Pearle Vision Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $789K – $1.2M
- Disclosed sales
- $1.4M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 1.5%
- on 103 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Pearle Vision is an eyecare-retail franchise pairing an optical store with an on-site eye doctor, selling glasses, sunglasses, and contacts. Franchisees run an EyeCare Center managing dispensing, an optional finishing lab, and the doctor relationship.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Pearle Vision franchise requires a total initial investment of $789K – $1.2M, including a $30K franchise fee and an ongoing 7.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2026 FDD, average unit revenue was $1.4M[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 1.5% charge-off rate across 103 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low - issued within the last 12 months
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 6 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
- Investment
- $789K – $1.2M
- 78th pct Healthcare
- Avg gross sales
- $1.4M
- Outlet subsetNet sales22nd pct Healthcare
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- 37th pct Healthcare
- Units
- 484
- 77th pct Healthcare
- SBA charge-off
- 1.5%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Healthcare · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Healthcare median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $789K – $1.2M including a $30K franchise fee, 7.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $1.4M/year (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system).
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 75/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 1.5% across 103 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -17 franchised outlets in the latest year (1 opened, 18 closed); 1 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL22 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 13 name the franchisor itself, 2 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Luxottica of America Inc.
- Parent company
- EssilorLuxottica USA Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Luxottica Group S.p.A. / EssilorLuxottica S.A.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- Luxottica Retail North America Inc. (f/k/a); successor to Pearle Vision, Inc./Lux MASALA LLC/LensCrafters, Inc.
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- President - North America, Retail Licensed Brands & Pearle Vision
- Gunjan Kumar
- Incorporated in
- Ohio
- HQ
- 4000 Luxottica Place, Mason, Ohio 45040
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers (inferred - not stated explicitly)
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $165.1M
- vs $151.6M prior year
Overview
About
- CEO
- Gunjan Kumar
- Headquarters
- Ohio
- Founded
- 1961
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 36
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 214% above the typical healthcare franchise.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $30K | $30K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $67K | $139K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $691K | $1.1M |
| Total initial investment | $789K | $1.2M |
Source: Pearle Vision 2026 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $789K – $1.2M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $67K – $139K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Franchise fee
- $30K – $30K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 8.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 0.1%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 7.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 8.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $400 |
| Transfer fee | $8K |
| Renewal fee | $5K |
| Inventory (initial) | $33K – $70K |
| Total fee load | 0.1% of rev |
A 0.1% total fee load is unusually lean. More of each revenue dollar stays with the franchisee.
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 113% above the healthcare norm.
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Pearle Vision until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$1.1M
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Pearle Vision unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD
Financial Performance
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
- Avg gross sales
- $1.4M
- Per unit, per year
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- net sales
- Sample size
- 169 outlets
- vs category median 20 · large
- Quartile band
- $618K→$2.6M
- Bottom 25% → top 25%
- Reporting year
- 2025
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2026
- Disclosed in the 2026 filing, covering 2025
- Transparency
- 10 / 10
- vs category median 3 / 10 · above
Compared against 162 Healthcare brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $1.4M/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 1.4x. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 0.1% — below the Healthcare median of 8.0%.
Disclosure
Transparency score 10/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System contracting at -6.2% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Healthcare medians
How Pearle Vision Compares
Category median of published Healthcare brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 484
- Opened
- 1
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 18
- Terminated
- 3
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 12
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 3.5%
- Company-owned
- 60
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 88%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -6.2%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -6.2%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 3
- Not renewed
- 12
- Transferred
- 11
- Reacquired
- 3
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 1
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 9
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 14 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
25 current owners across 14 states.
- IL 3
- MI 3
- NY 3
- MN 2
- OH 2
- PA 2
- TX 2
- WI 2
- AL 1
- CA 1
- FL 1
- MA 1
- +2 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 103
- Loan volume
- $49.3M
- Median loan
- $350K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 1.5%
- on 103 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 98.5%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 33.3%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 45
- Defaults
- 1
- Typical loan rate
- 6.7%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 12.0%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 807
- 1.6 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 12%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 58% went to startups / new businesses, 42% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in optical goods stores, franchised businesses charge off at 12.0% vs 15.9% for independents — franchising is associated with 25% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Pearle Vision charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Pearle Vision franchisees
Showing 3 of 45 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Pearle Vision from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 1.2%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 73%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.65%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $598K
- Lender concentration
- 11.7%
- Job velocity
- 1.6 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- +5.9pp
- NAICS benchmark
- 1.5%
- NAICS 446130
- Jobs supported
- 807
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 12% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stearns Bank National Association | 12 | $4.9M | 0.0% |
| 2 | United Community Bank | 10 | $5.0M | 0.0% |
| 3 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 8 | $4.0M | 0.0% |
| 4 | BancFirst | 7 | $2.7M | 0.0% |
| 5 | TD Bank, National Association | 6 | $4.6M | 0.0% |
| 6 | The Huntington National Bank | 4 | $786K | 0.0% |
| 7 | U.S. Bank, National Association | 3 | $2.7M | 0.0% |
| 8 | The Bancorp Bank National Association | 3 | $2.7M | 50.0% |
| 9 | Meridian Bank | 3 | $1.1M | N/A |
| 10 | First National Bank of Omaha | 2 | $269K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| MNMinnesota | 12 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 11 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OKOklahoma | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| PAPennsylvania | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| COColorado | 6 | 0 | 0.0% |
| CACalifornia | 5 | 1 | 25.0% |
| MAMassachusetts | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NENebraska | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
With a 1.5% charge-off rate across 103 loans, banks have historically viewed this brand favorably for lending.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 1.5% — 91% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Franchisor and affiliates are defendants in several consumer class actions (Meta/Ray-Ban smart-glasses privacy suits, LensCrafters/Sunglass Hut pricing and cookie-tracking suits, antitrust suits re: eyewear and 1-800 Contacts), a franchisee antitrust/breach-of-contract suit (Brave Optical), and other matters; franchisor was also plaintiff in a trademark/non-compete enforcement suit against former franchisees (Gray/Brave Optical) and a post-termination suit against a former franchisee (Safir). No bankruptcies disclosed. Historical litigation includes a 2002 California AG action against predecessor Cole National/Pearle Vision entities.
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers (inferred - not stated explicitly)
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 75 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORDeclining unit count (-1.6% YoY) indicates contracting franchise system with 503 units
- 02HIGHMultiple serious litigation issues including antitrust, data breach, false advertising, and franchisee fraud allegations suggest systemic operational and compliance problems
- 03MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk and cannibalization between franchisees
- 04MINOR7% royalty on gross revenues (not net) means royalties paid even during unprofitable periods
- 05HIGHLitigation history includes fraud allegations against franchisor toward franchisees, indicating potential relationship deterioration
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail22 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (13)
Aimee Stearns, et al. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-13 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2237
“Aimee Stearns, et al. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-2237, Norther District of California (filed March 13, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Arsham Kosari, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-09 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2022
“Arsham Kosari, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-2022, Norther District of California (filed March 9, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Gina Bartone and Mateo Canu, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-04 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-01897
“Gina Bartone and Mateo Canu, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01897, Norther District of California (filed March 4, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“We were served March 9, 2026, in the Gina Bartone matter and March 11, 2026, in the Peter Tittl matter. We will timely file a responsive pleading.”
Nicolas Tejada, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-09 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2015
“Nicolas Tejada, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-2015, Norther District of California (filed March 9, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Peter Canady, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-11 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2118
“Peter Canady, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-2118, Norther District of California (filed March 11, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Peter Tittl, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2026-03-08 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-1992
“Peter Tittl, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-1992, Norther District of California (filed March 8, 2026)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Brandon Moore, Daniel Aldana, and Hope Kambick v. Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2025-12-19 · Northern District of California · 3:25cv10840
“Brandon Moore, Daniel Aldana, and Hope Kambick v. Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:25cv10840, Northern District of California (filed December 19, 2025).”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“We were served on December 23, 2025, and we will timely file a responsive pleading.”
Serena Cody v. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., EssilorOperating LLC, Luxottica of America Inc. d/b/a LensCrafters, Corte, OD, PLLC g/k/a Corte and Wruble, OD PLLC d/b/a Northlake Eye, Rachel Wruble, OD, Ryan Corte, OD, Stefanos Kotsokalis, OD, and Remi Adams
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2025 · North Carolina, Superior Court of Mecklenburg County · 25cv45609-590
“Serena Cody v. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., EssilorOperating LLC, Luxottica of America Inc. d/b/a LensCrafters, Corte, OD, PLLC g/k/a Corte and Wruble, OD PLLC d/b/a Northlake Eye, Rachel Wruble, OD, Ryan Corte, OD, Stefanos Kotsokalis, OD, and Remi Adams, Case No. 25cv45609-590, North Carolina, Superior Court of Mecklenburg County (filed August 2025).”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Dionte Bradley v. Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024 · Southern District of Ohio · 26-cv-175
“Dionte Bradley v. Luxottica of America Inc., Civil Action No. 26-cv-175, Southern District of Ohio (originally filed December 19, 2024, but subsequently transferred to Ohio and given a new case number).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In April 2025, we filed a motion to transfer the case from California to Ohio, which was granted, and the case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. We are preparing to file a motion to dismiss.”
Dr. Emil Fadel, et al. v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., Luxottica Groups SPA, Luxottica of America Inc., Dr. Ashley K. Garcia, Tuan T. Hyunh, Modern Optometry PLLC
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-12-31 · Texas District Court, Bexar County · 2024CI28969
“Dr. Emil Fadel, et al. v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., Luxottica Groups SPA, Luxottica of America Inc., Dr. Ashley K. Garcia, Tuan T. Hyunh, Modern Optometry PLLC, Cause No.2024CI28969, Texas District Court, Bexar County (filed December 31, 2024). This lawsuit does not involve the Pearle Vision brand or the Pearle Vision franchise. The plaintiff, a former LensCrafters subleasee, alleges”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Counterclaims have been asserted against Dr. Emil Fadel, Eye Pro, Inc., Eye Pro, LLC, and Lauren Eye Group, LLC for breach of contract. Parties are engaged in discovery.” (page 14)
Melissa Velasquez v. Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-12-02 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 24STCV31555
“Melissa Velasquez v. Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 24STCV31555, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (filed December 2, 2024).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“We removed the case to the Central District of California on January 3, 2025. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which we opposed. The dispute is currently pending before an appellate court.”
Brave Optical, Inc., et al. v. Luxottica of America Inc.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-04 · United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio · 1:23cv793
“Brave Optical, Inc., et al. v. Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 1:23cv793, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (filed December 4, 2023). Plaintiffs are two former Pearle Vision franchisees who alleged that the Company’s franchise agreements violate Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Amended Complaint as required, Brave Optical filed a motion for extension of time on March 13, 2026, which we will oppose.” (page 15)
Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray, and Brave Optical, Inc. v. Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman and Milana Gutman, Luxottica of America, Inc., f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., and EyeMed Vision Care, LLC.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2019 · District Court of 101st Judicial District Dallas County · dc-17-07929
“Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray, and Brave Optical, Inc. v. Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman and Milana Gutman, Luxottica of America, Inc., f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., and EyeMed Vision Care, LLC. Cause No. dc-17-07929 District Court of 101st Judicial District Dallas County (filed March 19, 2019 as to LOA and EyeMed).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties are now awaiting further action by the district court to carry out the Texas Supreme Court’s remand order.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (2)
In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation
pendingThird-party plaintiff · EssilorLuxottica and related entities (the filing calls the motion 'our motion to dismiss') · filed 2024-08-06 · United States District Court, Southern District of New York · 1:24-cv-04826
“In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04826, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (filed on August 6, 2024). Antitrust class actions were transferred from Minnesota to New York and consolidated complaints were filed on August 6, 2024, by the Direct Purchaser and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Court granted our motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. The direct purchaser class filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on October 17, 2025. The indirect purchaser class filed an appeal with the Second Circuit on November 7, 2025. Plaintiff filed their brief on January 7, 2026, and our response is due February 11, 2026.”
Renee Newton v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Luxottica Group S.p.A. (Item 1: EL USA is an indirect majority owned subsidiary of Luxottica Group S.p.A.) · filed 2024-08-02 · United States District Court, Southern District of New York · 1:24-cv-05907
“Renee Newton v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-05907, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (filed on August 2, 2024). This is an antitrust class action. We have not been served.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
This list shows 15 of the 22 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 0.1% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 3 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 30 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 12 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 7 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Arbitration location | Ohio (non-binding mediation; litigation in Southern District of Ohio) |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Ohio |
| Litigation count | 22 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Franchisor and affiliates are defendants in several consumer class actions (Meta/Ray-Ban smart-glasses privacy suits, LensCrafters/Sunglass Hut pricing and cookie-tracking suits, antitrust suits re: eyewear and 1-800 Contacts), a franchisee antitrust/breach-of-contract suit (Brave Optical), and other matters; franchisor was also plaintiff in a trademark/non-compete enforcement suit against former franchisees (Gray/Brave Optical) and a post-termination suit against a former franchisee (Safir). No bankruptcies disclosed. Historical litigation includes a 2002 California AG action against predecessor Cole National/Pearle Vision entities.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 24 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 56 hrs
- Training location
- EyeCare Center and/or Virtual
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 12 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- both
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- AcuityLogic (transitioning to VisionX in 2026)
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: AcuityLogic (transitioning to VisionX in 2026)
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
25 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Pearle Vision franchise?
The total investment to open a Pearle Vision franchise ranges from $789K – $1.2M, with an initial franchise fee of $30K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Pearle Vision franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Pearle Vision FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $1.4M. Important context: Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system; Reported as net sales, not gross sales. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Pearle Vision?
Pearle Vision is franchised by Luxottica of America Inc.. Its parent company is EssilorLuxottica USA Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Luxottica Group S.p.A. / EssilorLuxottica S.A.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Pearle Vision FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Pearle Vision FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Pearle Vision's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Pearle Vision has a charge-off rate of 1.5% across 103 loans, meaning 1.5% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Pearle Vision franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Pearle Vision has 484 total units in the United States, including 424 franchised units and 60 company-owned units. 1 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Pearle Vision a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Pearle Vision as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 75 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Pearle Vision, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Healthcare franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Healthcare category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.