EOTech’s Temperature Shifting Zero Reaches Legal Conclusion – Class Action Settlement Pending

Alas, all good things (that admittedly were borne of bad things) must come to an end. L3 Corporation’s EOTech division has reached a settlement agreement with the filed class-action lawsuit, which will end EOTech’s open refund offer for its fielded holographic weapon sights manufactured from January 5th to November 1st, 2016.

The settlement brings about a close to a legal and PR saga that EOTech will feel the repercussions from for years to come. In short, EOTech hid the fact that its weapons shifted zero between large shifts in ambient temperature from the US Government and its commercial customers. While all optics experience this shift to some degree, EOTech’s direct efforts to conceal this earned it the ire of the Government which ultimately settled with EOTech in short order. The class-action settlement will likewise likely end the issues with the commercial market.

In short, the settlement provides the EOTech will provide to its customers a full refund to the MSRP of the given product or for someone who already returned and received a refund, they will receive a $22.50 voucher for the purchase of a new EOTech product. in detail:

If you:  

You may be entitled to:

 

 

Previously received a refund from EOTech

A $22.50 voucher toward the purchase ofa new EOTech product will automaticallybe sent to you.
 

Have not previously received a refund from EOTech  and would like to keep your EOTech Holographic Weapon Sight

Elect a cash benefit, which may be as muchas much as $50 and as low as $25 depending on how many people submit Valid Claims, ora $100 voucher toward the purchase of anew EOTech product.
Have not previously received a refund from

EOTech and want to return yourHolographic Weapon Sight to EOTech

A refund of the purchase price of your

Holographic Weapon Sight up to the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price ranging from $299 to $1,179, $15.00 for shipping. and a $22.50 EOTech product voucher.

Claims are due to no later than May 23rd of this year. For those who do not return their product or likewise forget, this will end the opportunity for them to get a refund or voucher from the company.

For additional details, check out the Class Action’s website here. 



Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Ebby123

    I wouldn’t take the money on principle.
    My Eotech always performed flawlessly. Yes I know that under extreme (unrealistic) circumstances there could be mild zero shift, but

    1 – ITS A F*N REFLEX OPTIC NOT A PRECISION RIFLE SCOPE
    2 – This never actually happened to 99.9% of owners, hence they have no grievance. If they want to return the sight, awesome! Go for it. But don’t take money for a injury you never actually had.

    • First a couple of issues.
      1. They knew about the POA shift, and they hid it for years.
      2. They lied on their specs, as they already knew that their sights shouldn’t be exposed to those temperatures but they continued to publish specs saying that those temperatures were fine.
      3. Sure the Eotech HWS isn’t a precision rifle scope, but a POA shift of up to 22MOA is huge. That is nearly two feet at 100 yards, more than the width of an average person. Even 5 MOA is bad at 200 yards and further. These are distances that for considered more than usable for a carbine.

      Read the original US Government Compliant, it has emails from engineers, and management of L3. You will be disgusted with L3, and IMO they got off way too easily. The Eotech division should’ve been run out of the industry on a rail, the attitude that they employees took isn’t what manufacturers of equipment that people will bet their lives on should have.

      • Ebby123

        1 – And? You (apparently) used their sights for years with no failures to meet your expectations. If it was an issue, it was one that didn’t affect millions of people.

        2 – That is the only valid argument I’ve heard. If Zero impact shift under temperature was an advertised quality – and IF it was one that caused people to buy it for that reason, then there was injury. But we both know (statistically) zero people bought it specifically for that reason.

        3- I agree, 22MO is huge, but you didn’t experience 22MOA shift, did you? The key word is UP TO 22MOA. Again – actual injury VS “I heard someone used one of these once and it had a 22MOA shift”

        I’m not shilling for eotech, I’m just tired of watching this industry eat its own.

        • I never used Eotech’s I already avoided them based on their battery issues, and how poorly they handled them. Which was the same story –
          Eotech: “What battery contact issues?”
          End User: “The one that is well known to the point that there are guides on how to temporarily fix them being passed around between users.”

          And their ultimate fix was to release a new line and suggest that their users upgrade to that. Yep that sounds like a great company to work with.

          Eotech had an advertised operating range, within that operating range from top to bottom the optic should work without any issues. All their biggest competitors didn’t have any major POA shifts.

          It is great that your safe queen rifle won’t experience the temperatures that cause the issues to manifest. But that isn’t the case for many users, in the South it is very easy for a car/truck run to experience the temperatures shifts that cause the POA shifts and the shifts are cumulative.

          The fact is that they knowingly lied to end users that trusted their lives to their product, they knowingly lied to the US government which requires all contractors to report delivered products that they know won’t meet the contract specs. They shouldn’t be trusted with anything more important than a lemonade stand.

          • Ebby123

            None of my rifles are safe queens – I don’t even own a safe. 😀

            I don’t disagree that Eotech screwed up – only on the degree of which that screwup actually affected the 95% of their users that had no issues.

          • Except it did affect 100% of their users. They lied, and lied for years continuing to claim that their optic is perfect even though they knew it had multiple flaws. And even after they found fixes (like the fogging issue or the battery contact issue) they didn’t issue general recalls to fix the issues that they found fixes for.

            It took the lawsuit and customer outrage for them to do anything remotely serious about these issues.

          • Ebby123

            “Except it did affect 100% of their users”
            No, it did not. Try again.

            or years continuing to claim that their optic is perfect
            No they did not. Try again.

            You don’t have nearly the data to support that statement, and NO first hand experience as an owner of this sight.

            You’re repeating garbage. Stop it.

            You’re not entitled to money because someone lied to you. You’re only entitled to reparations for damage if damage occurred.

          • They lying affected every consumer, whether you used the full product spec range or not.

            False advertising is a serious issue in the United States. Because consumers often don’t have the ability to test every claim. And are forced to take the company on their word.

          • Ebby123

            Literally every Ad in existence lies to you.

            You want to be happy and have a lot of friends? Drink this Budweiser.
            You want hot chicks to fawn over you? Drive this car.
            You want to be just like this operational operator? Buy this AR-15 doo-dad.

            Only when the company claims one thing, and that falsehood causes tangible harm to you personally, are you morally entitled to monetary compensation.

          • You are making an comparison that is so apples to oranges that it is almost a straw man argument. As those companies aren’t doing that. They will get consumers to imply things using techniques similar to Soviet Montage Theory.

            Eotech lied, and knowingly lied on a spec sheet. It is a completely different situation.

          • Ebby123

            I think you need to re-read the part about tangible harm.

            Are you from the U.S.? Serious question. I’m trying to figure out if you live somewhere where the laws are different.

          • Which itself is a straw man argument. Or else we wouldn’t have laws that prohibit false advertising and allow civil cases to proceed under them.

          • Nathan Alred

            So earlier it was “99.9%” weren’t affected, now it’s down to “95%”. Seems like a zero shift happening in your estimate.

          • Ebby123

            That’s why its called an estimate 😛

            No one knew it was an issue until Army Engineers tested it and published a report.

          • Actually L3 did, which is the whole crux of the lawsuit between L3 and the US Government. If it was an issue that L3 or NSW just discovered the punishment would’ve have been much less severe, namely L3 would be required to fix the optics or a smaller cash payment. As the government understands that the issues happen, they simply want to know about them before someone gets killed due to it.

            Also it was the FBI that discovered the issue, when they were evaluating optics for purchased. The DOD doesn’t buy very many Eotechs and the ones they do are purchased on off the shelf commercial purchases. Which means they take the vendors claims of performance at face value. The FBI contract was large enough that they did independent testing.

          • DwnRange

            I have an EOTech with nary an issue, so no money or complaint from me on that point, here or with EOTech, but that said I do consider it irresponsible to own firearms without a “safe” to properly store them in – as you just admitted you do……… : (

            Locked in the trunk is also not safe storage for a rifle – your decided lack of firearm safety methodology negates any agreement I might personally have with your comments.

          • Ebby123

            Hop off the assumption train before you get carried away. 😉

            I store my long guns in a hidden (and locking) cabinet that I built into my home. My handguns are stored in a steel locker with a digital combo lock.

            The truck gun is likewise stored in a hidden and digitally locked compartment that I installed in my vehicle.

        • carlcasino

          Acting like Republicans! I have voted RNC since 1960, so don’t give me any grief.

      • armatus rebellio

        If you decide to keep your sight, you should plan on keeping forever.
        If you try to sell it, to anyone aware of the issue anyway, all the “No, really. It NEVER gave ME a problem.” is not going to help your resale value unless your mark is an idiot.

        The sights on the list, are, effectively, scrap value.

    • EdgyTrumpet

      Nice try EOTech, but you still have to pay.

      • Ebby123

        Cute, but look around. I’ve been on here and TTAG for a while. No affiliation.

        • EdgyTrumpet

          So you are defending this company’s unethical behavior for free.
          Cute.

          • Ebby123

            I am tired of watching this industry eat its own. We are our own worst enemy.

            There is nothing unethical about refusing to accept reparations if you have not been wronged.

            Unless Eotech deceived you and it actually cause injury (you personally observed zero shift in your optic), then no injury has been caused.

          • Anonymoose

            No. Eotech did deceive its customers. The price of all those defective sights should be refunded so customers can go out and buy Aimpoints and Trijicons.

          • Ebby123

            I completely agree. I replaced mine with a couple Holosuns because i felt I could no longer trust it.

            What I don’t agree with is accepting additional money for a defect that I never experienced.

          • You were injuries by the very fact that they deceived you. They claimed an operating range and didn’t provide it.

            You go to a car dealership and buy a car that has 6L engine and can go 130+ MPH. And later it is revealed that it is a 5L engine, and it can only go 120MPH. You were injured you didn’t get what you paid for, regardless if you have no plans to take it to a track and race it.

          • Ebby123

            “You were injuries by the very fact that they deceived you. ”

            I very strongly disagree. I bought a sight that performed as expected. There is no injury there. The fact that it doesn’t do something I never knew about or cared about in the first place is irrelevant to me and the vast majority of end-users.

          • News stories aren’t trying to sell you something.

            But yes companies that lie on their ads do get punished all the time. In fact I am willing to bet that easily half of class action lawsuits stem from advertising claims that simply were not true.

            We as a society rightly believe that false advertising, and not disclosing life threatening issues are considered to be major offenses. As they violate the trust that we as consumers have placed in the companies selling us products.

            IMO a company that so brazenly lied to consumers like Eotech should be punished even more severely than they were.

          • Ebby123

            I’m sorry, but that’s just not how it works.

            Only falsehoods that cause DOCUMENTED, TANGIBLE HARM are prosecutable. In this case, the documented harm was to the U.S. govt – not to you or me personally.

          • Except it is. This lawsuit and many others like it are examples that lying to consumers even if they didn’t suffer a tangible harm is cause for punishment to the corporations. Companies have been run out of business for false advertising.

          • Ebby123

            The legal system may work that way, but it is still immoral to accept money in repayment for damages, IF you never experienced those damages.

          • It is perfectly moral, they lied to you.

          • Ebby123

            Your mom lied to you when she told you you were the smartest/cutest kid in the world. We are all lied to thousands of times a day.

            Get over it – it doesn’t entitle you to monetary compensation.

          • Except that those people aren’t trying to sell me things. When the person experiences financial gain due to a lie it is fraud. And it does require punishment. We as a society have decided that advertising related frauds comes in the form of financial compensation via civil lawsuits.

          • Ebby123

            Again, I disagree to a certain extent – but I understand your reasoning.

            All liars seek to get something in return –
            Your mom wants the short-term satisfaction of seeing you smile when she tells you you’re the smartest kid in school.
            The stolen valor guy wants to get the girl to agree to have sex with him.
            The business wants you to buy their product.

            I agree that lying to someone other than an enemy is immoral, but it becomes increasingly difficult to objectively evaluate the “cost” of a lie without tangible, documented damages that are directly caused by said dishonesty.

            The idea of a lawsuit is to reclaim the monetary value of something that was taken from you.
            In my mind, this does not include exposing you to minor risks – in your mind it does.

          • Except that these lawsuits aren’t about making you whole, deceptive advertising, and false advertising lawsuits also include punitive damages to discourage companies from lying again or other companies in the first place.

            That is the reason why people that commit fraud go to jail instead of just paying back what they fraudulently acquired. We want to discourage the behavior from being committed in the first place.

          • Ebby123

            A don’t disagree. My point was that without measurable damages, it becomes very subjective and difficult to enforce. IE: Should your mom go to prison because she told you you were the smartest?

          • Are you really this dense?

            A mom doesn’t experience a direct financial gain by telling a white lie like that. Eotech and other corporations that lie like this do. And thus should be damaged punitively.

          • Ebby123

            As I pointed out, your mom does experience personal gain by lying to you. As does the false valor guy, as does the corporation.

            Does the chick that slept with him under false pretenses not have any right to be upset because no money changed hands?

            PERSONAL GAIN encompass more than just money, as @bierstadt54 astutely pointed out.

          • You are jumping way into strawmen and it isn’t worth arguing with you about.

            The law is very clear, and IMO is morally right because what they did was damned near fraud level of lying.

          • Ebby123

            We can agree to disagree. 😉

          • AlanHan

            You keep referring to criminal actions and/or punishments. The entire EO bit is a civil litigation matter.

          • Bierstadt54

            Ebby123, I feel as you do on the issue of unjustly accepting compensation – I would not personally claim compensation for an issue/problem I never had.

            However, PPGMD is reasonable in pointing out that advertising fraud should be punished, and it is via civil lawsuit. I think that a refund of the item in question plus a penalty fee is a suitable punishment.

            I do not agree that every company that screws something up should be taken for all they are worth, but in this instance with EOTech I feel their actions are deserving of the harshest censure and penalty. They put out a faulty product, lied about it, refused to take responsibility on their own, and in the process destroyed the reputation of their company and products, to the harm of themselves and their customers. Even if one’s sight worked fine its value is harmed just because of how EOTech acted. They are getting off lightly.

          • Ebby123

            Even if one’s sight worked fine its value is harmed just because of how Eotech acted.

            This is very valid. I hadn’t considered the fact that my personal Eotech (before I sold it) depreciated in value because of Eotech’s dishonesty.

            Thank you for pointing this out!

          • Nor do I agree that every defect should require punitive damages that I think L3 should suffer. The only reason why I think Eotech deserves the corporate death sentence is the years of lying that happened before they were forced to disclose the issue.

            If 5-10 years ago they acknowledged the issue and attempted to make things right I would have no problem with Eotech other than being wary of a company that has put out defective products in the past.

          • HSR47

            Your dismissal of the false advertising issue is wrong. There’s a difference between marketing that stretches the truth (e.g. “Glock: Perfection!,” silencer companies’ quoted dB reduction, and Aimpoint/Trijicon’s claims to 5-year battery life — on a stated unrealistically low setting) and outright lies. In this case, L3/EoTech knew of multiple serious issues with their optics and chose to knowingly lie about them.

            Without this deception, many people would have spent their money on other products that actually live up to their specs. That is tangible harm: They gave money for X and received Y instead, where Y was of significantly lesser value than X. Had many of these people had full knowledge of these issues, they would have gone with other optics that actually meet their stated specs.

          • AlanHan

            Yet, if you paid your mom, a licensed psychologist, to render your IQ evaluation, and she falsified the report, you would likely have a good case. Why? You paid expecting an accurate report, but she failed to meet the standard of professional care. Details matter. When money changes hands details matter a lot.

          • AlanHan

            Let me get this right: You think sharp observant EO owners who live in sufficiently variable temperature or extreme humidity areas, and so noticed their sight was defective…deserve money, but you think duller or less observant owners, and those who have not yet taken their sight into the rain and humidity…;or the very cold north….should just get stuffed?

          • Ebby123

            You missed the first post where I said *I* won’t be taking the money. *I* and *everyone* are a little bit different, donchya think? 🙂

          • AlanHan

            “Proscecutable”? The EOTech matter involves civil litigation, not criminal. In civil litigation a cause of action is required in order to get your day in court (or negotiation). The specifics of the cause of action, and the nature of the harm (financial, injury, civil fraud, etc.) determines the standard by which the damages awarded will be measured.

            Let me guess: You’ve got an EO, you like it, you feel sending it back for a refund (which you could use to buy a new EO having only one of the three defects of pre-2013 EO’s) makes you admit you were taken for a small ride? Millions of soldiers and cops still use EOs just for the big window and very fast on-target speed. No shame in that.

          • The Brigadier

            Which division of Eotech do you work for Ebby? You are either amazingly stupid or incredibly obtuse. I suspect you have a job to protect and if that is true, its time to look for another.

          • Ebby123

            Try reading – second post from the top. Also insulting anyone you disagree with is childish.

          • NoRetreat

            the brigadier… OMG – CONGRATULATION (NOT)
            after reading over 50 comments on this site, yours is the only comment that shows disregard to the feelings of others. Get your act together before posting.
            WHO WILL GUARD THE GUARDS

          • AlanHan

            As others note, being lied to often does entitle you to money, and for good reason. In a large market economy, and for products used in very consequential circumstances….it would be disastrous for the law to force every user of a defective product to use it until it (blows up, causes him to lose a defensive shoot fatally) does cause loss. This concept is basic to product liability law in the US;

          • Ebby123

            The difference here is that there is no evidence to support that ALL eotechs had this defect – only that all eotechs had the POTENTIAL to have this defect.

            I think that’s the key thing that we’re not seeing eye-to-eye on here.

          • No, every Eotech ever sold has this defect (unless they’ve corrected it in the last 6 months). Just because you’ve never experienced it doesn’t mean that it didn’t have this defect.

            It is like the Ford Pinto, as long as you didn’t get into a rear end collision you would’ve never experienced the defect. But that doesn’t mean that every Pinto that didn’t get into a rear end collision never had the defect.

          • Ebby123

            every Eotech ever sold has this defect
            What data are you basing this on?

          • The emails between engineers in the US Government lawsuit against Eotech and the fact that as of 6 months ago they require new government purchases to sign a statement of performance limitations which noted that the issue hadn’t been fixed before they will allow their purchase to proceed.

          • Ebby123

            Link please.

          • No, I am not going to spend my time searching for something you can easily find yourself.

            This is all well documented.

          • Ebby123

            What you have just shared does not imply a 100% failure rate.

            It only implies the potential for failure. This is a key difference.

          • The Brigadier

            They LIED on their spec sheets.

          • Ebby123

            And?

          • The Brigadier

            Its the design you idiot, not a defect in some parts.

          • Ebby123

            *Citation needed

          • DanGoodShot

            I sure experienced the hell out of it on my 553. I live in CT. On cold winter days or hot summer days when my 553 would leave the comfort of my house I ALWAYS had to dial it in. It would shoot high and to the left 3-4 inches @ 50 yards. Thats a big change. I thought it was a faulty unit. I contacted eotech. They had me send it in. I got back a refurbished POS that still had the issue… now I know why. Now I have a Comp m4. No more issue.

          • AlanHan

            The thermal drift was not the only defect. For many people who live/shoot in humid areas, occasionally carry their rifle back to the vehicle in the rain….the humidity (disappearing reticle) problem was more likely to impact them. You knew this?

          • The Brigadier

            No, they claimed no parallax shift on spec sheets when it occurs in both temperature extremes with their scopes. Not on just a few of them, but all of them. The reason many buyers were not aware of this is that many live in temperate zones where temperature extremes don’t exist, or they don’t go out and shoot in stifling hot or bone chilling weather. Our military does both regularly and it was the DoD that stopped buying EoTechs when the problem became readily apparent. It was also the governments decision to seek a refund from EOTech because of the narrow range Eotech operated with no flaw. The spec sheets fooled everyone that Eotech solved the parallax shift at extreme temperatures when their scopes were proven to fail worse then any other maker of similar high end sights.

          • AlanHan

            You’ve been wronged if you bought a model produced before the humidity fix. That’s most of us. They’ve made other improvements in the last three years.

            I’ve had two EO’s for approx. a decade. They worked fine for targets and hunting in forest. I sent them both in, bought another two with the refund check, made $50, and the two new ones are better for my purposes, and will certainly last longer without the reticle fading. Why feel guilty about that?

    • Flounder

      The shift was shown to be about 1 MOA per ever 20-30 degrees on the best and newest of optics. This means, with the standard seasonal variation of the US, that all owners who subjected their optics to ambient temperatures suffered a 1 to 4 MOA shift. Me? I suffered a 4 MOA shift, shot the rifle in the summer and pulled it out in the snow.

      So what i am saying is that everyone was hurt. But L3 is being punished for lying to everyone. By not taking their money you aren’t supporting them, you are saying yes, please, lie to your customers.

      • Ebby123

        I’m saying I never experienced the shift.

        I don’t trust the Eotech optic anymore, hence I returned mine – but I’m not going to accept money for something that never happened to me.

    • Matt Robinson

      It’s very likely this resulted in me missing/wounding a deer. I zeroed my rifle in the summer (95F). Shot at a deer in the winter (25F). It ran off and was not recovered. Unsure if it was hit (no blood). It was the only deer I’ve ever missed and the only time I’ve ever used an EOTech to hunt. There are people who suffered quantifiable damages.

      • Ebby123

        Yep – they should accept their share of the settlement.
        I did not, so I should not.

      • ostiariusalpha

        You should have sighted your rifle for the temperature you were using it in. There are POI shifts even with standard scopes because temperature shifts effect powder burn and even bullet drop. Not saying your EOTech isn’t to blame, but you definitely could have been more diligent considering that you might have left a badly wounded animal.

        • Bierstadt54

          No one I have ever met sights in their rifle in the freezing weather it will be used to hunt in. People sight in during mid-fall, at the latest, generally on nice days. So we go from 50F’s-70F’s and then hunt in 10F’s to 30F’s. We do this because it works out just fine. (I hunt in PA) Sighting in at 95F is a bit more extreme, but I fully expect my deer rifle to hitting vitals at 100 yards even then. One should always make sure their rifle is still dialed in if it has not been shot in a while before hunting, but if temp shift makes a sighted-in scope miss a deer at normal hunting range it is a POS.

          • ostiariusalpha

            You really need to get more acquaintances. Most people sight in at 50°-70°F because they’ll be hunting in 50°-70°F weather. Hunting with Autumn scope adjustments in Winter is kind of weirdly lazy also; you technically don’t even have to shoot a group, just use a ballistics calculator to know where to set your zero. You can get away with a lot using full power cartridges, like .30-06 or .308, but .30-30 will lose a couple of MOA of accuracy with a 60°F temperature shift.

    • MrBrassporkchop

      This was my argument. The real issue was the lying but in the end it’s still a solid proven optic.

    • codfilet

      Didn’t you know? Everyone here is a Tier-One Operator. They might be in the arctic one day, and in the desert the next.

    • Mark Everett

      I agree. I live in Texas where we don’t really have that much of an extreme difference. My EoTech shoots ‘minute of man’ at 100 yards. EoTech sent me a letter with the same offer, which was nice of them.
      I agree that if you have been harmed by the product’s deficiencies or that, in principle, you want to protest EoTech’s coverup, go for it.
      I might send in the $50 so I can buy my new NCStar Sniper Scope.
      Kidding.

    • The Brigadier

      Its not unrealistic. Fighting in equatorial zones or in very cold climates effect these sights adversely. Mountain fighting especially in winter will do it also. These extremes also cause molecular polyethylene Level 4 body armor to fail as well. Welcome to high tech modern fighting gear. Perhaps the next conflict will break out in Hawaii and we can both shoot and be protected.

  • mrpotatocat

    Yep. Mine works perfectly. Its heavy and built like a tank. It isn’t my go-to optic but it has earned its place in my safe.

    • Except you know it isn’t built like a tank.

      The list of issues with Eotechs, some fixed some not, are numerous.

      I would take a Holosun over an Eotech, at least I am paying half the price for a suspect optic.

      • Ebby123

        That’s silly. Yes, it is still built like a tank, with the potential to have zero shift under conditions that almost no one will ever experience.

        I own Eotechs and Holosuns – and Holosun is my go-to optic because its cheaper, not because its more durable. Both are reliable.

        • “Almost no one will experience.” Hmm how about every car in the south that has a truck gun (which is also pretty common in the south)? Because the interior of a car left in the sun can easily get above 122 degrees.

          • Ebby123

            I kept my eotech in my trunk in Alabama. No issues.

            You don’t. have. the. data. to support a claim of 100% failure.
            You do have the data to support a claim of 100% of product has the potential to have a failure.

            This is the key we’re disagreeing on. You’re making claims the data doesn’t support.

          • It doesn’t matter if there is a failure, the defect is present in the product and the company lied about it.

          • Ebby123

            Your definition of “damages” in this context include exposure to a risk of a failure.
            I disagree, but I understand your reasoning.

          • I highly doubt you do.

            I would have no issues with Eotech if when the issue was discovered by Eotech they were up front about it. I understand that defects happens, as long as the company makes it right as soon as they know about it I would say OK, they deserve a second chance.

            But Eotech violated the public’s trust because they knew about the issue, and they hid it for years. I know the rumor that POA shifts were around for at least a couple of years before the lawsuit became public. It was only after the US Government lawsuit was filed that they acknowledged the issue.

            If it were up to me corporate dissolution with the assets liquidated to be used to pay the customers would be the result for such blatant fraud. Because the punishment should be so severe that no one would even think about doing it.

  • Gary Kirk

    They could give the defective ones to the German army for their g36s.. Might offset one another and maintain zero..

    • Major Tom

      Hey, there’s an idea!

    • Edeco

      Like the zig-zagging metal bars in a clock pendulum that offset each others’ expansion due to heat.

  • Well as usual the lawyers make out like bandits and the consumer end up with worthless vouchers in addition to the refund program that Eotech was already running in an attempt to salvage their reputation.

    • armatus rebellio

      Not actually.

      If you read the text of the settlement, every owner (purchased, gifted, found, stolen, etc.) of any of the (many) listed sights are eligible for a refund UP TO THE MSRP of the sight. If you choose to keep your sight, yeah, you get $22.50 and your broken sight. If you send it in, they even pay for shipping. If you paid over MSRP… STBY.

      There is ALSO independent consideration for the classes attorney fees and expenses. NONE of the funds used to repair the class can be used to pay the classes attorney’s fees.

      In short, EOTech knew they would get cooked in a jury trial and to limit expenses agreed to, effectively, continue the refunds they have been offering.

    • DGR

      Eotech provided a full MRSP refund for my sight, as a consumer I was more than pleased with their service during this whole ordeal. Ill give it some time, but ill probably end up buying another one. The settlement was more than fair to the consumer, those who still complain are just trying to milk the situation.

      • So you are going to spend your money with a company that has deceived you, and only admitted to it because the government publicly sued them for that deception.

        That makes sense.

  • GhostTrain81

    I have seen the original POI shift complaint phrased a few different ways, but all with the same caveat – that all optics experience some sort of shift when there is a big change in temperature.

    Is the EoTech shift substantially worse than another optic put under the same rigor, or was the government just upset that EoTech someone tried to BS their way out of this and claim their product was impervious to this?

    • At the upper end of optics, which is where Eotech sells to, they are substantially worse than Aimpoint and Trijicon’s newest entry to the market.

      But the biggest issue is that they lied and covered up issues. They claimed that they did testing which they didn’t. Heck the fix for one of their issues was discovered when they made “golden units” to submit for government testing.

    • Ebby123

      The second case is more likely. Eotech’s mistake was in stating that there was zero shift, rather than not bring it up at all like Aimpoint, etc.

      • Eotech’s mistake was lying and not admitting that they knew that there was a temperature based POA shift. Not that fact that there was zero shift.

        • Ebby123

          So… exactly what I just said.Thanks for clearing that up. 😛

  • Frank

    The big question I have is if they actually fixed the problem?

  • USMC03Vet

    Scumbags and sadly we have many in the “community” still trying to defend them.

  • winterhorse

    I sent mine back a few years ago. they sent me a check for my purchase price plus the shipping cost. Why would some scum sucking lawyers try to make a killing on a company who backed their product with a cash back guarantee?
    If they solve the zero shift problem, I’d buy another one.

    • Rick

      There is no zero shift PROBLEM for the vast majority of EoTech owners, that’s a fact.Every sight of this type has a possiblty of a zero shift, that’s another fact. Trijicon has admitted that their optics also can have a zero shift in extreme circumstances JUST LIKE EoTech. Yes they hid the fact from the DOJ and as a result they were stand up enough to offer a 100% +, no questions asked refund to every Mother F’n owner in the world. That’s a stand up company.I just wish they would offer the returned optics for sale…I’d own one for every rifle I own instead of just the three I own now. No, I won’t take the money and yes I’ll own more EoTech’s. It is truly hilarious to read the indignation from these owners that haven’t had a rifle out of the safe in a year and wouldn’t know a zero shift it it hit them over the head. Same with the Battery “problem”. Lord help you if you had to turn your optic off or on. That single button push is just sooo much trouble…

  • Guy Slack

    How much will I get for an EXPS 2.0?

  • Gary Kirk

    Not to mention the height over bore thing.. Got to play with one once. That was all it took, just trying to help y’all out..

    • xebat

      God i miss my time in. I wish we had a second amendment, i’d buy one just for Nostalgia sake.

      • Gary Kirk

        Know that feeling.. The rifle all grunts cry about, but just had to build myself one.. Cause I loved it..
        Sorry bout your restrictions brother.. But at least H&K won’t let us have them either..

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1beda740381ddd937556357b6f318a9df12200fca36d2f0407e3ed29cdbb931f.jpg

        • alex archuleta

          Damn that’s a nice rifle. I carried a 16 with a 203 and the plastic handguards attached to it with iron sights. Acogs didn’t come in till later tho.
          I always wanted to build what I carried but got an M4 instead. Lol the stuff we were issued when I deployed was in bad shape, most rifles had been in Desert storm!

  • Wow!

    I never was a believer in paying anything over 200 for any red dot (personally the best red dot available is the C More, followed by trijicon, then aimpoint. Battery life isn’t the end all in sight selection) but the hate against eotech is unfounded IMO. All sights are going to shift from temperature changes. The question is if EOTECH knew about the shift when they sold it. My guess, probably not. And settlements are not a sign of guilt. Sometimes companies figure it is cheaper to settle especially when the opposition has unlimited funds by which to attack (aka government and other special interest unions), where even if you win, you still lose due to the drawn out legal process and expenses associated with it. If you apply the logic eotech should have gone to court, then you should also apply the same logic that the lawsuit should have gone to court to let the truth be known. Of course, we know that these kind of things have nothing to do about quality or truth, but about money.

    • Gary Kirk

      Look up the g36 lawsuit.. As long as you deliver what was specified you’re good.. Now, eotech went as far as to say their products didn’t suffer from said problem.. Hence their current issue..

    • The lawsuit with the government spells things out much clearer, and it is pretty damning. It has emails between engineers, and management about how they knew about the issues for years and chose not to disclose it.

      • Wow!

        Ah, well that is a different story then. Thanks for the info.

    • Independent George

      The question is if EOTECH knew about the shift when they sold it. My guess, probably not.

      Why guess? As shown in their internal emails, they explicitly did know about it and covered it up. Hence, the lawsuit and canceled projects.

  • Kivaari

    At least they gave me a refund for a new but un-trusted sight. I could not hit with an earlier one but bought another to give it a second chance. Then the refund offer came along. EOTech honored the deal and I moved on to a Leupold product. I can’t complain since they did give a full refund.

  • Pseudo

    Thanks TFB, you just got me 25 bucks in like 6 months. Moved since I got my refund.

  • scaatylobo

    I contacted EOtech a year back about problems with my 512.
    Rather than fix it,or offer me a new one = they gave me a FULL REFUND for the one I sent back.
    Even paying the shipping.
    Sorry that I actually relied on it,HAPPY it is gone and I lost nothing.

  • uisconfruzed

    EO Tech’s are great, how many of us are using them sub 0 deg?
    I’ve never had a problem with any of mine.