|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
California Supreme Court Rules Against Pearle Vision |
||||||||||||||
|
By James R. Hood June 12, 2006
The ruling clears the way for a consumer protection lawsuit filed in 2002 by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer against Pearle Vision for alleged unlicensed practice of optometry, deceptive marketing and unfair business practices. The complaint claims that Pearle Vision's advertising falsely promoted that the company provides optometric services, including eye exams, eye care, professional eye care advice and the services of optometrists. Additionally, the complaint alleges the defendants falsely told consumers that the optometrists located in or near Pearle Vision retail outlets were independent. In fact, the optometrists are controlled and financially subsidized by Pearle Vision, according to the complaint. "For decades Pearle Vision has flipped and twisted itself, trying to find a way through California law requiring economic independence between optometrists and those selling and dispensing lenses and frames," Lockyear said. "They thought they found a technical refuge but the court stripped away that shelter." "Consumers have less protection when the firm selling eyewear also controls the doctor writing the prescription. Today's ruling upholds Californians' insistence that when it comes to their health, those with the credentials should make the decisions," Lockyer said. California law prohibits financial relationships between optometrists and retail eyeglass sellers, and also bars retailers from advertising or providing the services of optometrists. Pearle had set up a complicated structure that involved selling franchises to optometrists licensed in California. The California Association of Dispensing Opticians sued Pearle, arguing that the franchise program violated state law. Pearle then shifted strategies, splitting its operations into two, with Pearle Viosion, Inc. selling eyeglasses and contacts and a separate company, Pearle VisionCare, employing optometrists to perform eye examinations. But in its ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Pearle's arguments, which it said violated California's prohibition against the corporate practice of medicine except by licensed health care institutions. Pearle Vision operates about 850 stores throughout the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. Report Your Experience
|
||||||||||||||
Back to the top | |
|||||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|