FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Pearle Vision litigation history

What Pearle Vision disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 22; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

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.

Item 3 (litigation) · 22 matters disclosed · 15 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (13)

Aimee Stearns, et al. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., and Luxottica of America Inc.
pending
filed 2026-03-13 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2237
“… 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.
pending
filed 2026-03-09 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2022
“… 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.
pending
filed 2026-03-04 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-01897
“… 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.
pending
filed 2026-03-09 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2015
“… 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.
pending
filed 2026-03-11 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-2118
“… 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.
pending
filed 2026-03-08 · Norther District of California · 3:26-cv-1992
“… 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.
pending
filed 2025-12-19 · Northern District of California · 3:25cv10840
“… 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
pending
filed 2025 · North Carolina, Superior Court of Mecklenburg County · 25cv45609-590
“… 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.
pending
filed 2024 · Southern District of Ohio · 26-cv-175
“… 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
pending
filed 2024-12-31 · Texas District Court, Bexar County · 2024CI28969
“… 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.
pending
filed 2024-12-02 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 24STCV31555
“… 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.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-04 · United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio · 1:23cv793
“… 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.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019 · District Court of 101st Judicial District Dallas County · dc-17-07929
“… 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, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (2)

In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation
pending
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
“… 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
pending
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
“… 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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple serious litigation issues including antitrust, data breach, false advertising, and franchisee fraud allegations suggest systemic operational and compliance problems
Litigation history includes fraud allegations against franchisor toward franchisees, indicating potential relationship deterioration

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the Pearle Vision verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls