A federal court in Ohio dismissed a putative class action brought by franchisee-eyewear sellers against their franchisor, Luxottica of America. Brave Optical, Inc. v. Luxottica of Am. Inc., 2025 WL 962827 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2025).
The franchisees brought antitrust claims, as well as claims for breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, fraud and misrepresentation, and failure to maintain data privacy, among others, related to allegations involving Luxottica’s increasing control over the franchisees’ eyewear selections, Luxottica’s coordination with a vision insurer, and Luxottica’s failure to secure customer data. Luxottica moved to dismiss.
The court granted Luxottica’s motion and dismissed all claims. First, it found the antitrust claims were time barred because the only overt violations of antitrust law were contained in 2014 agreements. Second, the court dismissed the breach of contract claims because the franchisees failed to identify any specific contractual provisions imposing the duties Luxottica allegedly breached. Third, the court rejected the deceptive trade practices claims because the franchisees failed to allege any facts or law to support the application of the statute to their claims. Fourth, the court held that the fraud and interference claims were time barred. Finally, the court dismissed the claims involving customer privacy because the franchisees’ only injury was economic and thus only recoverable under a contract theory.