Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D.N.Y.: Contact Lens King faces California consumer protection claims over processing fees, (Aug 7, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A consumer can pursue claims that Contact Lens King misled shoppers by advertising contact lens prices that excluded processing fees disclosed later in the purchasing process.

Contact Lens King’s practice of adding processing fees to contact lenses advertised at a lower price could mislead reasonable consumers about the products’ actual cost. A federal court in New York allowed a shopper’s California consumer protection claims to proceed, concluding that she sufficiently alleged that the company disclosed the additional fees only after drawing her into the purchasing process. Her New York consumer protection claims were dismissed, however, because she failed to allege a sufficient connection between the transaction and New York (Searle v. Contact Lens King, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-01211-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2026)).

Drip pricing. The consumer brought the proposed class action after purchasing contact lenses through Contact Lens King’s website in October 2024. She asserted claims under California and New York consumer protection laws and sought relief for unjust enrichment. Contact Lens King moved to dismiss.

The complaint characterizes Contact Lens King’s practice as “drip pricing,” in which a seller advertises only part of a product’s total price and discloses additional fees after a consumer has invested time in the purchasing process. The consumer alleged that she relied on Contact Lens King’s advertised price when comparing its products with those offered by other sellers.

She selected a 1-Day Acuvue Moist 90 Pack advertised at $19.95 per eye and expected to pay $39.90 plus shipping. After uploading her prescription and proceeding with the purchase, she was charged an additional $42.16 in processing fees. Contact Lens King did not explain what services the fees covered, she asserted. The proposed nationwide class includes U.S. residents charged processing fees, with a subclass of California residents.

Website screenshots. Contact Lens King sought to counter those allegations with three screenshots purportedly depicting its website. One showed the contact lenses with a statement that a processing fee would apply. Another described the fee and its purpose, while a third showed a checkout page. The company maintained that the screenshots could be considered because the website was referenced in and integral to the complaint.

The court declined to consider the screenshots. The complaint did not incorporate them by reference, and nothing established that they accurately depicted Contact Lens King’s website at the time of the consumer’s purchase. Most notably, the undated screenshots displayed a $21.98 sale price rather than the $19.95 price she alleged she saw. The same uncertainty precluded judicial notice because the screenshots were not capable of accurate and ready determination. Accordingly, the court evaluated Contact Lens King’s dismissal motion without them.

California claims. The consumer adequately pleaded her California claims despite the heightened pleading standard applicable to claims based on allegations of fraud. She identified the allegedly deceptive statement as the advertised price, attributed it to Contact Lens King, specified when and where it appeared, and explained why it was misleading. The advertised price was never available to her because Contact Lens King added $42.16 in processing fees.

Those allegations gave Contact Lens King sufficient notice of the challenged conduct. Additional details the company argued were missing, including where the consumer first viewed the price, how she reached the website, and when she learned about the processing fee, could be developed through discovery.

The claims also satisfied the reasonable-consumer standard, which asks whether a significant portion of consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, could be misled. Because that inquiry generally presents a factual question, it can be resolved at the pleading stage only in limited circumstances.

The allegations here cleared that threshold. Contact Lens King advertised the lenses at a price that excluded the processing fee and allegedly disclosed the additional charge only after drawing the consumer several steps into the purchasing process. Although the complaint did not specify exactly when the fee appeared, the court could reasonably infer that it was disclosed after the consumer had begun the purchase. At this stage, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that adding the processing fee to the advertised price would not deceive a reasonable consumer.

New York claims. The New York claims met a different fate. The state’s consumer protection laws require a sufficient territorial connection between the challenged transaction and New York. For an out-of-state consumer, the analysis focuses on where the transaction occurred and the strength of the state’s connection to it, rather than merely the parties’ residences.

The complaint alleged that Contact Lens King is incorporated in New York, maintains its principal place of business there, and managed the challenged advertising from the state. Those ties were insufficient because the consumer did not allege that any part of her purchase occurred in New York. Developing or managing a challenged marketing practice there, without more, does not bring an out-of-state transaction within the state’s consumer protection laws.

The consumer also did not allege that she accessed Contact Lens King’s website while in New York, made her purchase there, or bought a New York-specific product. Therefore, the New York claims were dismissed without prejudice. Because additional allegations conceivably could establish the required connection, she received leave to amend those claims.

Unjust enrichment. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed on a separate ground. Under both New York and California law, unjust enrichment cannot duplicate conventional statutory, tort, or contract claims arising from the same facts and seeking the same relief. The consumer based the claim on the same alleged drip-pricing conduct underlying her statutory claims and sought disgorgement of the processing fees, without identifying distinct damages or relief that would separate it from her consumer protection claims. Unlike the New York statutory claims, that deficiency could not be cured by amendment, so the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim without leave to amend.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-01211-BKS-DJS.

Judge: Sannes, B.

Attorneys: Lynn Toops (CohenMalad, LLP) for Tammy Searle. Justin R. Meyer (Stafford, Owens, Murnane, Kelleher, Miller, Meyer & Zedick, PLLC) for Contact Lens King, Inc.

Companies: Contact Lens King, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices NewYorkNews