Product Liability

I am trying to figure out which rule or law, application and conclusion can be drawn here. I have posted a case as an example. I read that it was settled for monetary amount. See below.

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?

Rule:

Application:

Conclusion:

Reference: http://consumerlawpage.com/article/lenses.shtml