Case Explained: WILLIAM CLEMENTS v. GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The seventh-circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of William Clements’ complaint against Gunnar Optiks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in granting dismissal based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) exclusion within the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The court applied the standard that a complaint need not anticipate and refute potential defenses, noting that Gunnar’s assertion that its glasses relieve eye strain is a factual defense requiring proof rather than an assumption of truth at the pleading stage. Furthermore, the court reasoned that even if the glasses serve a health function, the “virtual try-on” service collecting facial geometry data appears to be aesthetic rather than for “health care treatment” as defined by 45 C.F.R. §160.103(1). The court emphasized that under federal regulations, the sale of medical devices counts as health care only if done in accordance with a prescription, and the complaint does not establish that Gunnar’s data collection complies with HIPAA’s specific consent and confidentiality requirements necessary to trigger the statutory exemption. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the district court for discovery and summary-judgment proceedings to determine whether the facts support Gunnar’s claim that its data collection falls within the HIPAA exclusion, rather than being resolved on the pleadings alone.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.