People who bought Ray-Ban, Oakley or other EssilorLuxottica eyewear through the company’s own stores and websites since February 2025 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging the company passed IEEPA tariff costs to them and kept the money. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. Its statements are unproven allegations. EssilorLuxottica has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
EssilorLuxottica, the eyewear company behind Ray-Ban and Oakley and the owner of retailers including Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Target Optical, faces a proposed class action alleging that it passed the cost of the 2025 IEEPA tariffs on to U.S. shoppers through price increases and kept that money even as it sued the government for a refund of the same duties. The case is Burgh v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., No. 1:26-cv-01133, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York before Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr., with Magistrate Judge Peggy Cross-Goldenberg handling pretrial matters.The first complaint was filed February 26, 2026, six days after the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. It was brought by a New York resident who said he bought Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025. The defendants are EssilorLuxottica S.A., the French parent, and U.S. affiliates including Luxottica of America Inc. and Essilor of America Inc. They have not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Complaint Alleges
According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica said on its April 23, 2025 first-quarter earnings call that it was “moving toward the price adjustment in the single‑digit territory in the United States across the different product lines and across our distribution channels,” to manage the impact of U.S. import duties. By July 2025, the complaint says, the company reported it had raised U.S. prices by “mid-single digits,” with the full effect to show in the second half of the year.The complaint points to archived price histories at Target Optical, one of the company’s retailers, to argue the increases landed on specific products in May 2025:
• Ray-Ban RB8313 Carbon Fibre: $287 to $304
• Oakley OO9208 Radar EV Path: $271 to $287
• Oakley 0OO9437: $266 to $283
• Ray-Ban 0RB3539: $186 to $197
The complaint also says EssilorLuxottica and affiliates sued U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Court of International Trade on November 26, 2025 (No. 1:25-cv-00310) to recover the IEEPA duties they paid, without accounting for the customers who, the plaintiffs allege, bore that cost through higher prices. The original complaint pleaded money had and received, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and New York General Business Law § 349. The company has not been found to have done anything unlawful; these are allegations.
Who the Proposed Class Covers
The original complaint proposed a nationwide class of all individuals who bought an EssilorLuxottica product through the company’s retail or e-commerce outlets from February 1, 2025, when the first IEEPA tariff orders were signed, through the present, plus a New York class of buyers in that state. The amended consolidated complaint filed July 2, 2026 now governs the case, and any class definition remains subject to the court’s approval. No class has been certified.Where the Case Stands
On May 29, 2026, the court consolidated the case with a second suit, Smith v. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02786, and the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 2, 2026. On July 29, 2026, the defendants asked for a pre-motion conference on an anticipated motion to dismiss and moved to stay discovery; according to the plaintiffs’ response, the defendants contest the court’s personal jurisdiction over two of the four defendants. The initial conference set for August 5 was adjourned.On September 11, 2026, Magistrate Judge Cross-Goldenberg stayed discovery pending resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss. The order noted the defendants’ threshold arguments and that the case may be transferred into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The case is on the schedule of actions in a pending motion to centralize retailer tariff refund suits as In re Retailer Tariff Litigation, MDL No. 3202. OCA tracks the other retailer cases on its tariff class actions page, and the docket is public.
Questions
Is there a Ray-Ban or Oakley tariff refund class action?
Yes. Burgh v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., No. 1:26-cv-01133, is a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against EssilorLuxottica, the company behind Ray-Ban, Oakley, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, Target Optical and Pearle Vision. It alleges the company raised U.S. prices to cover IEEPA tariffs and should return those tariff surcharges now that the tariffs have been struck down and the company is seeking its own refund. The allegations are unproven.
Who could be covered?
The original complaint proposed a nationwide class of individuals who bought an EssilorLuxottica product through the company’s own retail or e-commerce outlets from February 1, 2025 onward, plus a New York class. No class has been certified, and the definitions could change.
Is there a settlement or claim form?
No. There is no settlement, claim form or deadline. The case is at the pleading stage, and discovery has been stayed while the defendants pursue a motion to dismiss.
Does this cover glasses bought at other stores?
As proposed in the original complaint, the class covers purchases made through EssilorLuxottica’s own retail and e-commerce outlets, which the complaint lists as including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Target Optical. Whether any purchase ends up covered depends on a class definition the court has not approved.
What is the status of the case?
The case was filed February 26, 2026 and consolidated on May 29, 2026 with a second suit, Smith v. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc. An amended consolidated complaint was filed July 2, 2026. The defendants asked for a pre-motion conference on an anticipated motion to dismiss on July 29, 2026, and on September 11, 2026 the magistrate judge stayed discovery until that motion is resolved.
Sources
• Court docket, Burgh v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., No. 1:26-cv-01133-RER-PCG (E.D.N.Y.), including the May 29, 2026 consolidation order, the July 2, 2026 amended complaint (Dkt. 23), the defendants’ July 29, 2026 letter motions (Dkts. 29, 31), the plaintiffs’ August 5, 2026 responses (Dkts. 32, 33) and the September 11, 2026 order staying discovery• Class Action Complaint (E.D.N.Y., filed February 26, 2026) (Dkt. 1)
• Complaint, EssilorLuxottica et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., No. 1:25-cv-00310 (Ct. Int’l Trade, filed November 26, 2025), as cited in the class action complaint
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026)
