LensCrafters Cookie Lawsuit, Sites Tracked Users Who Clicked “Reject” on Cookie Banners
Three consumers filed a class action on December 19, 2025, claiming Luxottica’s eyewear websites—including LensCrafters, Sunglass Hut, Ray-Ban, Oakley, and 15 others—ignored cookie opt-outs and continued tracking users who clicked “Reject.” The case is Moore v. Luxottica, Case No. 3:25-cv-10840, in California federal court and is in very early stages as of January 2026.
What the Cookie Opt-Out Lawsuit Claims
The lawsuit says Luxottica’s websites display cookie consent banners that mislead users into thinking they can reject cookies and stop tracking. But even after clicking “Reject” or toggling cookies off in privacy settings, the sites allegedly continued placing third-party tracking cookies from Adobe, Google, Facebook, and other companies.
These cookies allegedly collected browsing history, website interactions, shopping behaviors, user input data, demographic information, interests, device details, session information, and location data—all after users explicitly opted out.
Which Eyewear Sites Are Named in the Lawsuit
The complaint covers 19 Luxottica-owned websites:
- lenscrafters.com
- sunglasshut.com
- ray-ban.com
- oakley.com
- pearlevision.com
- targetoptical.com
- glasses.com
- contactsdirect.com
- eyebuydirect.com
- foreyes.com
- costadelmar.com
- oliverpeoples.com
- persol.com
- vogueeyewear.com
- arnette.com
- nativeyewear.com
- fostergrant.com
- readers.com
- essilor.com
If you visited any of these sites in California and clicked “Reject” on the cookie banner, you may be affected.
Who Filed the Lawsuit
Brandon Moore and two other California consumers filed the complaint. They represent anyone who browsed Luxottica’s websites in California after clicking “Reject” on cookie consent banners or adjusting privacy preference toggles to opt out.
The plaintiffs are represented by Gutride Safier LLP attorneys Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary, and Todd Kennedy.
What Legal Claims Are Being Made
The lawsuit cites multiple California privacy violations:
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) This law prohibits wiretapping and unauthorized interception of communications. The plaintiffs claim Luxottica intercepted their browsing data even after they opted out.
California Constitution Article I, Section 1 California’s constitution guarantees a right to privacy. The lawsuit alleges Luxottica violated this constitutional protection by ignoring opt-out choices.
Intrusion Upon Seclusion A common law claim that someone invaded your privacy in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Use of a Pen Register California law prohibits using devices that record or decode electronic communications without consent.
Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation The complaint claims Luxottica knowingly misled users by displaying cookie consent banners that didn’t actually stop tracking.
Unjust Enrichment Luxottica allegedly profited from user data collection while misleading users about their ability to opt out.
How Third-Party Cookies Track Users
Third-party cookies let companies follow you across different websites. When Luxottica placed cookies from Adobe, Google, and Facebook after you opted out, these companies could:
- Track which sites you visit
- See what products you look at
- Monitor how long you stay on pages
- Record what you click on
- Build a profile of your interests
- Target ads based on your behavior
- Share data with advertisers
This tracking happens even after you leave Luxottica’s sites and browse elsewhere online.
What Data Was Allegedly Collected
According to the lawsuit, the tracking cookies collected:
- Complete browsing history across sites
- Specific pages visited
- Time spent on each page
- Items viewed or clicked
- Shopping cart contents
- Search terms entered
- Form submissions
- Device type and browser
- IP address and location
- Session timestamps
- Referring URLs (where you came from)
- User identifiers linking activity across sessions
This information gets compiled into comprehensive user profiles sold to advertisers and data brokers.
Current Status of the Lawsuit
Filed on December 19, 2025, the case is brand new. Expected timeline:
Early 2026:
- Luxottica files response to complaint
- Initial legal motions
Mid-Late 2026:
- Class certification motions
- Discovery begins
2027:
- Evidence exchange
- Expert testimony
- Settlement discussions may start
2027-2028:
- Trial if no settlement
- Final approval if settlement reached
Most privacy class actions settle within 2-3 years.
Who May Be Eligible to Join the Class
If the court certifies the class, eligible members would include:
- Anyone who visited Luxottica’s websites in California
- Who clicked “Reject” on cookie consent banners OR
- Who adjusted privacy preference toggles to opt out of cookies
- Within the statute of limitations period (likely 1-3 years before filing)
You don’t need proof of the exact date you visited or clicked “Reject.” Class membership often relies on technical records Luxottica keeps.
What Compensation Might Be Available
No settlement exists yet. Typical outcomes in cookie consent violation cases:
Statutory Damages:
- California privacy laws allow $5,000 per violation
- With thousands of users, this could add up significantly
- Courts often reduce per-person amounts in large classes
Actual Damages:
- Compensation for invasion of privacy
- Difficult to quantify but typically $50-$500 per person
Injunctive Relief:
- Court orders requiring Luxottica to fix cookie consent mechanisms
- Implement true opt-out functionality
- Stop tracking users who reject cookies
Similar privacy cases have settled for $5-20 million depending on class size.
How Cookie Consent Banners Should Work
Under California privacy laws and common practice, cookie consent should:
Before Collecting Data:
- Clearly explain what cookies do
- List all third parties receiving data
- Provide genuine opt-out choices
- Not use pre-checked boxes
- Make “Reject” as easy to find as “Accept”
After Clicking Reject:
- Immediately stop placing tracking cookies
- Delete any cookies already placed
- Not share data with third parties
- Honor the choice across all sessions
The lawsuit claims Luxottica’s banners promised these protections but didn’t deliver.
Why This Matters for Online Privacy
This lawsuit is part of a growing trend of legal challenges to “cookie walls” and misleading consent banners. Companies have been accused of:
Dark Patterns: Making “Accept” buttons big and bright while hiding “Reject” options in small text or multiple clicks away.
Fake Choices: Displaying opt-out buttons that don’t actually stop tracking.
Consent Fatigue: Showing banners repeatedly until users give up and click “Accept.”
Forced Consent: Blocking site access unless users accept all cookies.
Privacy advocates argue these practices violate both the spirit and letter of privacy laws.
Other Recent Cookie Tracking Lawsuits
Several companies have faced similar allegations:
Sephora (2022) California Attorney General fined Sephora $1.2 million for ignoring “Do Not Sell” requests and selling user data despite opt-outs.
Google (2024) Multiple lawsuits claim Google tracks users in “Incognito Mode” despite promises of privacy.
Meta/Facebook (Ongoing) Pixel tracking technology allegedly collects data even when users aren’t logged into Facebook.
The Luxottica case follows this pattern of challenging companies that promise privacy controls but allegedly don’t deliver.
What You Should Do If You Visited These Sites
Document Your Visits:
- Check your browser history for visits to Luxottica sites
- Take screenshots if you still see cookie banners
- Note if you remember clicking “Reject”
Check Your Privacy Settings:
- Review what cookies are stored in your browser
- Clear cookies from Luxottica domains
- Enable “Do Not Track” in browser settings
Monitor the Case: If the court certifies the class, eligible members will receive notices explaining how to participate. You don’t need to take action now.
Save Evidence: If you have emails, receipts, or other proof you visited these sites, keep them. They may support your participation if a settlement is reached.
How to Check What Cookies a Site Placed
On most browsers:
Chrome: Settings → Privacy and Security → Cookies and Site Data → See All Site Data
Firefox: Settings → Privacy & Security → Cookies and Site Data → Manage Data
Safari: Preferences → Privacy → Manage Website Data
Search for domains like “lenscrafters.com” or “luxottica” to see what cookies were placed.
Do You Need a Lawyer Right Now?
No. Class actions don’t require individual lawyers. The class counsel represents all members automatically if the court certifies the class.
However, if you experienced specific harms from the tracking (identity theft, stalking, targeted fraud), you might want to consult a privacy attorney about individual claims.
What Luxottica Will Likely Argue
Companies defending cookie tracking cases typically claim:
Technical Necessity: Some cookies are required for site functionality, not tracking. Luxottica may argue certain cookies aren’t covered by opt-out choices.
Third-Party Responsibility: Luxottica might blame third-party advertising partners for placing cookies without authorization.
No Harm: Defendants often argue plaintiffs can’t show actual injury from cookie tracking, which is required for some claims.
Consent Was Given: The company may claim users consented elsewhere (terms of service, account creation).
California’s Strict Privacy Laws
California has some of the strongest consumer privacy protections in the U.S.:
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Gives residents the right to know what data companies collect and opt out of data sales.
California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) Expanded CCPA in 2023 with stronger enforcement and penalties.
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Prohibits wiretapping and unauthorized interception of communications, including online tracking.
These laws make California a favorable jurisdiction for privacy lawsuits.
How Third Parties Use Tracking Data
When Luxottica allegedly shared user data with Adobe, Google, and Facebook, these companies could:
Create Advertising Profiles: Build detailed pictures of your interests, income level, shopping habits, and online behavior.
Retarget Ads: Show you ads for products you viewed days or weeks earlier across different websites.
Sell to Data Brokers: Package and resell your information to companies you’ve never heard of.
Predict Behavior: Use algorithms to guess what you’ll buy next, where you’ll shop, and what content you’ll engage with.
This happens automatically once tracking cookies are placed, even if you never make a purchase.
What Happens If Luxottica Settles
If the parties reach a settlement:
Class Notice Period: Eligible members receive emails or mail explaining the settlement terms and how to file claims.
Claims Process: You typically fill out a simple online form confirming you visited the sites and clicked “Reject” on cookies.
Approval Hearing: The court reviews the settlement to ensure it’s fair. Class members can object if they disagree with the terms.
Distribution: If approved, payments go out 3-6 months after final approval, usually as checks or electronic payments.
Most class members don’t need to actively participate beyond filing a claim form.
Comparing to the AccuFit Settlement
Luxottica recently settled a different class action for $39 million over false advertising claims about LensCrafters’ AccuFit technology. That settlement:
- Paid up to $50 per person
- Covered purchases from 2013-2023
- Distributed payments in April 2025
- Required proof of purchase or sworn statement
The cookie tracking case is separate and unrelated. If both cases result in settlements, eligible class members could receive payments from each.
Why Companies Use Cookie Consent Banners
Cookie consent requirements came from:
European GDPR (2018) Required explicit consent for cookie placement. Many U.S. companies added banners to comply with European law.
California Laws (2020-2023) CCPA and CPRA created similar requirements for California residents.
Industry Best Practices: Even where not legally required, companies adopted consent banners to appear privacy-friendly.
The lawsuit claims Luxottica’s banners were for show—they asked for consent but ignored rejections.
What Injunctive Relief Could Mean
If the court orders Luxottica to fix its practices:
Technical Changes:
- Reprogram websites to actually stop tracking when users click “Reject”
- Remove pre-placed cookies immediately after opt-out
- Block third-party trackers from loading
Transparency Requirements:
- Clearly list all cookies and their purposes
- Explain exactly what “Reject” does
- Provide easy access to privacy controls
Ongoing Monitoring:
- Submit to audits verifying compliance
- Report to the court on privacy practices
- Allow independent testing of cookie behavior
These changes would benefit all future users, not just class members.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a settlement I can claim right now?
No. The lawsuit was just filed in December 2025. No settlement exists yet.
How much money can I get?
Unknown. If a settlement happens, typical privacy cases pay $50-$500 per person, but amounts vary widely.
Do I need proof I visited these sites?
Not necessarily. Class actions often rely on company records. Having browser history or receipts helps but isn’t required.
What if I live outside California?
This lawsuit only covers California residents currently. Other states may see separate lawsuits or expanded class definitions later.
Can I still use these websites?
Yes. The lawsuit doesn’t affect your ability to shop at Luxottica sites. Consider clearing cookies and using privacy settings if concerned.
How do I know if I clicked “Reject”?
If you remember seeing a cookie banner and taking any action other than clicking a big “Accept All” button, you may have opted out.
What about the $39 million LensCrafters settlement?
That’s a completely separate case about false advertising for AccuFit technology. This cookie lawsuit is different.
Will my personal information be revealed?
No. Class actions protect member privacy. Only aggregate statistics get shared, not individual browsing history.
Can I opt out and sue separately?
Yes, but individual privacy lawsuits are expensive and rarely worth it unless you have substantial damages.
What if I accepted cookies originally?
This lawsuit is specifically for people who rejected cookies. If you accepted, you’re not part of this class.
How long will this take?
Expect 2-3 years from filing to final resolution, whether through settlement or trial.
This article provides information about the Luxottica cookie opt-out class action lawsuit based on court filings as of January 2026. It is not legal advice. For questions about your specific situation, consult a qualified privacy attorney.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah