Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 29 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

United States Department of Justice 

Consumer Protection Branch 

450 5th St. NW, Suite 6400 

Washington, DC 20001, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VISION PATH, INC., a corporation, also d/b/a 

Hubble Contacts, 

215 Park Ave S, 11th Floor 

New York, New York 10003. 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00176

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL 

PENALTIES, PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, MONETARY 

RELIEF, AND OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the 

Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1) alleges: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Fairness to Contact 

Lens Consumers Act (“FCLCA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7608(a) and (b), and Sections 5(a)(1), 

5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), 16(a)(1), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 

56(a)(1), and 57b, which authorize the FTC to seek, and the Court to order, monetary civil 

penalties, permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of 

monies paid, and other relief for the Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of Sections 5(a) 

and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52, Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 29 

§§ 7608(a) and (b), and Sections 315.5(a) and (d)-(f) of the Contact Lens Rule (“Rule”), 16 

C.F.R. § 315(a), (d)-(f) (2019) (unless noted otherwise, all citations to the Contact Lens Rule in 

this Complaint are to the Rule as it existed prior to the amended and re-numbered Rule re-issued 

by the Commission August 17, 2020, because the majority of the alleged Rule violations 

occurred under the previous version of the Rule). Defendant’s violations are in connection with 

acts and practices that circumvented the FCLCA and Contact Lens Rule, and unlawfully 

switched consumers from the contact lenses their eye doctors prescribed to Defendant’s contact 

lenses. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

1345, and 1355. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (c)(2), 1395(a) 

and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

THE DEFENDANT 

4. Defendant Vision Path, Inc., also doing business as Hubble Contacts (“Hubble” or 

“Defendant”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 215 Park Ave S, 

11th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Hubble transacts or has transacted business in this 

District and throughout the United States. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or 

in concert with others, Hubble has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold contact lenses to 

consumers throughout the United States. 

5. Hubble sells its own brand of contact lenses, Hubble contacts, direct to 

consumers via a monthly subscription model, primarily through its website 

www.hubblecontacts.com. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 29 

COMMERCE 

6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant has maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

THE CONTACT LENS RULE AND THE MARKET FOR CONTACT LENSES 

7. Under the FCLCA and the Contact Lens Rule, contact lens sellers may sell 

contact lenses only in accordance with a contact lens prescription that is either presented to the 

seller or verified by direct communication with the prescriber. 15 U.S.C. § 7603(a); 16 C.F.R. 

§ 315.5(a). If the seller does not have a copy of a prescription, it must communicate a 

prescription verification request to the patient’s prescriber by telephone, fax, or electronic mail. 

The request must include certain information, including the patient’s full name and address, and 

the contact lens power, manufacturer, and base curve. 15 U.S.C. § 7603(c); 16 C.F.R. § 

315.5(b). If, within eight business hours of the request, a prescriber communicates to the seller 

that the prescription information she received is not a valid prescription for that patient, 

verification is denied and the seller must cancel the sale. If the prescriber approves the 

verification request, or fails to communicate with the seller within eight business hours of a valid 

verification request, the seller can legally sell the contact lenses. 15 U.S.C. § 7603(d); 16 C.F.R. 

§ 315.5(c). A sale that occurs after a prescriber has failed to respond to a valid verification 

request within eight business hours is typically referred to as “passive verification.” 

8. The FCLCA and the Contact Lens Rule do not allow sellers to alter contact lens 

prescriptions from what is written on consumers’ prescriptions by the prescriber, unless the lens 

is identical to the prescribed lens. 15 U.S.C. § 7603(f); 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(e). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 29 

9. The Contact Lens Rule further requires contact lens sellers to maintain 

communications from the prescriber, including prescription verifications, as follows: (a) if the 

communication occurs via facsimile or e-mail, a copy of the communication and a record of the 

time and date it was received; or (b) if the communication occurs via telephone, a log describing 

the information communicated, the date and time that the information was received, and the 

names of the individuals who participated in the call. 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(f). 

10. In 2020, the Contact Lens Rule was amended to, inter alia: require that if sellers 

verify prescriptions via automated telephone messaging, the message be delivered in a slow and 

deliberate manner, be repeatable at the prescriber’s option, and be recorded by the seller; clarify 

the meaning of “alteration of prescription” to include a seller giving a prescriber the name of a 

manufacturer or brand other than that specified by the patient’s prescription; and require that 

sellers accept a consumer’s prescription presentation. These amendments went into effect on 

October 16, 2020 and are not retroactive. The majority of the alleged Rule violations occurred 

prior to the effective date of the amendments. 

11. In the United States, a contact lens prescription typically includes, among other 

things, the brand, power, base curve and diameter of the lens. Prescribers write contact lens 

prescriptions for specific brands and models that they have fit on their patients’ eyes, and often 

will see their patients for multiple visits prior to finalizing a prescription for a specific lens. In 

order to fit lenses on patients’ eyes, prescribers typically obtain fitting kits from contact lens 

manufacturers. Typically, prescribers will not prescribe a contact lens that they have not seen on 

their patients’ eyes. Often a patient will receive a trial set to take home for a few days, and then 

will return for a follow-up so the optometrist can evaluate how the lenses are fitting and whether 

the lenses are causing any health or vision problems for the patient. 

4 
 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 29 

THE DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

12. Since October 2016, Hubble has sold its own brand of daily contact lenses, 

Hubble contacts, direct to consumers through its website, www.hubblecontacts.com, using a 

negative-option subscription model. Hubble markets its lenses through targeted social media and 

television advertisements. 

13. Hubble created and implemented a website, ordering process, and verification 

system that effectively substituted Hubble-brand contact lenses for the lenses originally 

prescribed by the consumers’ eye care practitioners thereby violating both the FCLCA and the 

Contact Lens Rule. Specifically, Hubble: (A) led consumers to believe they had provided 

Hubble with their relevant prescription information, and that Hubble would communicate with 

the consumers’ eye care practitioners to verify and ensure consumers received lenses with their 

proper prescription, and (B) used verification practices that made it unduly difficult (and 

sometimes impossible) for prescribers to confirm that consumers’ prescription information was 

correct, or to deny the verification when the prescription was not correct. Hubble also provided 

free contact lenses to select customers in exchange for them providing testimonials about Hubble 

on Internet review websites, such as the Better Business Bureau and HighYa. Neither Hubble 

nor these endorsers disclosed that the endorsers had been compensated with free product for their 

reviews. Hubble also violated the Contact Lens Rule by failing to follow important 

recordkeeping rules intended to allow the FTC to oversee Hubble’s verification practices. 

The Ordering Process and Subscription Plan 

14. Consumers sign up for a first shipment that contains 15 pairs of lenses (roughly a 

two-week supply) for free except for a nominal shipping and handling charge (during some 

periods $3, and currently $1). Hubble then automatically enrolls consumers in a subscription 

5 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 29 

plan that delivers 30 pairs of daily contact lenses to them each month. The initial cost for the 

subscription was $30 each month, and currently is $39 per month, plus an additional $3 shipping 

and handling fee. 

15. Hubble contact lenses are manufactured by St. Shine Optical Co. in Taiwan and 

are FDA approved, though the lenses are made of methafilcon A, a material that is no longer 

commonly prescribed for contact lenses in the United States. 

16. Hubble’s customer ordering process and subscription enrollment takes place 

online. From October 2016 until approximately August 2019, the Hubble website did not permit 

consumers to present or upload a copy of their prescription, select a brand of contact lenses other 

than Hubble, or inform Hubble that their prescriptions were not for Hubble lenses. Instead, when 

consumers went to the Hubble website to order lenses, they were simply asked to enter their right 

and left eye contact lens powers in response to an invitation to “tell us about yourself and we’ll 

get your subscription started.” Apart from the corrective power of their lenses, which represents 

just one element of a contact lens prescription, consumers were not asked, nor were they able to 

enter, any other elements, including brand, material, base curve, and diameter. Instead, The 

Hubble website stated, below the entry spaces for a consumer’s powers, in faint gray text much 

smaller than the language requesting the entry of contact lens powers, that “Hubble lenses have a 

base curve of 8.6 and a diameter of 14.2. They are made of methafilcon A and manufactured by 

St. Shine Optical Co.” This text was neither described nor presented as part of the patient’s 

contact lens prescription. It appeared as follows: 

6 
 

 

 

1

www.hubblecontacts.com/pages/subscribe 

MENU . 

• 

YOUR PRESCRIPTION 

Tell us about yourse\t and we'll get your subscription started. 

My left eye power is -1. 25 

My right eye power is '6 

Hubble lenses have a base curve of 8.6 and a diameter of 1 4.2. They are 

made of methafilcon A and manufactured by St. Shine Opt C.ll Co. 

FIRST BOX FREE 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 29 

17. The Hubble website only asked consumers for, and they were only able to select, 

their contact lens powers, even though written prescriptions consumers receive from their eye 

care providers also include other specifications, such as brand, base curve, and diameter. Some 

consumer prescriptions also include information specific to toric lenses, such as cylinder and axis 

information, which are required for anyone with astigmatism. Hubble’s ordering page did not 

mention or provide space to enter any of this information. Further, the wording of the small, 

faint gray text below the power information stated what Hubble lenses are made from and who 

their manufacturer is, whereas prescriptions consumers receive from providers do not typically 

include this information, instead stating the brand and model, such as Acuvue Oasys (made of 

senofilcon A and manufactured by Johnson & Johnson) or Focus Dailies (made of nelfilcon A 

and manufactured by Alcon). Despite the lack of resemblance between Hubble’s prescriptioninput page and a consumer’s actual prescription from a provider, when consumers entered their 

powers and clicked to make a purchase, Hubble treated their action as a de facto confirmation 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 29 

that the prescription they received from their provider was for Hubble lenses with a base curve of 

8.6 and a diameter of 14.2, made of methafilcon A, and manufactured by St. Shine Optical Co. 

18. After consumers entered their lens powers, the Hubble website asked them to 

enter their prescribers’ contact information, stating “[w]ith this [or later, your] info, we’ll verify 

your prescription with your doctor.” For many consumers, the prescriber and prescriber’s office, 

city, and state appeared from Hubble’s pre-populated list of prescribers as the consumers type 

them into the system. If the prescriber’s name did not automatically appear in the pre-populated 

list, consumers are able to enter the information manually. 

19. More recently—since the FTC informed Hubble it was investigating Hubble’s 

business practices, and since the FTC amended the Contact Lens Rule—Hubble has made some 

alterations to the Hubble ordering page. 

20. As noted above, prior to the announcement of the Contact Lens Rule 

amendments, which went into effect on October 16, 2020, Hubble did not ask consumers for 

copies of their contact lens prescriptions, nor would it typically permit consumers to upload, 

email, or otherwise provide Hubble with copies of their contact lens prescriptions, even when 

consumers offered to do so during communications with Hubble’s customer service 

representatives. Instead, Hubble set up its customer service system so as not to accept 

attachments from consumers, which ensured that consumers could not present copies of their 

prescriptions. This was done, at least in part, because Hubble determined that it would need to 

cancel orders when they received prescriptions for brands other than Hubble. By not allowing 

prescription presentation, and by only letting consumers enter their powers and no other 

prescription information, Hubble could then contact the prescriber with a verification request as 

if the consumer had “confirmed” that her prescription was for Hubble lenses. 

8 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 29 

Defendant’s Flawed Verification System 

21. After the consumer has entered her lens powers and submitted an order, a Hubble 

representative was tasked with calling the customer’s eye care prescriber to play an automated 

verification message. Sometimes the agent played the automated message after someone from 

the prescriber’s office answers the line and agreed to listen, at other times, the agent simply left 

the automated message on the prescriber’s voicemail. In some instances, no calls were made, or 

verification messages were left at a phone number that the agent could easily have determined 

was not associated with an eye care prescriber. 

22. Until shortly after the announcement of the Contact Lens Rule amendments, the 

Hubble verification messages were relayed in a robotic computerized voice with strange 

pronunciations and peculiar word phrasing, starting abruptly by spelling the individual letters of 

the consumer’s name without otherwise stating the consumer’s name in the message. The 

messages also sometimes commenced while the live agent was talking, making them even harder 

to understand, and sometimes the messages were played, in their entirety, over hold music, even 

though it was evident that no one from the prescriber’s office was listening. 

23. Until shortly after the announcement of the Contact Lens Rule amendments, none 

of the information in the verification message was repeated or repeatable (unless it happened to 

be recorded by the prescriber’s voicemail) and the agent who initiated the call typically did not 

stay on the line to ensure that the entire message had been relayed and received. Instead, the live 

agent would disconnect, and Hubble considered it a valid verification if the call lasted the 

amount of time it takes for the computer-generated voice to recite the required verification 

information, whether or not such information was relayed in an understandable manner, or 

relayed at all. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 29 

24. While prescribers and consumers almost uniformly refer to contact lenses by 

brand name and model, Hubble’s verification messages did not include such information. 

Instead, they identified the lenses by stating the lesser-known name of the lens manufacturer, St. 

Shine. Until early 2021, Hubble’s verification message did not include the words “Vision Path” 

or “Hubble” even though prescribers (and consumers) almost always refer to the company’s 

lenses as Hubble’s lenses. The messages also include the customer’s address; the powers, base 

curve and material of the Hubble lenses; the date of the customer’s order; in some instances, the 

date and time of the verification; and at times, a customer reference number. 

25. The closing of the Hubble verification message to prescribers stated: 

If you have questions about our verification process, please call [name of 

representative] at this number [***-***- ] which is toll free, and we will do 

our best to reply to any questions within 2 business days. Send faxes to [** *-***-

****] for all other items, including verification responses. 

26. This wording—in which the number for calling with questions is provided prior to 

the fax number for responding to verification requests—caused many prescribers’ offices to 

misunderstand the instructions and call the first, or wrong, phone number to communicate a 

verification denial. Meanwhile, according to Defendant’s stated internal policies, Hubble only 

accepted verification denials via fax, not by phone. However, under the Contact Lens Rule, once 

the seller receives a denial from a prescriber, it shall not sell the lenses. In other words, the 

Contact Lens Rule does not allow the seller to dictate the prescriber’s method of providing a 

denial to a verification request. 

27. For a certain period, Hubble’s verification messages also instructed prescribers to 

provide a 13-digit reference number in order to deny a verification request. However, many of 

Hubble’s verification messages only included an 11- or 12-digit reference number. Hubble also 

10 
 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 29 

had an internal policy that a faxed denial from a prescriber’s office that did not contain a 

consumer name or verification number did not constitute a “valid denial,” and therefore it was 

free to sell its lenses to that consumer once the eight-business-hour period had passed. 

28. At other times relevant to the Complaint, Hubble ceased using reference numbers 

altogether in its verification calls. This appears to have occurred after one of the company’s 

founders suggested, in a document entitled “revenue ideas,” that Hubble should “remove 

reference numbers.” By removing reference numbers from the messages, the messages may 

have become less cluttered with information, but it also became more difficult for prescribers— 

especially those who could not discern the patient’s name from the verification call—to identify 

the order and deny it, thus allowing Hubble to proceed with the sale of lenses and consequently 

generate more revenue. 

29. After the FTC announced it was amending the Contact Lens Rule to expressly 

require that automated verification messages deliver prescription information in a slow and 

deliberate manner at a reasonably understandable volume, Hubble altered its messages to make 

the computerized voice much easier to understand, although, continuing until at least January 

2021, the wording and structure of the messages still left them ripe for prescriber confusion, with 

the phone number for prescribers to contact Hubble “if they have questions” about the 

verification process still given greater prominence and provided before the fax number for actual 

verification responses. Furthermore, the fax number that Hubble indicated was for responding to 

verification requests was still listed before any explanation that faxing is the way prescribers 

should respond to verification requests. The persistent effect of this counterintuitive structure 

was to continue to make it appear to prescribers, incorrectly, that the phone callback number was 

the way to respond to verification requests. Hubble was aware of the flaws in its verification 

11 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 29 

process from early on. In numerous instances, prescribers complained to Hubble about the 

intelligibility of the verification calls, informing Hubble that they could not determine the 

identity of the patient, or that the message was garbled or incomplete. Yet, in numerous 

instances, Hubble failed to respond to messages left at the phone number provided in the 

verification call. A document describing Hubble’s internal policy for these calls indicates that, in 

lieu of responding directly to prescribers who said they could not understand the information on 

the verification message, Hubble would resend the prescriber the same verification message. 

30. Hubble failed to take action to make its verification messages clearer even 

though it was on notice, based on a multitude of prescriber complaints, that its verification 

messages were difficult (or impossible) to understand. Instead, at times, Hubble responded to 

prescribers who complained by telling them that the Hubble messages contained all the 

information required under the Contact Lens Rule. 

31. Prescribers’ numerous complaints put Hubble on notice that these calls were 

deficient and invalid verification calls, and that Hubble had a systemic issue with the quality and 

completeness of the messages left for prescribers. Yet until the FTC announced amendments to 

the Contact Lens Rule relating to improving verification call quality, Hubble continued to send 

verification messages that were difficult or even impossible for prescribers to understand. 

32. In some instances, Hubble’s agents left verification messages at phone numbers 

that are clearly not eye care practitioners, or even doctor’s offices. For instance, agents placed 

verification calls to numbers that were easily confirmed to have been that of an internal medicine 

doctor, otolaryngologist, and a garden center of a warehouse sales club. 

12 
 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 29 

33. In some instances, Hubble sold lenses to consumers even though consumers 

entered fictitious prescriber information, making it clear that Hubble could not have made 

compliant verification calls. 

34. In at least one instance, Hubble sold lenses even though it did not place any, or 

any compliant, verification calls or faxes, or otherwise attempt to verify the prescription 

information provided by the consumer. 

35. In at least one instance, Hubble sold lenses to a customer even after the prescriber 

communicated that the verification request was invalid, inaccurate, or otherwise denied. A 

Hubble document instructed its representatives that if prescribers communicate denials of 

verification requests via the customer service line, the representatives were to inform prescribers 

to fax in the denial, instead of invalidating the sale. 

36. Since, under the Contact Lens Rule, sellers may only sell lenses after receiving a 

copy of a contact lens prescription (something Hubble rarely accepted), or verifying a 

prescription by direct communication, sales that occurred following incomprehensible or 

incomplete verification requests, whether or not they were responded to by a prescriber, violated 

the Rule prior to the 2020 amendments and clarifications. Similarly, verification calls to phone 

numbers clearly not associated with prescribers or sales after no, or otherwise deficient, 

verification attempts were made, violated the Rule. Sales after prescribers informed Hubble of a 

denial also violated the Rule. 

13 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 29 

The Defendant’s Knowing Alteration of Prescriptions 

37. Hubble knowingly placed verification calls and faxes to prescribers who have 

never received fitting kits for Hubble lenses, and thus do not prescribe Hubble lenses. In fact, 

the pre-populated list of prescribers from whom consumers can select their prescriber includes 

thousands of prescribers who do not possess—and have never possessed—a Hubble fitting kit. 

According to Hubble, as of April 2018, it had provided fitting kits to 352 practice groups. At 

around the same time, it listed 26,188 names of prescribers on its drop down menu for consumers 

to select for verification. Hubble’s own documents advise that a consumer should be fit for 

Hubble lenses prior to ordering, but despite the vast discrepancy between the number of practices 

who had fitting kits and the number of prescribers from whom Hubble sought verification, 

Hubble did not alter its business practices. 

38. Hubble also continued to place verification calls to prescribers who had expressly 

informed Hubble that they did not prescribe Hubble lenses, and asked that Hubble stop seeking 

to verify from them. 

39. Further, Hubble was aware it sold Hubble lenses to many consumers whose eye 

care prescribers did not prescribe them. This knowledge was evident in that: 

a. eye care prescribers repeatedly told Hubble that they did not prescribe 

Hubble lenses; 

b. many subscribers told Hubble—often after they had already received 

several months of Hubble lenses—that they did not have, or had never 

had, a Hubble prescription; subscribers sent Hubble pictures of their 

prescriptions, showing that they were prescribed different lenses; 

14 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 15 of 29 

c. subscribers informed Hubble that their prescription was for toric or 

multifocal lenses, and Hubble does not sell toric or multifocal lenses; and 

d. some subscribers informed Hubble that they incurred an eye infection, 

inflammatory response, or had contact lenses stick to their eyes because 

they were wearing Hubble lenses without being fitted for the lenses. 

40. According to a Hubble retention analysis from February 2018, between 40-50% 

of Hubble customers cancel their subscription by the end of month three. A Hubble survey 

conducted at the same time asked consumers to select the top three reasons for cancelling their 

subscription, and found 24% of customer cancellations were because the customers needed 

multifocal or toric lenses (which Hubble doesn’t make or sell), 13% were because customers said 

they “couldn’t see out the lenses” (which should not occur if they had been fitted for the lenses), 

22% were because customers found the lenses uncomfortable (likewise, in most instances), and 

18% were because the customers’ eye care prescribers would not let them wear Hubble lenses. 

Based on this information, Hubble knew, or should have known, that numerous Hubble 

customers had never been fitted for, and did not have a prescription for, Hubble lenses. 

41. Although Hubble was aware that many of its customers were never fit for Hubble 

lenses, it instructed its representatives to assume, when communicating with customers, that 

customers had been fit for Hubble contacts. Hubble told its representatives: “If and when 

[consumers] admit to not being fit for Hubble, that’s when you cancel . . . but there’s no need to 

drag it out of them.” 

42. When customers complained to Hubble that the lenses they received were not 

appropriate for their eyes or were not prescribed, Hubble responded by claiming that consumers 

had agreed to Hubble’s Terms of Service when they made their purchase, and these terms state it 

15 
 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 16 of 29 

is the customer’s responsibility to ensure they enter their information “in full conformity” with 

the prescription. But customers can only view the Terms of Service (which is 10 or 11 pages 

long, depending on the time period) by clicking on a hyperlink in small font, buried in the 

Hubble website. 

Defendant’s Misleading Assurances to Consumers 

43. Hubble made several assurances to consumers that they would receive lenses 

prescribed by their prescriber. In many instances, and in the following ways, Hubble represented 

that, before sending their lenses, Hubble would actively verify and ensure the prescription 

information is accurate with their prescribers: 

a. After entering lens powers, consumers were asked to enter their 

prescribers’ contact information, after the statement “[w]ith this [or later, 

your] information, we’ll verify your prescription with your doctor.” 

b. Prior to checking out, customers were congratulated on their two weeks of 

free contacts and told, “By checking out you’re also asking us to verify 

your prescription with your doctor now and down the road when it 

expires. Don’t worry - we’ll contact you before we re-verify.” 

c. When consumers looked to the Hubble website for more information 

about Hubble’s lenses, the website informed them that the base curve and 

diameter used for Hubble lenses “are suitable for almost all people who 

wear contact lenses and have no or a mild astigmatism. . . . But don’t 

worry! This is why we verify your prescription with your doctor- to make 

sure we have the correct information.” 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 17 of 29 

d. When consumers looked to the Hubble website for more information 

about how to order without a physical copy of their prescription, the 

website told them, “It’s easy! When checking out, just indicate your power 

for each eye, select your doctor from our database, confirm the rest, and 

we’ll reach out to your doctor on your behalf to ensure we have the right 

information.” 

e. When consumers looked to the Hubble website for more information 

about whether their subscription would terminate when their prescription 

expired, the website told them, “No, don’t worry! Before you check out, 

we alert you that as part of your subscription we’ll reach out to your 

doctor when your prescription is expiring to ensure it’s still valid and 

accurate and that shipments to you may continue uninterrupted.” 

f. In customer service communications, Hubble’s agents repeatedly told 

consumers inquiring about how to provide their prescription information 

to “just indicate your power for each eye, select your doctor from our 

database, confirm the rest, and we’ll reach out to your doctor on your 

behalf to ensure we have the right information.” When consumers asked if 

they could send in a copy of their prescription, agents responded, “No 

need as we will be verifying the order with the Doctor.” 

g. Hubble’s agents were also instructed that they should “assume that 

verification=doctor approval,” and it was preferable to refer to the process 

as “doctor approval” rather than “verification” when communicating with 

consumers. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 18 of 29 

44. Many customers expressed confusion to Hubble as to why Hubble sent them 

lenses other than those prescribed, since they had relied on Hubble’s assurances that it would 

check with their eye care practitioner to “ensure” they received the right prescription. 

45. In fact, Hubble did not ensure that consumers received lenses with the correct 

prescription, and did not actively confer with prescribers for the vast majority of customer 

orders. Instead, Hubble sent flawed and often incomprehensible verification messages to 

prescribers, and then, when the prescribers failed to respond with a denial within eight business 

hours, treated the order as passively verified and sent consumers lenses they had never been 

fitted for. Regardless of the quality of Hubble’s verification requests, Hubble promised more 

than passive verification—it promised that it would ensure that customers would receive the 

right prescription—and this it made no effort to do. 

Defendant’s Recordkeeping Involving Prescriptions and Prescription Verification 

46. Hubble received communications from prescribers responding to verification 

requests. At times relevant to the Complaint, Hubble failed to maintain faxes prescribers sent it, 

and failed to maintain a record of the time and date the faxes were received, in violation of the 

Contact Lens Rule. 

47. Hubble maintains logs containing information concerning telephone 

communications from prescribers regarding verification requests. In many instances, however, 

these logs did not describe the information communicated by the prescriber or the prescriber’s 

staff, and did not contain the names of the individuals who participated in the call, in violation of 

the Contact Lens Rule. 

48. In numerous verification calls and faxes Hubble failed to provide the prescriber 

with the time of the verification request, as required by the Contact Lens Rule. This information 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 19 of 29 

is important so that the prescriber knows how much time she has to respond to the request before 

Hubble could consider the order passively verified and sell the lenses. 

Providing a Free Month’s Supply of Lenses in Exchange for Customer Reviews 

49. Hubble sometimes pointed prospective customers and investors to customer 

reviews of its product as a way to reassure them or convince them to try Hubble. Hubble made 

a concerted effort to influence the impression consumers got about Hubble and its lenses, 

including by attempting to increase the number of positive reviews, thereby reducing the 

prominence and percentage of negative reviews from consumers and prescribers. 

50. On at least three occasions, Hubble initiated campaigns to increase positive 

customer reviews by offering existing customers $30 worth of lenses in exchange for a review on 

the website of HighYa or the New York Better Business Bureau (“BBB”). 

51. Both the HighYa and BBB websites publish customer reviews of products and 

services. 

52. HighYa’s website recommends that merchants not offer free products in exchange 

for reviews because “this practice creates a feeling of obligation among reviewers to only leave 

5-star feedback,” and further advises consumers, “If a company is offering to pay for a review, 

our experience has shown that this does not benefit consumers in any way, and it also violates 

our Terms and Conditions. If a company reaches out and offers to pay you for a review (using 

money or in exchange for services), please report them using our contact form.” 

53. The BBB website requires that anyone posting a review certify, “I understand that 

BBB reserves the right to not post in accordance with BBB policy, including if I have a personal 

or business affiliation with the business or I have been offered or received any incentive or 

compensation to write this review.” 

19 
 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 20 of 29 

54. Despite HighYa’s advice and recommendations, as noted in paragraph 52, and 

beginning as early as July 2017, Hubble offered at least seventeen customers who had provided 

positive feedback on Hubble’s website or Facebook page a free month of lenses if they would repost their comments as reviews on HighYa. At least thirteen customers accepted the offer, reposted their praise for Hubble as a review on HighYa, and were duly compensated with a free 

month of lenses worth approximately $30. Hubble did not advise these customers that they 

should disclose that they would be compensated for posting a review, and none of the thirteen 

included such a disclosure with their review. 

55. Beginning as early as November 2017, Hubble stepped up its campaign to 

increase positive reviews and began sending emails to a large number of Hubble customers who 

had made four or more orders, offering a free one-month’s supply of Hubble contact lenses— 

equivalent to approximately $30 at Hubble’s then-monthly rate—if the customer would (a) write 

a review of Hubble on HighYa and (b) send Hubble a screenshot of the published review. At 

least thirty-seven customers—and quite possibly many times that number—accepted Hubble’s 

offer and published reviews. Hubble then compensated them with a free month’s supply of 

lenses. Hubble did not advise consumers to disclose that they would be compensated for their 

review, and only in extremely rare instances, did consumers include such a disclosure with their 

review. 

56. In February 2018, Hubble became concerned about a low BBB rating of the 

company, and the negative impression such a rating might have on potential customers. Hubble 

asked the BBB about its low rating, and was told that it was due, in part, to the number of 

customer complaints Hubble had received. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 21 of 29 

57. In an attempt to improve Hubble’s BBB rating, then co-CEO Jesse Horwitz, after 

asking “have we talked w BBB team about anything we can pay them to get our rating up?’, 

orchestrated another review promotion to, in his words, “rustle up” some positive reviews. 

Despite the BBB policy noted in paragraph 53, Hubble sent emails to at least 53 customers 

offering a free month of lenses in exchange for posting a review to the BBB website and sending 

Hubble a screenshot of the published review. Several customers accepted Hubble’s offer and 

submitted reviews to the BBB site. Hubble then compensated them with a free month’s supply 

of lenses. Hubble did not advise customers to disclose that they would be compensated for their 

review, and none of the reviews on the BBB site include such a disclosure. 

58. One reviewer of Hubble on the BBB website wrote, “I love this company!!! Omg 

I’m so sick of everyone complaining because they don’t know how to follow instructions. 

Literally was so simple. ... I don’t have to wait long if I have a question too and want to call 

them up which is surprising. Overall very satisfied customer here!” Then co-CEO Benjamin 

Cogan responded to this post, “Thanks a bunch! We are so glad you are loving your Hubble 

Lenses! Hope you have a great day!” 

59. The author of the review cited above in Paragraph 58 was, at the time she wrote 

the review, the Director of Customer Experience for Hubble Contacts. She did not disclose her 

material connection to Hubble in her post, and Benjamin Cogan did not disclose it in his 

response. She is still an employee at Hubble. 

60. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff has 

reason to believe that Hubble is violating or is about to violate laws that it enforces because, 

among other things, Hubble engaged in its unlawful acts and practices willfully and knowingly 

over a period of several years, and continued such practices despite numerous complaints from 

21 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 22 of 29 

prescribers, consumers, and regulators. Hubble altered some of its unlawful practices only after 

the FTC began pursuing an investigation, and after the FTC amended the Contact Lens Rule to 

more explicitly prohibit certain practices. Hubble remains in the contact lens business—indeed, 

it has expanded to third-party selling of other companies’ lenses—and maintains the means, 

ability, and incentive to resume its unlawful conduct. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONTACT LENS RULE 

61. Congress enacted the FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7601-7610, in 2003. The FCLCA 

directed the FTC to promulgate a trade regulation rule implementing the FCLCA. The 

Commission promulgated the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 315, on July 2, 2004, pursuant 

to Section 8 of the FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. § 7607, and Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553. The Contact Lens Rule went into effect on August 2, 2004. As noted 

above, the Rule was amended, and the amendments went into effect on October 16, 2020. 

62. Pursuant to Section 9(a) of the FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. § 7608(a), and Section 18(d)(3) 

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the Rule constitutes an unfair or deceptive 

act or practice, in violation of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). Under 

Section 5(m)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), anyone whose action violates the Rule with actual 

knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is 

unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by the Rule is liable for a civil penalty for each violation. 

COUNT I 

Failure to Obtain or Properly Verify Contact Lens Prescriptions 

63. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising and sale of contact 

lenses, Defendant has sold contact lenses to customers without obtaining the customers’ contact 

lens prescriptions or verifying the prescriptions by direct communication (completed 

22 
 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 23 of 29 

communication by telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail) with the prescribers in violation of 

Section 315.5(a) of the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(a). Many verification calls placed 

by the Defendant were incomplete or incomprehensible, as described in Paragraphs 21 to 31 

above. Such calls did not include all of the required information and therefore, Defendant did 

not verify the prescriptions by direct communication. Further, the Defendant placed some 

verification calls to phone numbers that were not eye care prescribers, did not properly verify 

prescription information after being provided with fictitious prescriber information, or failed 

altogether to verify, or verify properly, prescription information, as described in Paragraphs 32 to 

34 above, and therefore, Defendant did not verify the prescriptions by direct communication. 

Since Defendant did not obtain prescriptions from customers for Hubble lenses for virtually all 

of its sales, and instead relied on verification, all sales made pursuant to the aforementioned 

deficient verification attempts violate Section 315.5(a) of the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 

315.5(a). Defendant violated the Rule with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

COUNT II 

Selling After Denial 

64. In at least one instance, in connection with the advertising and sale of contact 

lenses, Defendant sold contact lenses after receiving notice from a prescriber, within eight 

business hours of a contact lens verification request, that a contact lens prescription is inaccurate, 

expired, or otherwise invalid, as described above in Paragraph 35, in violation of Section 

315.5(d) of the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(d). Defendant violated the Rule with the 

knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

23 
 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 24 of 29 

COUNT III 

Contact Lens Alteration 

65. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising and sale of contact 

lenses, Defendant altered contact lens prescriptions by substituting Hubble lenses for the 

prescribed lenses, as described in Paragraphs 37 to 42 above, in violation of Section 315.5(e) of 

the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(e). Defendant violated the Rule with the knowledge 

required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

COUNT IV 

Recordkeeping Violations 

66. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising and sale of contact 

lenses, Defendant failed to maintain records of contact lens prescriptions; records of and relating 

to verification requests; and direct communications from, and records relating to direct 

communications from, contact lens prescribers, as described in Paragraphs 46 to 48 above, in 

violation of Section 315.5(f) of the Contact Lens Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 315.5(f). Defendant violated 

the Rule with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§45(m)(1)(A). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

67. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

68. Pursuant to Section 9(a) of the FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. § 7608(a), and Section 18(d)(3) 

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the Contact Lens Rule constitutes an unfair 

or deceptive act or practice, in violation of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 

24 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 25 of 29 

69. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraphs 63 to 66 above, 

Defendant has violated Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 

70. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

71. Section 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, prohibits the dissemination of any 

false advertisement in or affecting commerce for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to 

induce, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics. For the purposes of Section 

12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, contact lenses are a “device” as defined in Section 15(d) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(d). 

COUNT V 

Deceptive Representations 

72. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of contact lenses, including through the means described in Paragraphs 

43 to 45, Defendant represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication that Hubble 

would ensure that customers receive lenses with valid and accurate prescriptions as prescribed by 

the customers’ eye care practitioners. 

73. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which the Defendant made the 

representation set forth in Paragraph 72, Hubble did not ensure that customers received lenses 

with valid and accurate prescriptions as prescribed by the customers’ eye care practitioners. 

74. Therefore, the making of the representation, as set forth in Paragraph 72 was false 

or misleading and constituted a deceptive act or practice, and the making of a false 

advertisement, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52. 

25 
 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 26 of 29 

COUNT VI 

False Claim of Independent Reviews 

75. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of contact lenses, including through the means described in Paragraphs 

54 to 59, Defendant has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that 

reviews or endorsements of Hubble and its contact lenses, including an employee’s review of 

Hubble posted on the BBB’s website, reflect the opinions or experiences of ordinary unbiased 

customers. 

76. In truth and in fact, these customer reviews do not reflect the opinions or 

experiences of ordinary unbiased customers, but instead were written either by a paid employee 

of Hubble or by individuals compensated with a free month’s supply of Hubble lenses. 

77. Therefore, the making of the representation, as set forth in Paragraph 75 was false 

or misleading and constitutes deceptive acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements, 

in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52. 

COUNT VII 

Failure to Disclose Material Connections 

78. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of contact lenses, including through the means described in Paragraphs 

55 to 59 Defendant has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that 

customer reviews or endorsements of Hubble and its contact lenses posted on the HighYa and 

BBB websites reflected their customers’ opinions or experiences. 

79. In numerous instances in which the Defendant has made the representation set 

forth in Paragraph 78, Defendant has failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, that some of those 

26 
 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 27 of 29 

customers received compensation in the form of a free month’s supply of contact lenses, to post 

those reviews on the HighYa and BBB websites. This fact would be material to consumers in 

evaluating the reviews in connection with a purchase or use decision. 

80. When Defendant made the representation set forth in Paragraph 78, Defendant 

failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, that a review was left by a paid employee of 

Defendant. This fact would be material to consumers in evaluating the review in connection 

with a purchase or use decision. 

81. Defendant’s’ failure to disclose or disclose adequately the material information 

described in Paragraphs 79 and 80, in light of the representation set forth in Paragraph 78, 

constitutes a deceptive act or practice, and the making of false advertisements, in violation of 

Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

82. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial 

injury as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act and the Contact Lens Rule. Absent 

injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the 

public interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff, pursuant to Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), 16(a)(1) and 19 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a)(1) and 57b, Section 9 of the 

FCLCA, 15 U.S.C. § 7608, and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and the 

Contact Lens Rule by the Defendant; 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 28 of 29 

B. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to address the Defendant’s 

violations of the FTC Act and the Contact Lens Rule, including rescission or reformation of 

contracts, the refund of monies paid, and other relief necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from the Defendant’s violations. 

C. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from the Defendant for each violation of 

the Contact Lens Rule alleged in this Complaint; and 

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

DATED: January 25, 2022 

FOR THE UNITED STATES: 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

ARUN G. RAO 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

(D.C. Bar No. 997162) 

Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

LISA K. HSIAO 

(D.C. Bar No. 444890) 

Assistant Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

/s/ Claude F. Scott, Jr. _ 

CLAUDE F. SCOTT, JR. 

(D.C. Bar No. 414906) 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

450 5th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00176 Document 1 Filed 01/25/22 Page 29 of 29 

Telephone: (202) 414-9571-9027 

Facsimile: (202) 514-8742 

Email: Claude.F.Scott@usdoj.gov 

FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Alysa S. Bernstein, Attorney 

Paul Spelman, Attorney 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Room CC-10561 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3289 (Bernstein) 

(202) 326-2487 (Spelman) 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3259 

abernstein@ftc.gov 

pspelman@ftc.gov 

29