The contact lens manufacturer Bausch & Lomb was sued for selling the
same lens under three different names, at three different prices. A
settlement was reached in 1996:
"A court-approved settlement of a consumer class action settlement
against Bausch & Lomb was announced on August 1, 1996. Final approval
of the proposed settlement is scheduled for hearing on Nov. 26 in
Birmingham, Alabama to determine if it is fair to consumers. The
fairness hearing will be two years after the court certified a
national RICO class on behalf of all purchasers of Bausch & Lomb's
Optima and Medalist contact lenses in November, 1994...
Under the settlement Bausch & Lomb will pay up to $68 million in cash
and products to 1.5 million buyers of the company's disposable lenses.
Many wearers will receive from $25 to $50 in cash and $25 to $50 in
coupons under the settlement as a result of a class-action filed in
May 1994 which alleged that the company sold the same product under
different brand names at widely varying prices and engaged in a
fraudulent marketing scheme in order to gain market share in the
disposal lens market. The result was that some consumers paid much
more because they believed they were getting different lenses.
Bausch & Lomb denies any wrongdoing in its re-labeling program but
agreed to pay up to $34 million in cash payments to consumers and in
addition provide the same amount in free products, including contact
lenses, sunglasses and skin-care items.
Competition from Johnson & Johnson led Bausch & Lomb to relabel its
lenses to compete with Accuview disposable lenses which have long held
a premier share of the contact lens market. At the time, Bausch & Lomb
was selling a long wear lens under the name of Optima, which
wholesaled to optometrists for approximately $25. In order to enter
the disposable market Bausch & Lomb simply repackaged its Optima lens
and renamed it the Medalist for intermediate wear and as the Sequence
for disposable use.
These new and identical products were represented to be different, but
the only true difference was the name on the package and the price
charged."
Consumer Law Page
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/lenses.shtml
Here's a detailed look at the class action litigation:
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf
The file linked above is in .pdf format. You need to have Adobe
Acrobat reader software installed on your computer in order to view
.pdf files. If you do not already have this software, a free download
is available here:
Adobe Acrobat Reader
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Another similar lawsuit involved Johnson & Johnson's Acuvue lenses:
"An appellate panel last week (7th Jan 1999) ruled that a consumer
fraud lawsuit against New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson can proceed
as a class action, reports the Bergen Record. The lawsuit alleges that
J&J charges five times as much for its Acuvue lenses as for 1-Day
Acuvue, even though the products are 'interchangeable.'
Last week's ruling upheld a previous ruling that class- action status
be granted; J&J had appealed. Now millions of people who purchased
lenses since 1993 can join together in a single lawsuit against the
company, says the newspaper account. The plaintiff's attorneys claim
losses of over $1 billion, says the paper's report, because Acuvue
wearers could have purchased the less expensive 1-Day, or 1-Day users
could have worn their lenses for weeks.
J&J emphasized that although the lenses are of the same material, they
are not interchangeable -- having different base curves, diameters,
and power ranges. The company feels the suit is without merit, says
the report.
In 1994, Bausch & Lomb faced a similar suit. B&L settled for $68
million, and later paid an additional $1.7 million to settle
investigations by 17 state Attorneys General."
Contact Lenses Wear & Care
http://www.contactlens.co.uk/education/public/1_day_acuvue.htm
"Jacksonville, FL (July 27, 2001) - Vistakon, a division of Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., together with plaintiffs' counsel, jointly
announced today that they have reached a settlement of a class action
lawsuit concerning the marketing of ACUVUEŽ and 1-DAY ACUVUEŽ soft
contact lenses. The settlement, which has been preliminarily approved
by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,
grants cash, product credits and refunds towards eye examinations to
members of the class based upon the number of boxes of ACUVUEŽ contact
lenses purchased by class members during the Class Period. The
settlement is subject to a fairness hearing and final approval by the
Court.
The class action, filed in Camden, New Jersey, in 1996, involves
allegations that Vistakon's marketing of ACUVUEŽ and 1-DAY ACUVUEŽ
lenses created the misleading impression among consumers that the less
expensive 1-DAY ACUVUEŽ lens was different from the ACUVUEŽ lens and
should not be used for the same wear schedule as the ACUVUEŽ lens,
when in fact both lenses are medically suitable for the same wear
schedules. The action did not question the quality or safety of the
lenses.
Johnson & Johnson and Vistakon deny these allegations. The Court has
not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses,
and the settlement in no way implies or acknowledges any wrongdoing by
Johnson & Johnson or Vistakon."
Johnson & Johnson
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20020306_1029.htm
My search for this information was made simpler by my remembering that
Bausch & Lomb was involved in one of the suits. At the time of the
lawsuit, I was using Bausch & Lomb contacts myself, so I took some
interest in the proceedings (although I did not join the class action
suit.)
These were the search terms that proved most useful in finding the
links I've listed:
"bausch & lomb" + "lawsuit"
"contact lenses" + "lawsuit"
"johnson & johnson" + "lawsuit"
"bausch & lomb" + "litigation"
"contact lenses" + "litigation"
"johnson & johnson" + "litigation"
"bausch & lomb" + "class action"
"contact lenses" + "class action"
"johnson & johnson" + "class action"
I hope this the information you need. If anything I've said is
unclear, or if a link does not function, please request clarification;
I'll gladly offer further assistance before you rate my answer.
Best wishes,
pinkfreud |
