Quantico Tactical

I’ll Title This Simply “EOTechlawsuit.com”

EOTech Lawsuit

Missouri-based lawfirm Douglas, Haun & Heidemann PC has set up the website EOTechlawsuit.com in order reach out to potential civil litigants in the wake of the US Government’s suit against L-3 Communications’ EOTech division for fraud. As you may recall, L-3 immediately settled for a $25.6 Mil payoff to the US Government on the allegations that their Holographic Weapon Sights exhibited POI shift in both hot and cold temperature extremes. However, despite settling with the Federal Government, it still leaves L-3 open to civil lawsuits, and it looks like these guys are on it like hobo on a ham sandwich.

According to an article on Legal Newsline, Douglas, Haun & Heidemann PC is already representing a client in Springfield, Missouri who is suing L-3 Communications, “alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, strict products liability and breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.”

But don’t forget. Right now, EOTech is offering refunds for their family of Holographic Weapon Sights. It’s up to the consumer to figure out the best way to go.  


30 Responses to “I’ll Title This Simply “EOTechlawsuit.com””

  1. Mic says:

    Has anyone received thier refund yet? Im starting to see that it might be a gift card and that would suck. Still waiting to hear back from them also. Thanks

    • SSD says:

      Has it been 4-6 weeks?

      • Mic says:

        No. When I first sent in my request. They replied that they needed my receipt, place of purchase, and amount of refund I am requesting. They also said no magnifiers. This was December 10th. I sent all the info that day, and have not received the RA back. Does it take 4-6 weeks just for the RA to send the sight back? Maybe I misunderstood from other post.

  2. Will S says:

    So, is the refund in the form of a check? Or is it going to be a gift certificate? I’ve already gotten word back from them. They approved me to return it, however, a gift certificate is not the method of refund the majority of us want.

  3. PPGMD says:

    If L3 sends actual refund checks for the retail price, it is obvious that is the best course of action. As these lawsuits typically in up with the lawyers getting millions and the consumers getting a fraction of their loss back.

  4. regular dude says:

    I’m quite amazed that L3 is offering refunds, and not waiting for the dust from a class action lawsuit to settle. My 512 has been sitting in a drawer for years; I’ll happily take my refund, and move on to the next thing.

    • bob says:

      I imagine that taking a refund would preclude a consumer from participating in the law suit. So, by offering refunds of the purchase price, L3 is probably hedging that it will cost them less than the expensive legals fees from the Class Action. I’m taking the refund. I would hazard that any settlement from the suit will be far less than what I paid for my sight.

    • Jason says:

      I just put mine in the mail yesterday and they were quick to respond to request. If its a gift card, I am joining the lawsuit as I do not want items for L3

  5. TF82 says:

    It’s nice that this law firm and the gun collective is spreading information which comes from an obvious hoax gift certificate. That’s the source of the gift certificate rumor. The only source. Here’s why I think the gift certificate that’s being shown in the gun collective’s video and on the forums is a load of crap:
    1. It’s dated 11/30, meaning it was issued before Larry Vickers posted this refund info on his facebook and that is the earliest mention I can find of this refund situation. It would pretty much have had to be issued to the original LAV facebook follower, who I’m sure would have said something by now.

    2. It says, “For the purchase of merchandise and products at L3 Communications” Where would I got to purchase said merchandise and products “at” L3 Communications? Their non existent retail store?

    3. It says, “Only one redemption per visit.” Visit to where? That awesome store that doesn’t exist where I can pick up a holographic weapon sight as well as some advanced photonic systems and components, whatever the hell those are?

    4. “Refund” and credit to a non existent store have different meanings. The very transparent purpose of offering these refunds is to keep them out of a massive lawsuit. How is giving you credit for another sight that they know is going to leak and lose zero going to accomplish that? I guess I could put that $530 they promised me toward one of those sweet advanced photonic systems. Or maybe some components of said systems…

    5. So far between here, TOS and the hundreds of comments on Larry Vickers’ multiple facebook posts on the topic, not one person has reported receiving anything back. Why would only one gift certificate have been sent out? Why would that person have gotten their gift certificate on 12/9 and yet in the intervening six days no one else got anything?

  6. Eric B says:

    I wonder how this plays out for the items purchased by the US Government? Do they replace or refund all of those sights purchased through the years? Glad I’ve been following this here, because my agency hasn’t sent out word one about this issue. Granted, we aren’t currently in any extreme environments, so maybe they’ll just take replacement slowly.

  7. Jack says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they offered store credit, or some other way to skirt responsibility without try to paying the consequences for it.

    First that astigmatism BS, second the factory magnifier mount screw breaking cleanly in two, third the SOCOM alert for the SU(.gov type) version’s battery housing screwing, and now finding out that the FBI actually tests their stuff before issuing it, unlike…


    How many military organizations tested these and supposedly never found a problem? Seems like its enough reason to demand a closer look into how they actually do their testing.

  8. JP says:

    I’m curious how many tacticool/airsofters are demanding a refund for a sight that will never see the extreme temperatures that the suit entails? My guess is than 90% of EOTech sights will never experience the failure that this incident brought to light.

    • TF82 says:

      Have you read the justice department’s filing? Extreme temps aren’t the only issue at play here. The FBI discovered the problems in that harsh environment of VA and it’s documented that the extreme parallax errors begin at 32F. There’s also the fact that they leak. Basically they all leak, starting at birth and this combined with humidity causes the well known reticle fade. In this case even airsofters got screwed. You could have a sight that you never took out of the box and it seems that eventually it will probably experience reticle fade.

      • Phil says:

        32F can’t really be called extreme in many places in the northern hemisphere. Mine has been good to me but I did experience the battery drain in low temps. thanks for the info TF82!

      • Bill says:

        If they leak and can’t operate reliably at 32F, there are winters in Florida when they can’t be used.

    • SSD says:

      It doesn’t matter if they won’t. They were sold a product with a certain expectation.

  9. Justin says:

    Well crap, looks like I’ll have to put off operating in operations operationally in a deep freezer until I pick up an Aimpoint. Oh well, off to the tactical forums until then…

  10. RICH says:

    This was a massive fraud running up to the highest levels (co-owner) at EOTech. These optics fail at common outside car temperatures. Who puts a 20 MOA optic on a 1 MOA rifle? Ridiculous to say they’re okay. The consumer fraud lawsuit will make sure that defense contractors never again blatantly lie about product defects to consumers or to our military. Many of the states consumer protection laws provide for additional damages up to $25,000 and the laws provide for attorneys to be paid by the defendant OUTSIDE and ON TOP of the damages, so this is no pennies on the dollar type of class action. If you think that intentionally lying to the Second Amendment community is wrong, go to http://www.eotechlawsuit.com and check out the information published there about what EOTech and its owner has already admitted to!

  11. thumper says:

    Has anyone actually received money yet? How long does it take to send a check?

  12. Mike Nomad says:

    Interesting watching the drift in the story…

    Sent my RA request on 14 Dec 2015 @ 1927

    Got an email reply on 15 Dec. 2015 @ 0816

    Email reply reads:


    Your refund request has been received and approved. Please print and enclose this email with your optic and return it to [Address Goes Here]. EOTech will refund the purchase price plus $15 shipping cost as soon as possible.

    Thank you,
    Customer Service
    EOTech an L-3 Communications Company


    Dropping it at FedEx today. We’ll see what “as soon as possible” means.

    • SSD says:

      What’s the drift?

      • Mike Nomad says:

        To be clear, I’m not beefin’, and not suggesting you are changing the story, etc. The drift being:

        EOTech’s process indicates that I should be getting an RA number from them. Instead, they only ask for a copy of the email reply to be included;

        Some folks have indicated that they had to include a purchase reciept;

        You’re going to get paid w/ voucher nonsense;

        And from Truth About Guns (I think), something about only 10,000 returns would be accepted.

  13. tazman66gt says:

    So, is this the same lawyer bullshit of trying to get their fingers on money they didn’t spend? Much like the bottom feeders in the whole VW diesel crap.

  14. Larry says:

    Lawyers 75% of America’s problems.

  15. Pat MaGroin says:

    I’m a little leery of sending my optic back to them until I know what I’m getting in return.

    • Mutt says:

      Sent mine in around December 16th. Wishing I hadn’t. Cannot reach eotech. No word that th optic arrived or its being processed etc. Basically sent off to a black hole.