In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation

Background

Two groups of plaintiffs filed separate amended complaints against different combinations of entities associated with EssilorLuxottica. The direct purchasers asserted nine federal antitrust claims involving the alleged Premium Eyewear Market and Custom Lens Market. The indirect purchasers sought injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws and asserted 54 state antitrust and consumer-protection claims under the laws of 33 states and the District of Columbia.

Both groups alleged that EssilorLuxottica used acquisitions, brand licenses, retail operations, minimum advertised-price policies, sales agreements, and steering practices to obtain or maintain control over eyewear and lens markets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants owned or licensed many eyewear brands and operated or controlled various retail, lens, vision-benefit, and optometry-related businesses.

After the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file one consolidated amended complaint. Instead, they filed two separate amended complaints that named different defendants and offered conflicting market definitions. The court also found that the plaintiffs improperly grouped the different corporate defendants together under the name “EssilorLuxottica” without adequately alleging why the separate entities should be treated as one.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that defining the relevant market is required for the plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. A relevant antitrust market must include products that consumers reasonably view as interchangeable for the same purposes.

The indirect purchasers alleged one Premium Eyewear Market containing premium prescription lenses, premium spectacle frames, and premium sunglasses, including both prescription and non-prescription sunglasses. The direct purchasers alleged a Premium Eyewear Market containing premium spectacle frames and premium sunglasses, while treating custom lenses as a separate market. The court found both definitions implausible because lenses, spectacle frames, prescription sunglasses, and non-prescription sunglasses serve different purposes and are not reasonably interchangeable.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to define the market by including several categories of EssilorLuxottica brands while excluding similar or similarly priced products from competitors, including Warby Parker and Under Armour products. The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly explain why a product would be included or excluded based primarily on the brand or on whether the brand was described as “luxury.”

For the direct purchasers’ Custom Lens Market claims, the court held that the alleged 52% share of custom-lens retail revenue was insufficient by itself to establish monopoly power. The plaintiffs also did not plead specific facts showing that EssilorLuxottica could control prices or exclude competition. The court further held that the allegations did not show a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power, which is required for an attempted-monopolization claim.

The court additionally noted concerns about stale allegations involving acquisitions outside the four-year limitations period and allegations concerning foreign conduct, but it had already dismissed the claims on other grounds.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the indirect purchasers’ federal antitrust claims for failure to plead a plausible market definition and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. It dismissed the direct purchasers’ Premium Eyewear Market claims for the same reason and dismissed their Custom Lens Market claims for failure to adequately allege market power.

The court dismissed the amended complaints without prejudice and with leave to replead. Plaintiffs were permitted to file one second amended consolidated complaint by October 17, 2025. The court stated that this was their final opportunity to amend their pleading in the action.