Thomas Allegra, et al. v. Luxottica Retail North America

Case Background

Yesenia Ariza and David Soukup filed a class-action lawsuit in September 2017 against Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as LensCrafters, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Additional actions followed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Southern District of Florida. These cases were consolidated by the Eastern District of New York in December 2017(Case number:17-5216). Judge Pamela K. Chen presided over the case.

Cause

In September 2018, the consolidated class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Thomas Allegra, Ariza, Mariana Elise Emert, Stuart Rogoff, Gracelynn Tenaglia, and Melissa Verrastro. They alleged that LensCrafters advertised its AccuFit system as measuring customers’ pupillary distance with “five times more precision than traditional methods, down to the tenth of a millimeter.” However, the plaintiffs claimed that, while the AccuFit system could theoretically provide measurements to a tenth of a millimeter, the actual eyeglasses were produced using manual, decades-old techniques that required rounding up measurements to a full millimeter, failing to deliver the advertised accuracy.

Injuries

The plaintiffs alleged that they, along with other consumers in California, Florida, and New York, were misled by LensCrafters’ claims about the AccuFit system. This, they claimed, resulted in economic injury. They argued that they paid higher prices for prescription eyeglasses, believing that the AccuFit technology would provide superior accuracy. Instead, they claimed that LensCrafters used standard manual methods that did not deliver the promised precision. This approach, according to the plaintiffs, deprived them of the anticipated benefit from the AccuFit system.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, statutory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, and equitable relief. They also requested injunctive relief to prevent further misleading advertising practices. In December 2021, the court granted class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, FDUTPA, the California laws, and for unjust enrichment.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Thomas AllegraAriza | Mariana Elise Emert | Stuart Rogoff | Gracelynn Tenaglia | Melissa Verrastro
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Geoffrey A. Graber| Andrew Friedman | Brian E. Johnson |  Eric A. Kafka | Claire L. Torchiana | Theodore J. Leopold
  • Defendant(s):Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as LensCrafters
    • Counsel for Defendants: Frank A. Dante| Michael A. Iannucci | Melissa F. Murphy | Michael A. Stoolman

Claims

The plaintiffs filed claims under multiple state statutes in a class-action lawsuit. These included California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Additional claims included quasi-contract (unjust enrichment), fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent omission. The plaintiffs alleged that LensCrafters misrepresented the precision of its AccuFit system. These claims sought to obtain relief for consumers in California, Florida, and New York. According to the plaintiffs, consumers allegedly paid a premium for eyeglasses based on misleading advertising about AccuFit’s precision capabilities.

Defense

The defense argued that LensCrafters’ AccuFit system met all representations made to consumers, asserting that it provided a more precise measurement experience than traditional methods, including pupillary distance (PD) measurements to the tenth of a millimeter. LensCrafters contended that the plaintiffs misinterpreted or exaggerated AccuFit’s intended claims, maintaining that the system’s purpose was to enhance the fitting process rather than guarantee a specific final measurement in eyeglasses manufacturing.

Additionally, the defense argued that any alleged rounding of measurements during production did not materially affect the quality or effectiveness of the eyewear. They claimed that consumers experienced no actual harm or economic loss as a result. LensCrafters maintained that the plaintiffs lacked concrete evidence showing that any purported inaccuracies led to injury. The defense argued that consumer expectations were met according to the advertised product’s specifications. Furthermore, the defense contested the grounds for class certification, arguing that individual differences in consumer experiences made a class-wide claim inappropriate.

Settlemet

In January 2024, class counsel filed a motion for final approval of the settlement, requesting $11.5 million in attorney fees (approximately 29% of the settlement fund), $2,686,778.13 in litigation expenses, $959,493.91 for class notice costs, and awards of $8,000 for each of the six class representatives. On September 27, 2024, the judge gave final approval for a $39 million settlement reached by LensCrafters with consumers, concluding the class-action lawsuit over alleged misrepresentations about its AccuFit system.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request