.S clear Essilor's 48 billion euro merger with Luxottica
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
