What exactly does the GOC's recent court victory against Vision Direct (News this week and last) mean for internet retailing?
The name Vision Direct became synonymous with the GOC's efforts to police contact lens supply by the internet when Optician highlighted it10years ago.There is nothing to suggest that the action that took place then bears any relation to the action that has recently been concluded. This time round weknow 'test' purchasesresulted in charges and that Vision Direct pleaded guilty.
The coverage by Optician 10years ago was conducted in a different world where the spectre of internet supply shook the profession to its core. In the aftermath of the 1998 Vision Direct success the GOC said it had six more suppliers in its sights.It later complained that the case had drained it of funds.
Since then the supply of CLs has continued apace from home and abroad. As highlighted by Optician, on many occasions, some ask for prescriptiondetails some don't, some check, some don't.More recently Ron Hamilton (Letters, August 15) suggested there is institutionalised flouting of the rules on CLsupply.
So have we moved on? Back in 1998, Robin Kennedy, managing director of Direct Lenses, called on the regulators to lay down clear rules on internet supply Optician's columnist the late Nemo suggested there was no legal reason why a consumer in a free society should be debarred from purchasing replacement CLs by mail order if they wished.In the same 1998 issue Mark Darling stood waist deep in water outside his flooded Northampton practice.Plus ça change.