National Plaintiffs' Management Committee prosecuting Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (Decided by U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western Division 1996)
Facts: For years, Bausch & Lomb had a monopoly on soft contact lenses, sales of which propelled the company into Fortune 500. With brands names as Medalist, SeeQuence, and Optima, varieties of Bausch & Lomb lenses were priced differently, apparently according to their type of use. Conventional daily wear lenses costed between $50 and $100 a park, adding up to $250 a year including cleaners. Frequent-replacement lenses between $400 and $500 a year: An investigation determined that Bausch and Lomb was selling identical lenses for varying prices; the only real difference among them is packaging. For example, customers are paying $40 a lens for the company's Optima FW, $9 a lens for its Medalist, and $4 a lens for its SeeQuence 2, but all of these lenses are exactly the same product.
As a result of this investigation, a group of Bausch and Lomb customers initiated a lawsuit against the company alleging that Bausch and Lomb has committed fraud by misrepresenting its lenses. Bausch & Lomb conceded that the lenses are the same but asserted that eye-care professionals are the ones who direct patients to wear them varying lengths of time and set the final price that customers pay.
Issue: Was Bausch & Lomb encouraging eye-care professionals to hid from customers the fact that the lenses are all alike? Were the customers, who logically assumed that a different name means a different product, being deceived into paying more than necessary?
Was Bausch & Lomb encouraging eye-care professionals to hid from customers the fact that the lenses are all alike?
Yes they encouraged eye-care professionals to hide the real characteristics of lenses.
They kept the lenses' identical composition secret from their patients and ...
Determine which rule or law, application and conclusion can be drawn here.