A lawsuit filed against Hubble Contacts’ parent company, Vision Path, Inc., alleges that one woman has suffered “total vision loss” due to wearing the company’s contact lenses.
Give me a refresh on this company.
Founded in 2016, Vision Path is an online seller of direct-to-consumer, prescription- and subscription-based daily contact lenses and eyeglasses via the Hubble Contacts brand name.
And the contact lenses?
Manufactured by St. Shine Optical Co in Taipei, Taiwan, Hubble offers two contact lenses: Classic and Hydro (made of Hioxifilcon A material with a 57% water content)—both of which are also FDA approved.
According to the Hubble website, the Classic lenses are made of methafilcon A, a silicone-based polymer (approved by the FDA in 1986) that contains a 55% water content, and offer UV protection with a thin edge design feature.
Now this lawsuit.
Filed in the New York Supreme Court on June 30, 2023, the lawsuit claims that, after purchasing Hubble contacts in January 2020, a woman experienced severe pain and injury following just a few weeks of wear.
This eventually led to “multiple emergency room visits, surgical procedures, extreme pain and discomfort, eyesight impairment, and the total loss,” of her right eye.
She now reportedly uses a permanent ocular prosthetic in her right eye and continues to receive treatment for issues with her left eye.
View the full lawsuit here.
And the complaint?
Among numerous complaint the lawsuit alleges that:
- “[Vision Path] designed, researched, manufactured, assembled, tested, advertised, marketed, sold, and distributed contact lenses in a manner that created an unreasonable risk to the health of consumers.”
- “Hubble contact lenses were unsafe, defective, and inherently dangerous” in that they were “subject to a high rate of eye infections and corneal damage” during use.
- The company did not verify prescriptions; instead using a “one size fits all” base curve measurement (which the FDA advises against).
- The lenses “were defective and unsafe, and [Vision Path] knew or had reason to know that such product was defective and unsafe.”
See the complete list of complaints here, starting on page 14.
What else?
The lawsuit claims Hubble’s ordering process and subscription plan does not follow proper procedures, and refers to its prescription-verifying process as a “flawed verification system.”
What about the lens material?
That lawsuit notes methafilcon A as “a material that is no longer commonly prescribed for contact lenses in the United States.”
In recent decades, similar materials have been found to potentially result in corneal hypoxia—decreased oxygen to the cornea and a common complication of contact lenses—due to low Dk.
What’s this Dk?
A Dk is the property of a lens that allows oxygen to pass through. For optimal corneal health, a lens should have a Dk of at least 24.
To note: Hubble contacts have a Dk of 18 (meaning less oxygen is getting to the cornea).
Gotcha. So is this the first legal issue Hubble’s faced?
Nope, not at all.
In January 2022, Vision Path paid $3.5 million to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a settlement regarding violations of the Contact Lens Rule and the FTC Act.
This was the largest (ever) payment from a company in violation of the Contact Lens Rule.
Is that it?
Nope, one more.
In June 2022, Vision Path paid just shy of $375,000 in a settlement with (then) Texas Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton for “deceptive trade practices,” in which Hubble deceptively marketed its lenses and failed to verify consumers’ prescriptions with prescribers before filing orders (in violation of the Contact Lens Prescription Act).
So … has the company responded to this lawsuit yet?
In a statement to Glance, a Hubble spokesperson said the company was unaware of the lawsuit’s claims until the filing, and that an investigation was launched immediately after.“Given the early stages of the case, we are unable to further comment on the specifics of the allegations or the results of our internal investigation,” the spokesperson stated.
*Disclaimer: The information provided in this article does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, materials available herein are for general information purposes only.