⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit reviews the dismissal of a proposed class action over allegedly overpriced glasses. Consumers accuse EssilorLuxottica of using acquisitions and exclusive licensing and distribution deals to suppress competition and raise eyewear prices. This appeal concerns indirect purchasers, who bought the company's eyewear through independent sellers instead of its own stores. The suits were consolidated in Minnesota and transferred to federal court in New York. The district judge dismissed their federal antitrust claims for failing to plausibly define a premium-eyewear market and declined to hear their state-law claims. Defining the relevant market means identifying which products consumers reasonably regard as substitutes, so a court can measure the company's competitive power. The consumers will argue that deciding their market's boundaries requires evidence, not dismissal on the complaint alone. The company will contend that those boundaries arbitrarily include its brands while excluding comparable competitors. CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act, can give federal courts authority to hear qualifying interstate class actions independently of any federal-law claim.

In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation (No. 25-2703) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.