A 2012 60 Minutes segment focused on the company and its dominance of the eyewear industry. Reporter Lesley Stahl visited its factories and Milan headquarters, interviewing Guerra and product manager Isabella Sola. While praising the craftsmanship Luxottica puts into its work, and the way it had turned around Ray-Ban after acquiring it in 1999, Stahl asked whether it was exploiting its extensive holdings in the industry to keep prices high. Luxottica, she noted, owned not only a large portfolio of brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley but retailers like Sunglass Hut and Oliver Peoples, as well as the optical departments at Target and Sears. In addition, through EyeMed, it controlled a portion of the buyers' side of the market as well.[20]
Eyewear prices had, 60 Minutes claimed, increased as much as tenfold in the preceding decade, despite a wider and wider range of products and brands available. "You'd think competition would force the prices down," Stahl said. But, she asked, "Why should a pair of glasses cost more than an iPad? Well one answer is because one company controls a big chunk of the business."[20]
Guerra defended those high prices. "This is one of the very few things that are 100 percent functional, 100 percent aesthetical, and they need to be on your face for 15 hours a day. Not easy, and there's a lot of work behind them." The company did not disclose its markup, but Stahl reported estimates that its sunglasses for designer labels cost as much as 20 times their production cost.[20]
Brett Arends, a columnist with Smartmoney.com, was unconvinced. "I don't think there is [a free market in eyewear]," he told Stahl. "I think one company has excessive dominance in the market ... The reality is, it's like you know, it's like pro-wrestling competition. And it's actually fake competition." He pointed to Oakley, which merged with Luxottica in 2007 after several years of competition during which Luxottica stopped carrying Oakley's products in their retail stores, as an example of how the Italian company could use its market power to stifle competition.[20]