FTC Staff Comment to the Deputy Majority Leader of the Assembly Concerning New York A.B. 4801 to Permit Over-The-Counter Sale of Simple Magnification Lenses

Hay 	11, 	1987
'-1 t~ .. ~ I
-_g7Fedel'al Trlld~ Commi~~~ 	.__ . 	~,:,-_ 	--bri-u,.-----.--~-.
-o-Hicc-.-t-.(-Ih.: neg;on.l O;'ecl.. 	.....~ III, 1011/('. " 	~ 1 '-1
zr. FClkrnl PIUJl, 22nd Ft.
N('w York. r--:(,,,,, York -i027S
(212) 2fi4 ·1200
Ms. -Shili' 	Be r9 in
Cx~cutive Director 	to 	the
Deputy 	Miljority 	Leader
The 	Assembly 	of 	the 	St~te
of 	New 	York
L~gis1ative Office 	Building, 	Room 	941
Albany, 	New 	York 	12248
De12r.M~. 	Bergin:
The 	staff 	or 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission 	is 	pleased 	to
respond 	to 	your 	invitation 	to 	comment 	on 	proposed 	New 	York
legislation 	relating 	to 	lenses 	used 	for 	sim£le 	magnification,
including 	ready-to-wear 	reading 	eyeglasses. 	Assembly 	Bill 	4801
(A. 	4801) 	would 	permit 	over-the-counter 	sale 	of 	these 	products,
• exempting 	them 	from 	current 	provisions 	requiring 	that 	all
eyeglasses 	or 	lenses 	be 	sold 	only 	by 	prescription 	of 	a 	licensed
physician 	or 	optometrist. 	The 	proposal 	would 	therefore 	allow 	New
Yorkers 	to 	purchase 	reading 	glasses 	without 	a 	prescription. 	In
addition, 	however, 	th~ 	bill 	would 	require 	sellers 	of 	these
products 	to 	disclose 	in 	any 	print 	advertising 	and 	at 	the 	point 	of
sale 	that 	they 	are 	not 	intended 	to 	replace 	prescription 	glasses
or 	re~ular 	eye 	check-Ups.
We 	support 	A. 	4801 	becaus~ 	it 	would 	make 	reading
glasses 	available 	to 	New 	York 	consumers 	without 	a 	prescription.
These 	glasses 	are 	currently 	available 	without 	prescription 	in 	46
other 	states. 	Over-the-counter 	availability 	of 	reading 	glasses
Ls 	like~ 	to 	result 	in 	greater 	comp~tition in 	the 	market 	for 	~
eyeglasses 	and 	to 	increase 	convenience 	and 	reduce 	prices 	for
consumers. 	However, 	we 	are 	concerned 	that 	the 	disclosures
required 	by 	A. 	4801 	may 	add 	costs 	to 	the 	product 	that 	may
unnecessarily 	diminish 	the 	consumer 	benefits 	of 	the 	bill.
Because 	it 	seems 	likely 	th~t 	the 	information 	required 	to 	be
1 	This 	letter 	presents 	the 	comments 	of 	the 	New 	York 	Regional
Office 	and 	the 	Bureaus 	of 	Competition, 	Economics 	and 	Consumer
Protection 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission. 	The 	views 	expressed
are 	not 	necessarily 	those 	of 	the 	Commission 	or 	of 	any 	individu·ai
Commissioner, 	although 	the 	Commission 	has 	voted 	to.authorize 	the
presentation 	of 	these 	comments 	to 	you.

• r
Ms. 	Shay 	Bergin 	- 	2 	-
disc~osed 	will 	be 	provided 	voluntarily 	by 	others 	in 	the 	market
who 	already 	have 	significant 	inc~ntive9 to 	do 	so 	without 	regula-
tiun, 	the 	disclosure 	requirement 	is 	unlikely 	to 	produc€ 	any
benefits 	to 	consumers. 	Accordingly, 	we 	urge 	that 	the 	disclosur~
(~quirement be 	deleted 	from 	the 	proposed 	legislation.
1. 	Ihterest 	and 	Experience 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission
The 	federal 	Trade 	Commission 	is 	an 	agency 	empowered 	by
Congress ,under 	15 	U.S.C. 	S 	45 	with 	prev~nting unfair 	methods 	of
competition 	doll 	unfedr 	ur 	deceptive 	acts 	or 	practices 	in 	or
affeGting 	commerce. 	Pursuant 	to 	thi~ mandate, 	the 	CommissL;>n_
seeki 	to 	serve 	the 	public 	interest 	and 	protect 	the 	marketplace
from 'unreasonable 	restraints 	of 	trade. 	The 	agency's 	objective 	i6
to 	identify 	and 	seek 	the 	removal 	of 	restrictions 	that 	impede
competition 	or 	increase 	costs, 	without 	providing 	countervailing
b~n~fits to 	con~umers. 	As 	part 	of 	th~se efforts 	we 	provide
comments, 	on 	requ~st, 	to 	federal, 	state, 	and 	local 	1~9islatures
and 	administrative 	bodies 	to 	explore 	competition-ba9cd 	approaches
to 	various 	policy 	issues.
Th~ 	Commission's 	st~ff 	h~s 	had 	substantial 	experience
in 	considering 	competitive 	restrictions 	on 	commercial 	practices
in 	the 	~rea of 	eye.care, 	Inclu~lng 	the 	~ver-the-counter sale 	of
ready-to-wear 	readlng 	glasses. 	Accordlng1y, 	we 	offer 	our
comments 	in 	the 	hop~ 	that 	th~y 	will 	aid 	the 	New 	York 	legislature
In 	it~ deliberations 	~oncerning A. 	4801.
II. 	B~ckground
Ready-to-wear 	simple 	magnification 	r~ading glasses 	are
primarily 	used 	to 	rem~dy a 	common 	condition 	known 	as
"p~esbyop-ia," which 	generally 	affects 	people 	over 	age 	40. 	.-
2 	See, 	e.g., 	Trad~ 	Regulation 	Rule 	on Advartising 	of 	Ophthalmi~
Goods 	and 	Services, 	16 	C.F.R. 	Part 	456 	(1987); 	Bureau 	of 	Consumer
Protection, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Ophthalmic 	Practice
Rules: 	State 	Restrictions 	on 	Commercial 	Practice 	(1986); 	Bureaus
of 	Consumer 	Protection 	and 	Economics, 	F~d~ral Trade 	Commission, 	A
Comparative 	Analysis 	of 	Cosmetic 	Contact 	Lens 	Fitting 	by
Ophthalmologists, 	Optometrists, 	and 	Opticians 	(1983); 	Bureau 	of
Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Effects 	of 	Restrictions 	on
Advertising 	and 	Commercial 	Pra~tices in 	the 	Professions: 	The 	' ..
Case 	of 	Optometry 	(1980); 	Bureau 	of 	Consumer 	Protec~ion, Feder~l
Trade 	Commission, 	State 	Restrictions 	on 	vision 	Care 	Provid~rs:
--The 	Effects 	on 	Consumers 	(1980).
~.- 	'.

·,I
.' Ms. 	Shay 	Bergin
-.~
- 	:r--
P~~~byopia 	is 	the 	decreased 	ability 	of 	the 	norm~l eye 	to 	focus 	on
near 	objects 	and 	print~d rudterial. 	Millions 	of 	middle-aged 	and
cl<J~cly persons 	remedy 	this 	problem 	by 	purcha:3ing 	non-
prescription, 	over-the-counter 	readiny 	gl~s5es at 	department
stores, 	drug 	stores, 	and 	oth~[ 	r~tail outlets. 	Consumers 	can
select 	the 	appropriate 	glasses 	simply 	by 	trying 	on 	different
pairs 	and 	finding 	the 	ones 	offering 	the 	most 	effective
mClynific;;ttio/l 	lev<:l.
The 	market 	for 	ready-lo-wear 	reading 	glasses 	is
substantial 	-- 	cu~rently accounting 	foe 	estimated 	sales 	of 	S100
million 	annually. 	The 	products 	come 	in 	differ~nt magnifying 	_
st~~ngths 	and 	generally 	range 	in 	price 	from 	$12 	to 	$15 	a ~air.
In 	contrast, 	prescription 	reading 	glasses 	are 	more 	costly.
Although 	prescription 	glasses, 	too, 	often 	involve 	simple
magnification, 	they 	are 	accompanied 	by 	prof~ssional services 	such
as 	lens 	grinding 	and 	fitting 	into 	frames. 	Prescription 	reading
glasses 	generally 	range 	in 	price 	from 	about 	$25 	to 	$75 	a 	pair.
_ 	New 	York 	is 	one 	of 	only 	four 	states 	th~t 	prohibits 	the
sale 	of 	non-prescription 	reading 	glasses. 4 	The 	proposed
legislation 	would 	amend 	New 	York 	law 	to 	enable 	~ew 	York 	consumers
to 	purchase 	these 	glasses 	over-the-counter 	and 	thus 	benefit 	from
the 	availability 	of 	this 	lower 	cost 	alternative.
I I 1. 	Current 	Law 	Raises 	Costs 	Without 	Countervailing
Benefits; 	The 	Pro 	osed 	Amendment 	Enhances 	Consumer
C)oice 	and 	Saves 	Consumer 	Dollars
3
Th~ 	cu(r~nt 	New 	York 	prescription 	requirement 	increases
consumer 	costs 	in 	two 	ways. 	First, 	consumers 	must 	bear 	the 	cost
of 	i->U n:bdS i ny 	pro [~ss i onal 	exam ina t ion 	ser vices 	they 	might 	not
.Dtherwtse 	need 	or 	desire. 	S~cond, 	consumers 	must 	pay 	the 	higfi~r
pr ice 	charged 	for 	prescr iption 	lenses 	in 'the 	abs~nc~ of 	effective
comi->etition 	from 	more 	economical 	cslternatives.
There 	do 	not 	appear 	to 	be 	Hignificdnt 	countervailing
benefits 	associated 	with 	the 	current 	law 	that 	would 	justify
"Spectacles: 	Legislative 	Fine 	Print," 	New 	York 	Times,
March 	25, 	1987, 	at 	42. 	S~e 	also 	State 	Restrictions 	on 	Vision
Care 	Providers: 	The 	Effects 	on 	Consumers, 	supra 	note 	3, 	at 	lJ~.
4 	The 	other 	states 	are 	Louisiana, 	Minnesota 	and ~hode 	Island.
(Minnesota 	restricts 	only 	high 	magnification 	reading 	glasses). 	-
-......-

Ms. 	Shay 	Bergin
-.~
- 	4 	-
depriving 	consumers 	of 	the 	freedom 	to 	choose 	this 	lower 	cost
alternativ~. 	Proponents 	or 	the 	prescription 	requirement 	argue
that 	consumers 	are 	benefited 	by 	the 	intervention 	of 	an 	eye 	care
professional 	who 	can 	determine 	whether 	presbyopia 	is 	accompanied
by~ 	more 	serious 	prOblem. 	However, 	if 	a 	person 	has 	symptoms 	of
eye 	problems 	other 	than 	simple 	presbyopia, 	these 	symptgms 	will
generally 	continue 	despite 	the 	use 	of 	reading 	glasses.
Consequently, 	persons 	would 	not 	be 	deterred 	from 	seeking 	proper
medical 	attention 	as 	a 	result 	of 	their 	over-the-counter
purcha~e. 	At 	most, 	they 	may 	delay 	securing 	medicd; 	cace
addressing 	these 	symptoms 	for 	only 	a 	brief 	period. 	During 	our
examination 	of 	over-the-counter 	ready-to-wear 	eyeglass
restrictions, 	we 	have 	found 	no 	reliable 	evidence 	that 	suggests
that 	consumers 	have 	been 	injured 	by 	the 	availability 	o~ 	ready-~o
wear 	reading 	glasses 	in 	those 	46 	states 	that 	allow 	thea 	sale.
-----_._--_._--
5 	For 	example, 	Dr. 	Calvin 	W. 	Roberts, 	the 	Director 	of 	Cornea
Services 	at 	Cornell 	Medical 	Center, 	has 	expressed 	the 	view 	that
reading 	glasses 	will 	not 	mask 	eye 	diseases 	or 	other 	defects 	and
do 	not 	caU3C 	consumers 	to 	forego 	seeking 	professional 	help 	for
such 	conditions. 	Accordiny 	to 	Dr. 	Roberts, 	a 	consumer 	with 	an
eye 	problem 	other 	than 	or 	in 	addition 	to 	pregbyopia 	would 	realize
immediately 	upon 	obtaining 	reading 	glasses 	that 	such 	glasses 	were
an 	i~adequate remedy 	for 	the 	problem. 	See 	Affidavit 	of 	Dr.
Calvin 	W. 	Roberts, 	M.D., 	Assistant 	Professor, 	Attending 	Surgeon,
and 	Director 	of 	Cornea 	Services 	at 	New 	York 	University 	Hospital-
Cornell 	Medical 	Center 	(Sept. 	30, 	1985). 	(Dr. 	Roberts'
affidavit, 	designated 	Exhibit 	E, 	is 	contained 	in 	the 	record
compiled 	by 	the 	New 	York 	legislature). 	See 	also 	St~te
RestLicIions 	on 	Vision 	Care 	providers: 	The 	Effects 	on 	Consume~s,
supra 	note 	3, 	at 	138.
6 	An 	apt 	analogy 	may 	be 	the 	use 	of 	over-the-counter 	analgesics
to 	treat 	headaches. 	A headache 	may 	merely 	be 	a 	medically
insignificant 	discomfort, 	or 	it 	may 	be 	a 	symptom 	of 	a 	serious
disorder. 	Nevertheless, 	New 	York 	doe~ 	not 	ban 	the 	sale 	of 	OVQr-
the-counter 	headache 	remedies.
7 	The 	Commission 	sought 	comment 	on 	the 	effects 	on 	consumers 	of
state 	restrictions 	on 	the 	over-the-counter 	sale 	of 	ready-to-wear
readiny 	ylasses, 	in 	conjunction 	with 	other 	issues, 	in 	its
Eyeglasses 	II 	Advance 	Notice 	of 	proposed 	RUlemaking 	(45 	Fed. 	Reg.
79823 	(1980». 	This 	aspect 	of 	the 	rulemaking 	was 	closed 	in 	1984,
however, 	because 	of 	the 	small 	number 	of 	states 	involved 	and
incon~lusive information 	on 	this 	issue.
-~.-

M~. 	Shay 	Bergin 	- 	5 	-
.~
While 	some 	eye 	care 	professionals 	may 	nonetheless
b~lieve that 	profess1onal 	interventiun 	dnd 	supervizion 	of
consumers' 	purchasin~ decisions 	is 	~r~f~rable, 	it 	is 	the 	consumer
who 	bears 	the 	substantial 	financial 	burden 	of 	additional
precautions. 	A. 	4801, 	by 	amending 	New 	York 	law 	to 	make 	reading
glasses 	available 	ovor-the-counter, 	will 	eliminate 	serious
restrictions 	on 	competition 	and 	will 	expand 	the 	range 	of 	consumer
choice.
I V • .: 	proposed 	Specific 	Mandatory 	Disclosures 	May 	Not
Optimally 	Serve 	Consumer 	Interests
Consumer 	chuice 	and 	competition 	are 	enhanced 	when
accurate, 	relevant 	information 	is 	made 	available 	in 	the
marketplace. 	Indeed, 	certain 	information 	may 	be 	essential 	to
enable 	consumers 	to 	make 	reasoned, 	safe 	choic~s. 	Although
disclosure 	of 	such 	informa5i~n ~hould 	be 	~ncoura~ed, and 	in 	some
instances 	may 	be 	required, 	lt 	Ui 	never 	wlthout 	lts 	costs. 	Thccc
costs 	are 	usually 	passed 	on 	to 	consumers 	in 	the 	form 	of 	higher
prices. 	Consequently, 	disclosure 	requirements 	should 	be 	imposed
only 	where 	the 	benefit8 	of 	the 	disclosure 	demonstrably 	outweigh
their 	costs. 	This 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	be 	the 	case 	in 	the 	proposed
legislation.
A. 	4801 	would 	r~guire a 	specific 	affirmative
disc~osure. 	In 	all 	print 	advertising 	of 	non-prescription 	reading
glasses, 	and 	at 	the 	point 	of 	sale, 	the 	proposed 	legislation 	would
requir~ the 	following 	notice:
ATTENTION; 	READY-TO-WEAR, 	NON-PRESCRIPTION 	READING
GLASSES 	ARE 	NOT 	INTENDED 	TO 	REPLACE 	PRESCRIBED 	~
CORRECTIVE 	LENSeS 	OR 	EXAMINATIONS 	BY 	AN 	EYE 	CAR~
-_._------
8 The 	Federal 	Trade 	Commissiun 	has 	(~quired disclosures 	as 	a
remedy 	where 	necessary 	tu 	avoid 	consumer 	injury, 	such 	as 	where
cun::sumers 	ar~ 	likely 	tu 	be 	d~ceived without 	the 	disclosure 	or
otherwise 	confronted 	with 	a 	serious 	safety 	hazard. 	See, 	e.g.,
Thompson 	Medical 	Co., 	104 	P.T.C. 	648 	(1984), 	aff'd, 	791 	F.2d 	189
(D.C. 	Cic. 	1986), 	cert. 	denied, 	55 	U.S.L.W. 	3369 	{Feb. 	23,1987)
(affirmative 	disclosure 	ordered 	to 	remedy 	misrepresentations
regarding 	health 	products); 	Figgie 	Int'l, 	Inc., 	107 	F.T.C. 	313 	' ..
(1986), 	aff'd 	4th 	Circuit, 	No. 	86-3075 	(April 	21, 	19~7)
(affirmative 	disclosure 	ordered 	to 	remedy 	deception 	with 	regard
-to 	fire 	safety 	devices) •
...... _. 	...

I Ms. 	Shay 	Bergin
-.. ~
- 	6 	-
PROfESSIONAL. 	CONTINUOUS 	EYE 	CHECK-UPS 	ARE 	NECESSARY 	TO
DETERMINE 	YOUR 	EYE 	HEALTH 	STATUS 	AND 	VISION 	NEEDS.
The 	disclosure 	at 	the 	point 	of 	sale 	(whether 	on 	a 	display, 	or, 	if
ther~ 	is 	no 	display, 	in 	the 	area 	of 	sale) 	must 	be 	in 	at 	least
lO-point 	bold 	type.
The 	specific 	d18clo~ure contain~d 	in 	A. 	4801 	is 	likely
to 	add 	to 	the 	co~t of 	selling 	oVt::!t-the-countel."" 	reading 	glasses.
Any 	disclpsure 	obligation 	increases 	advertising 	costs, 	either
because 	it 	increases 	the 	length 	of 	the 	message 	or 	requires
suppliers 	to 	forego 	some 	portion 	of 	the 	advertising 	message_they
wou15 have 	delivered 	had 	the 	space 	not 	been 	taken 	by 	the
discl6sure. 	Unnecessary 	disclosure 	requirement~ could 	therefore
result 	in 	less 	information 	being 	m~de 	available 	to 	consumers.
In 	addition, 	because 	New 	York 	will 	be 	the 	sole 	state 	to
require 	specific 	disclosures 	in 	advertisements 	as 	well 	as 	at
point 	of 	sale, 	sellers 	may 	be 	required 	to 	create 	and 	print
separate 	advertisements 	and 	point-of-sale 	display3 	for 	that
market. 	Resulting 	costs 	may 	be 	~ub~tantial because 	advertisers
will 	be 	required 	to 	produce 	multiple 	versions 	of 	advertisements
and 	point-of-sale 	di~plays. 	Tht::!se 	costs 	could 	become 	prohibitive
if 	olher 	states 	were 	to 	follow 	suit 	with 	additional, 	and
different, 	disclosur~ reguir~ments.
It 	is 	noteworthy 	that 	tht::! 	overwhelming 	majority 	of
states-have 	long 	permitted 	the 	sale 	of 	r~ady-to-wear re~ding
glasses 	without 	requiring 	any 	di$~losur~. 	Of 	the 	46 	states
permitting 	the 	sale 	of 	non-prescription 	reading 	glasses, 	only
one, 	Massachusetts, 	requires 	a 	specific 	disclosur~ stating
- 	t'sst'otially 	that 	the 	91as~es are 	not 	a 	substitute 	for 	an 	eye
t'xGimination 	and 	corrective 	lenses. 	However, 	unlike 	the 	propo3cd
New 	York 	provision, 	which 	would 	require 	affirmativ~ disclosures
-~.-

Ms. 	ShllY 	Bergin
in-~ll 	advertisiny 	and 	at 	point 	of 	s~le, 	the 	Massachusetts
provision 	requires 	disclosur~ only 	at 	the 	point 	of 	sale. 9
.~
- 	7 	-
Against 	the 	costs 	of 	New 	York's 	proposed 	disclosure
reQuirement 	we 	must 	weigh 	the 	b~n~fits afforded 	consumers 	by 	the
proposed 	disclo~ut~. 	We 	do 	not 	believe 	that 	the 	disclosure
offers 	any 	substantial 	benefits 	because 	the 	market 	is 	already
providing 	consumers 	with 	relevant 	eye 	care 	information 	without
regulatory 	intervention. 	At 	least 	some 	major 	suppliers 	of
reading. glasses 	voluntarily 	inform 	consumerj 	that 	their 	product
is 	not 	a 	substitute 	for 	an 	eye 	examination. 	0 	If 	such 	suppliers
were 	required 	to 	adhere 	to 	specifi~ disclosure 	language, 	they
wou1d 	lose 	the 	flexibility 	to 	~onvey useful 	information 	in 	a.
manner 	most 	efficient 	for 	them, 	would 	incur 	increased 	advertising
costs, 	and 	might 	ultimately 	fac~ 	varying 	state 	disclosure
requirements. 	This 	may 	not 	only 	result 	in 	a 	higher 	price 	for
9 	TIl~ 	Massachusetts 	provision 	reads 	as 	follows:
[A) 	seller 	of 	said 	ready-to-wear 	magnifying 	spectacles
or 	eyeglasses 	shall 	have 	the 	following 	notice
permanently 	affiXed 	in 	plain 	view 	to 	the 	top 	of 	any
point 	of 	sale 	display 	or, 	if 	there 	is 	no 	such 	display,
in 	the 	area 	of 	sale: 	These 	magnifiers 	are 	not 	intended
to 	be 	a 	~ubstitute 	for 	corrective 	lenses; 	only 	a
professional 	eye 	examination 	can 	determine 	your 	eye
health 	status 	and 	vision 	needs. 	Mass. 	Ann. 	Laws 	ch.
112, 	S 	73M 	(Law. 	Co-op. 	Supp. 	1987).
Note 	also 	that 	the 	Minnesota 	state 	legislature 	recently.
voted 	in 	favor 	of 	~ 	bill 	relating 	to 	reading 	glass~s which 	w~~ld
'require 	a 	disclosure 	at 	the 	point 	of 	sale 	stating 	as 	follows:
"It 	you 	have 	experienced 	a 	vision 	loss 	the 	selection 	of 	these
glasses 	~huuld 	not 	take 	the 	place 	of 	an 	eye 	exam."
10 	For 	example, 	in 	a 	brochure 	accompanying 	its 	reading 	glasses,
the 	Foster 	Grant 	Corporation 	advises 	consumers 	that 	they 	should
"absolutely 	not" 	bypass 	the 	eye 	care 	professional, 	dnd 	that
"regular 	eye 	examinations" 	are 	recommended 	for 	"everybody,
especially 	those 	over 	40 	years 	of 	age." 	A brochure 	accompanying
Maynivision 	reading 	glasses 	made 	by 	AI-Site 	Corporation 	also
contains 	extensive 	disclosures. 	This 	brochure 	states: 	"It
should 	be 	emph~$i~ed that 	ready-to-wear 	gl~sBes aren't 	intend~cl
to 	replace 	examinations 	by 	an 	eye 	doctor. 	Contin~ous eye 	ch~ck
ups, 	especially 	after 	the 	age 	of 	40, 	will 	maintain 	the 	health 	oj
your 	eyes."
-~.-

Ms. 	Shay 	Dergin
.-
- 	8 	-
the-product, 	but 	also 	may 	have 	a 	chilling 	effect 	on 	suppliers'
national 	or 	regional 	advertising 	efforts. 	Th~ 	result 	may 	be 	more
detrimental 	than 	bcn~ficial to 	consumer 	interests.
Moreover, 	there 	are 	oth8rs 	who 	have 	a 	strong 	interest
in 	making 	this 	lnformation 	available. 	Providers 	of 	eye 	care
services 	themselves 	have 	ample 	incentive 	to 	promote 	their
services 	through 	advertising 	and 	otherwise. 	Indeed, 	the 	Federal
Trade 	Commission 	has 	made 	considerable 	efforts 	to 	ensure 	that 	eye
car~ 	profe~sioniis are 	not 	hampered 	in 	their 	freedom 	to 	advertise
thelr 	serVice::; .
.- Nonetheless, 	should 	the 	New 	York 	legislature 	dct;rm~ne
to 	require 	some 	form 	of 	disclosure 	to 	the 	effect 	that 	reading
glasses 	are 	not 	a 	substitute 	fur 	an 	eye 	examination, 	we 	suggest
alternatives 	that 	may 	accomplish 	the 	bill's 	objectives 	at 	a 	lower
cost.
In 	lieu 	of 	mandating 	specific 	disclosures 	and 	a
required 	tormat, 	A. 	4801 	might 	be 	modified 	to 	require 	a 	general
disclosure, 	stated 	in 	"clear 	and 	conspicuuus" 	language, 	to 	the
effect 	that 	reading 	glasses 	are 	not 	a 	substitute 	for 	prescribed
glasses 	or 	eye 	check-Ups. 	Such 	a 	disclosure 	would 	provide 	the
desired 	intormation 	without 	requiriny 	manufacturers 	to 	print
different 	documents 	on 	a 	state-by-state 	basis.
.. 	In 	addition, 	we 	recommend 	that 	this 	disclosure
requirement 	be 	limited 	to 	the 	point 	of 	sale. 	Such 	a 	lower 	cost
alternative 	would 	still 	proviae 	consumers 	with 	information 	at
time 	of 	purchase 	and 	would 	alert 	them 	to 	the 	value 	of 	gathering
additional 	information 	it 	their 	condition 	so 	warranted. 	If
A. 	4801'5 	disclosure 	provisions 	are 	modified 	in 	this 	way, 	the
.-
11 See, 	e.g., 	American 	Academy 	of 	O~tometrYI Inc.,
FTC 	slip 	op., 	No. 	C-3193 	(July 	21, 	186) 	{consent 	order 	requiring
Academy 	to 	refr~in from 	restricting 	truthful 	advertising}:
Oklahoma 	Optometric 	Ass'n, 	106 	F.T.C. 	556 	(1985) 	(consent 	order
requiring 	Association 	to 	cease 	prohibiting 	members' 	truthful
advertising 	of 	prices, 	terms 	and 	availability 	of 	services 	or
goods); 	Michigan 	Optometric 	Ass'n, 	106 	F.T.C. 	342 	(1985) 	(consent
order 	requiring 	Assoclatlon 	to 	cease 	prohibiting 	or 	restraining
any 	optometrist 	from 	disseminating 	truthful, 	non-deceptive
information); 	Montana 	Bd. 	of 	Optometrists, 	106 	F.T.C. 	80 	(1985}.
(consent 	order 	requiring 	Board 	to 	cease 	adopting 	or 	maintaining
any 	rule 	or 	policy 	that 	has 	the 	effect 	of 	prohibitlng 	or 	.
discouraging 	price-related 	advertising).
-4i:-. _

< •
2122640459 	·P.10
-
---
-.~
Ms. 	Shay 	Bergin 	- 	9
costs 	of 	disclosure 	and 	attendant 	increas~s in 	the 	cost 	of 	the
product 	could 	be 	reduced.
V. 	Conclusions
We 	support 	the 	proposed 	legislation 	to 	make 	simple
magnific~tion r~dding gl~sses available 	~ithout a 	preMcription,
3S 	is 	the 	case 	in 	46 	stat~$. 	Nevertheless, 	we 	c3ution 	that 	the
proposed 	~equired advertising 	disclosures 	may 	add 	unnecessary
costs 	to 	the 	product. 	Should 	the 	legislature 	determine 	to 	adopt
a 	dis~losure 	requirem~nt, 	it 	may 	wish 	to 	consider 	the 	modifica-
tions 'discussed 	abov~. 	We 	believe 	the 	enactment 	of 	A. 	4801 	as 	so
modified 	would 	satisfy 	the 	intent 	of 	the 	bill's 	framers 	without
imposing 	excessive 	costs 	On 	~onsumers.
We 	hope 	that 	our 	comments 	hav~ been 	of 	assistance 	in
the 	deliberation::; 	~oncerning this 	legislation. 	Please 	do 	not
hesit3te 	to 	contact 	us 	if 	you 	hdve 	any 	questions 	or 	would 	like
further 	information.
Very 	truly 	yours, 	~
FL~(7f~/~(
Edward 	Manno 	Shumsky '-_._--~-~_._
Regional 	Dir~ctor
.-
,
\
I