EOTech Holographic Weapon Sights Class Action Settlement
You are a class member if you own one of the following holographic sight models:
EOTech HWS Models 400, 502, 511, 512, 512 CAMO, 512.XBOW, 512.LBC1, 516, 517, 518, 551, 552, 552.XR, 552.LBC1, 552.LBC2, 553, 555, 555.USMC, 556, 557, 557.4XFTS, 557.4XFXD, 557.3X.FTS, 557.G23.FTS, 558, EXPS2, EXPS3, HHS I, HHS II, MPO II, MPO III, XPS2, XPS2-RF, XPS2- Z, XPS2-Z2, XPS2-300,and XPS3 that were manufactured between January 1, 2005, and November 1, 2016, and purchased on or before the February 15, 2017 or who previously received a refund from EOTech for one of these HWS models.
The following are excluded:
governamental entities, individuals whose sight was provided by a governmental entity, subsidiary or affiliate of The Defendant, resident of a US territory, a judge handling the case, his family or immediate staff or the lawyers involved with this lawsuit.
The settlement amount can range from a $22.50 voucher to a full refund if you return the equipment
Proof of Purchase
Andrew Tyler Foster, et al. v. L-3 Communications EOTech Inc.,Case No. 6:15-cv-03519-BCWDistrict Court for the Western District of Missouri
The lawsuit claims that certain of Defendant’s HWS were defective and resulted in four different issues, which affected the performance of HWS under certain conditions. These four issues are “reticle dimming” from moisture incursion, movement of the reticle as the temperature changes known as “thermal drift,” parallax, and distortion of the reticle in cold weather. The class action lawsuit further contends that the value and utility of these HWS have been diminished as a result of these alleged issues. Defendant denies Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in the lawsuit. The parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the Court. The Settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing.
Andrew Tyler Foster, et al. v. L-3 Communications EOTech, et al.
c/o Heffler Claims Group
P.O. Box 60255
Philadelphia, PA 19102-0255