Skip to main content

What do Hollywood classics Sunset Boulevard, Citizen Kane, Double Indemnity, and Fight Club have in common? They all begin with the end of the story. Because one of the business names used by the defendant in a recent FTC action is, we’ll honor that silver screen tradition by opening with the closer: All contact lenses – including non-corrective decorative lenses used to change the wearer’s appearance – are medical devices that require a prescription, and selling contacts without a prescription is illegal. The end. Fade to black. Roll credits.

In enacting the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, Congress directed the FTC to promulgate the Contact Lens Rule, which went into effect in 2004. Under the Rule, contact lens sellers may sell contacts only in accordance with a prescription that is either presented to the seller or verified by direct communication with the prescriber. The Rule also requires sellers to maintain records of the prescriptions, their verification requests, and their communications from prescribers.

In 2005 Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that all contacts are medical devices that require a prescription. That includes corrective lenses people wear to improve their eyesight, as well as lenses that don’t correct vision, but instead change the wearer’s eye color or add a weird effect to the look of the iris.

In addition to, defendant Lawrence L. Duskin ran, and According to the FTC, he sold non-corrective contacts to consumers without getting a prescription or without verifying the buyer’s prescription with a prescriber. What’s more, he failed to keep records of customers’ prescriptions, his verification requests, and his communications from consumers’ prescribers. The complaint alleges that his conduct violated both the Contact Lens Rule and the FTC Act.

The proposed settlement in the case bans Duskin from the contact lens business for life. In other words, he can’t advertise, market, promote, dispense, or sell contacts and he can’t assist those who do. The order also imposes a $575,000 civil penalty for violating the Contact Lens Rule. Based on Duskin’s sworn financial statements and related documents, the judgment will be suspended upon his payment of $60,000. (The FTC reserves the right to go back to the Court to lift the suspension if it turns out that the defendant made any material misstatement or omission about his financial condition.)

Companies that sell contacts – including lenses sold for cosmetic purposes – should be well aware of the prescription requirement, their record-keeping responsibilities, and the law enforcement consequences of violating the Rule. Read Complying with the Contact Lens Rule and The Contact Lens Rule: A Guide for Prescribers and Sellers for a recap on what’s required.

The message for consumers is that anyone who sells you contacts without a prescription is breaking the law. What other risks could that kind of company be taking with your safety? When it comes to your eyesight, don’t chance it. If beautiful browns or baby blues are that important to you, get a prescription.


It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system, and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system. We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.

The purpose of this blog and its comments section is to inform readers about Federal Trade Commission activity, and share information to help them avoid, report, and recover from fraud, scams, and bad business practices. Your thoughts, ideas, and concerns are welcome, and we encourage comments. But keep in mind, this is a moderated blog. We review all comments before they are posted, and we won’t post comments that don’t comply with our commenting policy. We expect commenters to treat each other and the blog writers with respect.

  • We won’t post off-topic comments, repeated identical comments, or comments that include sales pitches or promotions.
  • We won’t post comments that include vulgar messages, personal attacks by name, or offensive terms that target specific people or groups.
  • We won’t post threats, defamatory statements, or suggestions or encouragement of illegal activity.
  • We won’t post comments that include personal information, like Social Security numbers, account numbers, home addresses, and email addresses. To file a detailed report about a scam, go to

We don't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comment contains none of the above. The comments posted on this blog become part of the public domain. To protect your privacy and the privacy of other people, please do not include personal information. Opinions in comments that appear in this blog belong to the individuals who expressed them. They do not belong to or represent views of the Federal Trade Commission.

Nancy Dowling
December 07, 2018
Daily wear contact lenses should be a Class 1 medical device and available without prescription. There is little justification to compare a daily wear contact which is disposed of more like a hearing aid than a toothbrush. This would greatly reduce the price of contacts in the U.S.
December 08, 2018
I am glad there is something or someone looking out for us