Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—2d Cir.: Dismissal of eyewear antitrust class action over implausible market definitions affirmed, (Nov 2, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

The consumers failed to plausibly define a relevant product market for premium eyewear or its proposed submarkets of prescription lenses, sunglasses, and spectacle frames.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a proposed consumer antitrust class action accusing eyewear manufacturer EssilorLuxottica and its affiliates of anticompetitive conduct in the premium eyewear market. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly define a relevant product market because their proposed premium eyewear market combined products that were not reasonably interchangeable, while their proposed submarkets for prescription lenses, sunglasses, and spectacle frames lacked meaningful distinctions from non-premium products. The court affirmed dismissal of the federal antitrust claims and modified the dismissal of the state law claims to be with prejudice for failure to state a claim (Ringgold v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., No. 25-2703-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2026)).

Background. The litigation involved two groups of plaintiffs—Direct Purchasers and Indirect Purchasers—who filed separate proposed nationwide class actions alleging anticompetitive conduct by EssilorLuxottica and affiliated entities. The groups named overlapping but different defendants and advanced distinct market theories.

The Direct Purchasers, eleven individuals from six states, alleged that they purchased eyewear from EssilorLuxottica-owned or operated retail outlets, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Target Optical, Sunglass Hut, Oakley, and Ray-Ban stores. Their complaint named ten defendants, including the French parent company, EssilorLuxottica S.A., and various manufacturing, distribution, retail, and vision-care affiliates, which allegedly operated as a single entity under centralized control. On October 17, 2025, the Direct Purchasers filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing all their claims with prejudice. A corrected stipulation followed on October 24, 2025.

The Indirect Purchasers, Pamela Ringgold of New York, Anthony Persuitti of Minnesota, and Antoine Acosta of Delaware, alleged that they purchased premium eyewear from unaffiliated retailers. Their complaint named ten EssilorLuxottica entities, including the French parent and several U.S. and international subsidiaries, which allegedly operated under common control as alter egos of EssilorLuxottica S.A. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 26 of the Clayton Act, and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to plausibly define a relevant product market and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The Indirect Purchasers declined an opportunity to amend their complaint further and appealed the dismissal.

Federal antitrust claims. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, concluding that they failed to plausibly allege a relevant product market. The court explained that an antitrust complaint must identify a market consisting of products that consumers consider reasonably interchangeable based on price, use, and qualities. Although a narrower submarket may constitute a relevant antitrust market, plaintiffs must provide a plausible economic basis for distinguishing products within that market from those excluded.

The plaintiffs proposed a broad “Premium Eyewear Market” consisting of three purported submarkets: premium prescription lenses, premium sunglasses, and premium spectacle frames. The appeals court found that neither the overarching market nor any proposed submarket was adequately pleaded.

Eyewear market. The plaintiffs argued that premium eyewear constituted a distinct market because consumers purchased high-end eyewear as fashion accessories that promoted self-expression and confidence, rather than solely for functional purposes. However, the court found the proposed market overly inclusive because it combined prescription lenses, prescription and nonprescription sunglasses, and spectacle frames, which were not reasonably interchangeable. The plaintiffs themselves acknowledged that premium sunglasses, spectacle frames, and prescription lenses were not direct substitutes. Consequently, the proposed market failed to satisfy the reasonable interchangeability requirement.

Prescription lenses. The court rejected the proposed premium prescription lenses submarket because the complaint failed to explain how premium lenses differed meaningfully from nonpremium prescription lenses. Both served the same vision-correction function, and the plaintiffs did not allege why consumers would consider nonpremium lenses inadequate substitutes for premium products. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to redefine the proposed submarket at oral argument as encompassing all prescription lenses, finding that this characterization was inconsistent with the complaint and could not be raised for the first time at oral argument.

Premium sunglasses. The proposed premium sunglasses submarket was similarly deficient. The plaintiffs included both prescription and nonprescription sunglasses while simultaneously alleging that premium sunglasses were not designed for vision correction. The court found that the complaint failed to explain how prescription sunglasses, which provide vision correction, were reasonably interchangeable with nonprescription sunglasses. Without factual allegations establishing substitutability, the proposed submarket was not cognizable.

Spectacle frames. Although the court acknowledged that premium spectacle frames could potentially constitute a distinct antitrust market, it concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish meaningful boundaries separating premium frames from value-oriented products. The complaint classified EssilorLuxottica frames as premium while excluding competing frames sold at identical prices, without providing a plausible explanation for the distinction. The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate meaningful differences in consumer preferences that would support separate markets.

Moreover, the complaint acknowledged that customers of discount eyewear retailers could upgrade to designer frames such as Ray-Ban, even though those retailers operated in the supposedly separate value segment. The court found that this overlap undermined the proposed distinction between premium and nonpremium frames.

Deficient market definitions. The Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly define either the broader premium eyewear market or any of its three proposed submarkets. The deficiencies in the market definitions were fatal to their federal antitrust claims and warranted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The court emphasized that a properly pleaded market for luxury or premium spectacle frames might be cognizable, but the plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to establish one.

State law claims. The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to the dismissal of their state antitrust and consumer protection claims. Although the court agreed that the district court should have considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), it found the error harmless because the state claims failed for the same reasons as the federal antitrust claims. Accordingly, the appeals court modified the dismissal of the state claims from without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Consolidated amended complaint. The court declined to consider the plaintiffs' challenge to the district court's order requiring a consolidated amended complaint with the Direct Purchasers, finding the issue moot because the Indirect Purchasers declined to amend their complaint. The Direct Purchasers had also voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. Because the Indirect Purchasers demonstrated neither prejudice from the consolidation order nor any denial of requested relief, the appeals court declined to consider the issue further.

The Case is No. 25-2703-cv.

Judge: Livingston, D.

Attorneys: Amanda Williams (Bassford Remele, P.A.) for Pamela Ringgold. Ashley Bauer (Latham & Watkins LLP) for EssilorLuxottica S.A.

Companies: EssilorLuxottica S.A

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews