The EOTech settlement resolved Foster v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., a consumer class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 6:15-cv-03519-BCW) over holographic weapon sights that the company had marketed as rugged and precise while knowing they suffered from thermal drift, moisture infiltration, and cold-weather distortion. Owners of covered sights could return them for a refund up to the model’s manufacturer’s suggested retail price, keep them and take a small cash payment, or accept a voucher toward a future EOTech purchase. Judge Brian C. Wimes granted preliminary approval on February 15, 2017, and held the final fairness hearing on June 30, 2017.
Who Was Covered
The settlement class included U.S. residents who owned any of more than 30 specified EOTech sight models manufactured between January 1, 2005 and November 1, 2016, and purchased on or before February 15, 2017. Consumers who had already received a refund from EOTech for a covered model before the settlement were also included.
The average civilian purchase price for these sights was around $500. EOTech advertised them as operable from -40°F to 150°F, fogproof, and free of parallax error. Government testing told a different story: at 32°F, point-of-aim error reached 12 minutes of angle (roughly 12 inches off-target at 100 yards), and at 5°F it exceeded 20 minutes of angle. In a 2014 government humidity test, 23 out of 25 units failed. Those defects, and EOTech’s failure to disclose them, were the basis for the class claims, which included violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and various state consumer fraud statutes.
What Class Members Could Claim
Payouts depended on what the owner wanted to do with the sight.
- Return the sight: a refund up to the model’s MSRP, which ranged from $299 to $1,179 depending on the model, plus $15 for shipping and a $22.50 voucher toward a future EOTech purchase.
- Keep the sight: a cash payment of $25 or $50, or in the alternative a $100 voucher for a new EOTech product.
- Previously refunded by EOTech: a $22.50 voucher, mailed automatically. No claim form was needed unless the consumer’s contact information had changed.
By September 2017, eligible class members reported receiving checks worth up to $50.
Deadlines and Claim Administration
Heffler Claims Group administered the claims. The claim form deadline was May 23, 2017, roughly three months after preliminary approval. The final fairness hearing followed on June 30, 2017. Consumers who had previously been refunded and whose addresses on file were current did not need to submit anything to receive their voucher.
Disputes Over the Settlement’s Real Value
Class counsel valued the settlement at $51 million. That figure was contested. An amicus brief filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute put the actual benefit to consumers closer to $3.5 million, noting that as of May 19, 2017, class members had claimed only $164,850 in cash and coupons combined. The brief also pointed out that EOTech had been offering full refunds for 16 months before the lawsuit was filed, and called the settlement “an egregious abuse of the class-action system.”
Class counsel sought $10 million in attorney fees. The amicus brief characterized that request as more than three times counsel’s actual billable costs. Under the fee agreement, any reduction the court made to the fee award would revert to the defendants rather than be redistributed to the class.
The Defects Behind the Case
Three problems drove the litigation. Thermal drift shifted the sight’s point of aim away from the actual point of impact as temperature changed; EOTech internally acknowledged the issue as early as 2006 but did not disclose it to the Department of Defense until 2015. Moisture infiltration allowed humidity into the optical cavity, dimming or fading the reticle, and independent testing in 2009 and 2014 confirmed seal failures. Cold-weather distortion caused the aiming dot to bloom into a blurred shape at sub-zero temperatures.
An internal EOTech communication quoted in court records described the stakes: “This is likely one of the worst types of failure, since most users won’t notice the problem until their life is on the line.” The sights were never formally recalled.
The Separate Federal Fraud Settlement
The consumer class action is often confused with a different resolution. On November 24, 2015, L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., its parent L-3 Communications Corporation, and EOTech President Paul Mangano agreed to pay the United States $25.6 million to resolve a civil False Claims Act suit filed by Preet Bharara, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The defendants formally admitted knowingly selling defective sights to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI while concealing the performance failures. U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan approved that settlement.
That $25.6 million went to the federal government, not to consumers. The Foster class action is the separate proceeding that produced the refunds, cash payments, and vouchers described above.
Who Represented the Class
The Miller Law Firm, P.C. of Rochester, Michigan filed the original Pittman complaint on behalf of Texas plaintiff Clay Pittman and served as counsel in the consolidated litigation before Judge Wimes. Douglas, Haun and Heidemann P.C. also represented plaintiffs and operated the informational site EOTechlawsuit.com. The consolidated case name, Andrew Tyler Foster, et al. v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., reflects the lead plaintiff after the multiple filings were combined.