Contact Lens Class Action: Settlements, Deadlines, and Related Cases

The contact lens class action settlement refers to In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, a consolidated federal case in which the four largest contact lens manufacturers and a major wholesale distributor paid more than $118 million to resolve claims that they conspired to fix retail prices on popular disposable lenses.¹ The case covered consumer purchases made between June 1, 2013, and December 4, 2018. All claim-filing deadlines have passed, with the final deadline for the Johnson & Johnson and Alcon settlements set at August 22, 2022.²

What the Manufacturers Were Accused Of

Starting in 2013, Alcon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Bausch + Lomb, and CooperVision each adopted what they called a Unilateral Pricing Policy, or UPP. These policies set a floor price below which retailers could not sell covered lenses, and manufacturers threatened to cut off supply to any seller that discounted below the minimum.³ The practical effect was that warehouse clubs, online sellers, and other discounters could no longer undercut traditional eye-care offices.

By mid-2014, Senate testimony estimated UPPs already covered 40 percent of the domestic market, with projections reaching 80 percent by the end of 2015.³¹

Plaintiffs argued the policies were not really unilateral. They described a hub-and-spoke conspiracy in which the manufacturers coordinated with one another, with wholesale distributor ABB Optical Group (which serviced more than two-thirds of U.S. eye-care professionals), and with independent optometrists who acted as enforcers at the retail level.⁴ Optometrists signaled through professional journals and industry meetings that they would preferentially prescribe brands from manufacturers who adopted UPPs, effectively rewarding companies that eliminated discount competition.⁵

None of the defendants admitted wrongdoing. All maintained that their pricing policies did not constitute a conspiracy or unreasonably restrain competition.⁶

Who Was Covered

The certified class included all U.S. residents who purchased UPP-covered disposable contact lenses for personal use between June 1, 2013, and December 4, 2018.⁷³⁴ Standing was not limited to consumers who bought directly from the manufacturers. The court held that because the alleged conspiracy operated at the retail level, ordinary purchasers had standing to sue.⁸

The Settlements

Rather than face trial, all five defendants settled. The agreements arrived in stages over roughly four years.¹

CooperVision settled first, in February 2018, for $3 million. A Florida federal court granted final approval in 2020.¹⁹
Bausch + Lomb settled in August 2019 for $10 million, with final approval in 2020.¹
ABB Optical Group settled in August 2020 for $30.2 million. Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger granted final approval in June 2021.¹⁰
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care and Alcon reached a combined $75 million settlement in March 2022, with Johnson & Johnson contributing $55 million and Alcon contributing $20 million. Judge Schlesinger granted final approval on October 12, 2022.¹¹¹²

Claims Deadlines and What Class Members Received

Consumers who had already filed claims in the earlier CooperVision, Bausch + Lomb, or ABB Optical settlements were automatically included in the final round and did not need to file again.⁷ The final deadline to submit a new claim, covering the Johnson & Johnson and Alcon settlements, was August 22, 2022.²

Individual payouts were proportional to the number of eligible lenses each claimant purchased, so amounts varied widely and no official per-person figure was published. One claimant publicly reported receiving a check for approximately $3,940.² Attorneys’ fees and expense reimbursements totaling approximately $32 million were awarded to class counsel out of the final Johnson & Johnson and Alcon settlements.¹²

Why the Case Settled

The settlements followed key rulings that let the case move toward trial. In December 2018, Judge Schlesinger issued a 178-page opinion granting class certification and rejecting the defendants’ argument that consumers who bought from retailers lacked standing to sue the manufacturers. The court also refused to exclude plaintiffs’ economic experts, finding that a regression analysis estimating consumer overcharges rested on “sound economics.”⁸ In November 2019, the court denied summary judgment, finding triable issues on both horizontal conspiracy among the manufacturers and vertical conspiracy running through the distribution chain.¹ A later ruling in related litigation found that Alcon’s UPP was understood by distributors and eye-care providers as an enforceable agreement rather than a truly unilateral policy, with distributors maintaining “do-not-sell” lists to cut off discount sellers.¹³

Other Contact Lens Cases That May Look Similar

Several other contact lens class actions and enforcement actions have circulated in the news, and they are not the same as the UPP price-fixing settlement above.

Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts

A separate class action in the District of Utah accused 1-800 Contacts of orchestrating agreements with at least fourteen rival online sellers to suppress competition in search engine advertising, using “negative keywords” so their ads would not appear when consumers searched for a competitor. The defendants collectively agreed to a $40 million settlement fund, with 1-800 Contacts contributing $15.1 million; Walgreens and Vision Direct together contributing $12 million; AC Lens and National Vision together contributing $7 million; and Luxottica contributing $5.9 million. Redistribution payments to qualifying claimants were issued on September 12, 2024.¹⁴

In a parallel FTC enforcement action, the agency ruled in November 2018 that the bidding agreements harmed competition, but the Second Circuit vacated that order in June 2021, holding that the agreements arose from trademark settlements and were not “plainly anticompetitive.”¹⁵¹⁶

FTC Action Against Hubble Contacts

In January 2022, the FTC and Department of Justice reached a $3.5 million settlement with Vision Path, Inc., which operates Hubble Contacts. The agency alleged Vision Path violated the Contact Lens Rule by failing to verify prescriptions and by substituting its own Hubble-brand lenses when they were not the brand a doctor had prescribed. The FTC also charged the company with failing to disclose that many online reviews were written by paid reviewers.¹⁷ The FTC issued over $1.7 million in consumer refunds in waves beginning in September 2022 and continuing through at least February 2025, when the agency began distributing remaining funds via Zelle.¹⁸

1
Robins Kaplan LLP. Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
2
Top Class Actions. Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust $75M Class Action Settlement
3
Courthouse News Service. Class Alleges Price-Fixing of Contact Lenses
4
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. Order Regarding Class Certification, In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
5
ITIF. Senate Contact Lens Testimony
6
MedTech Dive. Johnson & Johnson, Alcon Agree on $75M Settlement to Resolve Contact Lens Antitrust Case
7
PR Newswire. Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation Settlement Notice
8
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC. An Eye-Opening Class Certification Ruling
9
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC. Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
10
Law360. $30.2M Deal, $9.3M Fee Award Greenlit in Lens Price-Fix MDL
11
Westlaw. Contact Lens Antitrust Settlement Analysis
12
Bloomberg Law. J&J, Alcon Pay $75 Million to End Contact Lens Antitrust Case
13
FindLaw. In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Alcon Summary Judgment Order
14
Online Contact Lens Settlement. Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts Settlement
15
Federal Trade Commission. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., In the Matter of
16
Justia. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
17
Federal Trade Commission. Vision Path, Inc. d/b/a Hubble Contacts
18
Federal Trade Commission. Hubble Contacts Refunds