Complain about a product or service

Iowa Restricts Marketing of "See Clearly" Vision Exercises

February 27, 2006

See Clearly Method • Court Pulls Blinds On See Clearly Method • Iowa Restricts Marketing of "See Clearly" Vision Exercises • Iowa Sues Vision Improvement Technologies --- Consumer Complaints

An Iowa judge has issued an injunction against Vision Improvement Technologies, the Fairfield, Iowa, company that has sold tens of thousands of "See Clearly Method" kits for about $350 apiece.

The "See Clearly Method" is a so-called "natural" vision improvement kit including manuals, charts, videotapes and audiotapes demonstrating eye exercises and other techniques.

Vision Improvement Technologies (VIT) agreed to the injunction, which restrains it from some marketing activities while a consumer fraud lawsuit against VIT proceeds.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller filed the lawsuit last August, alleging that VIT could not substantiate claims that the "See Clearly Method" set of eye exercises can quickly and easily improve a user's vision to the point that glasses or contact lenses are no longer needed. The lawsuit is set for trial in September.

"This injunction doesn't resolve the most fundamental problems we alleged, including whether the See Clearly Method really works as claimed, and whether VIT can demonstrate a reasonable basis for its claims, as it is required to do. Those basic issues will be resolved at trial," Miller said.

"Meanwhile, however, this injunction reins in some of the specific consumer abuses we alleged in the suit - and it should make it much easier for people to obtain refunds under the company's 30-day refund policy if they are not satisfied with the program."

Under the Stipulated Temporary Injunction entered by the Court:

• VIT must not make one-sided references to customer satisfaction without providing a balanced picture of consumer response. (The lawsuit alleges that in one 54-day sampling of actual consumer contacts, VIT received 6 favorable contacts and 49 complaint letters.)

• VIT must disclose to prospective buyers of the See Clearly Method that some users may experience headaches as a result of the eye exercises. (The suit alleges that some consumers reported severe headaches from doing the exercises, but VIT did not inform consumers of that possibility.)

• VIT must disclose that it recommends devoting a minimum of 30 minutes per day to the exercises for best results. (The lawsuit alleges that VIT represented that exercises were easy and required only "minutes a day" when in fact it recommended at least half an hour per day.)

• VIT must change several procedures in how it handles requests by consumers trying to take advantage of the 30-day money-back guarantee. (The lawsuit alleges that customers trying to call the company to arrange to return See Clearly kits were met with various obstacles, including making repeated phone calls without being able to reach a company representative, leaving messages but not receiving a return call, and being left on hold for half an hour or more.)

The Stipulated Temporary Injunction was approved and entered Wednesday by Polk County District Court Judge Don C. Nickerson.

Miller’s lawsuit Ialleges that Vision Improvement Technologies (VIT) has sold the "See Clearly Method" nationwide since 2001 through radio, television, and print ads, and a web site, www.seeclearlymethod.com. "See Clearly Method" eye exercises and "techniques" included, for example, focusing eyes using special charts or props, facing a bright light with eyes closed at a distance of a few inches, covering eyes with hands for sustained periods, and applying hot and cold wash cloths over closed eyes.

The lawsuit alleges that Vision Improvement Technologies uses a combination of misleading and unfair marketing tactics to sell their kits, including exaggerated claims of effectiveness, false implications of scientific validity, and misleading consumer testimonials in advertising.

The lawsuit also alleges that a so-called "risk-free" 30-day trial period is deceptively presented and ends up obligating many consumers to pay hundreds of dollars apiece for a product that did not help them.

According to the lawsuit, the company has shipped out as many as 5,000 to10,000 kits a month at a cost of about $350 each. About half of the consumers who received the kit returned it within the 30 days and were not obligated to make the full payment, but many who did not return it within the 30 days still sought a refund for various reasons.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.