If you are an optician who is committed to this profession please post something every time and on-line prescription eye-wear seller asks a question or defaces your chosen profession. A simple answer would be that they are committing a crime in your state. It is not worth arguing with them.
CNG
Not in Minnesota. Minnesota does not require licensing. It's not a crime here or in any other non-license state.
I think if you sell eye-wear online to a state that has dispensing laws you should seek a clarification from the optician dispensing regulatory board/optometry to make sure it is legal. Please provide your name, address, telephone, relatives names, social security and if you use USPS for the delivery of your eye-wear.
CNG
Last edited by CNG; 06-08-2013 at 12:07 PM. Reason: adding optometry
It might be a crime if there is an optometry licensing board that makes the dispensing rules in your state.Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
Now remember...there are some crimes that leave people dead in the street...and then there is online eyeglass dispensing.
Do you think it is ok to sell ONLY FRAMES on line? Plano sunglasses for example. Or frames that. Consumers can take to their eyecare professional and have them take the proper measurements and put lenses in them?
I think if you sell eye-wear online to a state that has dispensing laws you should seek a clarification from the optician dispensing regulatory board/optometry to make sure it is legal. Please provide your name, address, telephone, relatives names, social security and if you use USPS for the delivery of your eye-wear.
CNG
Does that include plano sport goggles sold on line for racquetball players. Does it include safety goggles sold on line for woodworkers? How about plano sunglasses sold on line from a Harley site? Are Rx lenses what determines the need for "in person optician" consultation? Do ophthalmic quality frames with planos require an "in person optician"? Just curious.....really.
I think if you sell eye-wear online to a state that has dispensing laws you should seek a clarification from the optician dispensing regulatory board/optometry to make sure it is legal. Please provide your name, address, telephone, relatives names, social security and if you use USPS for the delivery of your eye-wear.
CNG
Do they check ID for buying cough medicine?
CNG
LMAO!! Good luck with that!
But seriously:
There's a couple of issues at play here (as I see it anyway):
1. FTC Eyeglasses I and II which changed the dynamic of purchasing eyewear to put the power in the consumer's hand. State-level restrictions fly in the face of EG I and II by restricting where a consumer can purchase their eyewear.
2. State Rights. No state can dictate to another states residents or businesses what they can and cannot sell across state borders. While there may be a few exceptions to that, by and large, it is recognized that this is the law of the land. The sales tax issue will probably bend this definition slightly, but only with the consent of the seller. I can't see a state spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate an out-of-state seller for a couple hundred dollars in sales tax revenue. Then, there is the valid "protectionism" claim. Many state opticianry board rules are designed to protect the practice and restrict it solely to state-licensed dispensers. A claim can be made that this is pure and simple protectionism, and therefore invalid under the Federal Fair-Trade statutes.
Given these two points, I would also hazard a guess that the reason state opticianry boards (where they exist) are reluctant to pursue litigation of on-line eyewear businesses because they don't want to lose a case in federal court which would then set a precedent nation-wide. Then there are the costs associated with such a venture...does any state opticianry board have a couple of hundred thousand dollars to throw away? Let's say The Florida Board takes Big E's on-line business to federal court for violating the Florida regulations. First, does the Florida Board have deep enough pockets for that venture? Because you know that Big E will open up the checkbook and hire the most expensive attorneys it can afford and tie the court case up in knots for decades. Or, the Florida Board could opt to go after one of the smaller businesses on the theory they don't have the money to defend themselves...what would prevent Big E from filing a "Friend of the Court" brief on behalf of the on-liner? After all, its that doggone precedent issue again. I can't see Big E allowing a good chunk of income to be lost this way.
And then, finally there is the discrepancy between the state boards' rules on dispensing. I seriously doubt that any case would stand up in court, especially if the on-liner were to present the varying definitions of "dispensing" that exist in the 50 states.
Anyway, that's my opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
Oh, yeah, one more final point: where is the harm that has been done to the consumer? You are going to have to show proof of harm to the consumer for any case to make it past the preliminary hearing point.
Last edited by MikeAurelius; 06-08-2013 at 02:59 PM. Reason: final thought
No entity or person is allowed to violate local applicable laws, period !!!!
You don't go after the onliner directly in court , instead you go after the advertising body that profits from selling illegal advertising tools to the onliner that enables that onliner to violate local applicable laws. The advertising search engines have deep pockets and they are selling the tools to enable violating local applicable laws and profiting from it. You shut the search engine down and the search engine shuts down the onliner.
You quit paying license renewal fees to any licensed state that says its illegal but does nothing to stop it, especially if you are licensed by a self governing body.
To advertise protection of the public and at the same time declare on line dispensing as illegal while doing nothing about it is nothing short of false advertising and should never be funded by a membership charged with self governance.
This plan is irrelevant. Clearly you are not familiar with the American Federal system of government. Don't feel bad; many American opticians aren't either. This fundamental lack of knowledge of the concepts of governance (and historical precedent, law, and many other subjects considered academic) contributes greatly to the inability of the average optician to understand what is needed to self govern his profession.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Federal law trumps state/local laws. As was pointed out in another thread, the letter from the FTC lays out a pretty clear case that any attempt to limit the ability of the consumer to purchase eyewear wherever he/she wants to, INCLUDING ON-LINE, would be met with a lawsuit from the Government.No entity or person is allowed to violate local applicable laws, period !!!!
The FTC has permitted the consumer to purchase eyewear wherever they want to. No state or local body can restrict their (the consumer) right to purchase eyewear anywhere they want to.
And even so Mike - I doubt the federal government, or more particularly any local agency would bother with the miniscule harm presented by an improper PD/seg, off power lens, or other online no-no's we all love. The time and effort it would take to try and prosecute such cases with any efficacy would be asinine to undertake I expect. If the feds aren't bothered to do it, you can fairly well bank that no tiny and ineffectual state/local group would attempt the same. It would be pure folly financially to try - to say nothing of utterly ineffectual on a state by state level.
The only way to make it work, IMHO, is to lobby to get the fines for breaking the opticianry rules higher. So high that it becomes a revenue stream for the state boards.
As your average online pirate is not an optician or OD (although some are), the Attorney's General would also have to make it a sizable penalty.
Think of those traffic light cams...$250K to put up, millions in return on investment.
http://mayportmirror.jacksonville.co...d-light-camera
You know Bri, I agree. I've been reading the SC State Opticianry Board Minutes for the last ten years, and have been talking to the Board Members off and on for the last three years about these issues. Rarely do they censure anyone, and they know they can't challenge the onliners due to the interstate commerce clause. Opticians, you are on your own.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
If you blow through a red light however, there is often imminent risk of harm to body and property. Blow a PD...well, not so much. Again, it seems that the issue is viewed as SO completely and utterly trivial, that even the states so dramatically clinging to their licensure revenue streams don't seem plussed by the 'threat' of online 'dispensers'. You would have to both figure out what the fines should be, and then actually be able to implement some standard of enforcement. Seems pretty unlikely that will ever happen on a national level to me.
Is there any precedent for another 'medical' device now being hawked online without any regulation (I don't consider the impact test worth anything to one's ability to see through a correctly made set of lenses, but perhaps that's a different argument?) that opticianry could even look to as a viable path to regulation/eventual prosecution?
I can't think of any right off the top of my head. Maybe I need to grab a pint or three to clear the vapours from my noggin. FEZZ! ;)
In Flux must definitely be in Canada. That's like saying you are going to withhold your rent because it is too hot out and you can't stay in your apartment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_device also interesting: http://www.qrasupport.com/FDA_MED_DEVICE.html Eyeglasses are considered medical devices, but they are regulated at the lowest level (class 1), due to lack of harm. Contacts fall in classes 2&3,depending on wear schedule, because they do represent possible harm.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Eyeglasses are so low on the ladder of regulation, I have serious pause even using the term to describe their control in any manner. Which is why, I believe, the onliners will continue to do precisely what they do.
Agreed.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Well, only the loss of their money part of the time on those eyeglasses that do not work......and some hideous fits/choices that I've seen people order with no professional guidance or fitting! Of course, there are those who walk in to an optical and get that as well! Lol, even in ultra licensed states like my own. So I guess it comes back to 'buyer beware' and how much money people waste on eyewear that either doesn't work or doesn't fit. (Apparently, from judging the large amount of young people I see in the latest fads, "not looking attractive" isn't that big of a deal! :-))
Mother Theresa - MRS. "CoolOptican"
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. —James Harvey Robinson
Re:regulation - we screwed up when we let Pandora, aka OTCs, out of her box.
B
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks