Acme Revival sues Luxottica and Meta over access to Ray-Ban Meta repair resources
Complaint alleges Luxottica and Meta failed to provide Acme Revival with parts, manuals, software, firmware, tools, and other resources needed to independently repair Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses.
Denver, CO — Denver-based Acme Revival has filed a lawsuit against Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica of America Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, alleging violations of Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint, filed September 5, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain the parts, documentation, software, firmware, tools, and other resources needed to diagnose and repair the products independently.
According to the complaint, Acme Revival received at least 400 requests during 2026 from owners seeking diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of Ray-Ban Meta products. Acme alleges that it has been unable to accept or complete certain repairs because necessary repair materials have not been made available.
The complaint states that Acme repeatedly contacted Luxottica, Ray-Ban support and legal channels, and channels associated with Meta while identifying itself as a Colorado independent repair provider and invoking the state’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.
Acme alleges that the defendants did not provide the requested repair materials or establish a workable process through which they could be obtained on fair and reasonable terms. Instead, according to the complaint, Acme was directed at various times toward warranty service, manufacturer-controlled service processes, generic service requests, replacement devices, or the purchase of another product.
The lawsuit also seeks to determine the respective responsibilities of Luxottica and Meta within the Ray-Ban Meta product ecosystem. The complaint alleges that Luxottica manufactures and provides warranty support for the products, while Meta participates in their development, technology, software, services, and support.
Acme states that the precise allocation of responsibility for physical parts, firmware, embedded software, diagnostics, technical documentation, service procedures, warranties, and repair-access decisions is not publicly clear and is expected to be addressed through discovery.
Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act requires manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment to make certain repair documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, and related resources available to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms.
The complaint alleges that, to the extent each defendant qualifies as a manufacturer under the statute, failure to provide qualifying repair materials violates Colorado law and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
The lawsuit also asks the court to address the scope of statutory exclusions relating to medical-device manufacturers and equipment manufactured for use in medical settings. Acme alleges that the Ray-Ban Meta products at issue are consumer electronics and that its requested repairs concern their electronic and technological systems, not prescription lenses or medical services.
According to the complaint, restricting access to repair resources can limit independent repair options and steer consumers toward manufacturer-controlled service, whole-device replacement, or purchasing another device rather than repairing an existing one.
Acme alleges that it has suffered lost repair revenue, wasted diagnostic and administrative time, lost repair opportunities, and harm to customer relationships and goodwill.
Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning which products and defendants are covered by Colorado law and what repair resources must be provided. It also seeks injunctive relief requiring defendants found legally responsible to provide qualifying repair materials on fair and reasonable terms and maintain a functional process for independent repair providers to obtain them.
Acme also seeks damages, attorney fees, costs, interest, and other relief available under Colorado law.
The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica of America Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2026CV33235.
The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the defendants will have an opportunity to respond.
