Luxottica Group, S.p.A. (LUX)

Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation

In January 2007, a complaint was filed against Oakley and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act related to the inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts. Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a class of Oakley’s customers. Oakley denied any liability, and later entered into a settlement arrangement with Plaintiff that resulted in a complete release in favor of the Oakley defendants, with no cash payment to the class members but rather an agreement by Oakley to issue vouchers for the purchase of products at Oakley retail stores during a limited period of time. The settlement also provided for the payment of attorneys’ fees and claim administration costs by the Oakley defendants. An order approving this settlement was entered on November 24, 2008.

Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, were not material.

Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, were not material.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation

In January 2007, a complaint was filed against Oakley, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g) (“FACTA”), related to the inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint adding two of Oakley’s wholly-owned subsidiaries as additional defendants. Plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of Oakley’s customers, but no motion seeking class action status has yet been filed. The Oakley defendants have denied any liability.

Recently, the Oakley defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Plaintiff which, if approved by the Court, would result in the settlement of this action, with a complete release in favor of the Oakley defendants, with no cash payment to the purported class members, but rather an agreement by Oakley to issue vouchers for the purchase of products at Oakley retail stores during a limited period of time. The aggregate retail value of the vouchers would depend on how many purported class members submit valid claims. The settlement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding also provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees and claim administration costs by the Oakley defendants. A motion seeking court approval of the foregoing settlement will be filed shortly.

Costs associated with this litigation incurred for the year ended December 31, 2007 were immaterial. Management believes, based in part on the advice from counsel, that no estimate of the range of possible losses, if any, can be made at this time.

The Company is a defendant in various other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. It is the opinion of the management of the Company that it has meritorious defenses against all such outstanding claims, which the Company will vigorously pursue, and that the outcome of such claims, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

F-50

Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation

In January 2007, a complaint was filed against Oakley, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g) (“FACTA”), related to the inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint adding two of Oakley’s wholly-owned subsidiaries as additional defendants. Plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of Oakley’s customers, but no motion seeking class action status has yet been filed. The Oakley defendants have denied any liability.

Recently, the Oakley defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Plaintiff which, if approved by the Court, would result in the settlement of this action, with a complete release in favor of the Oakley defendants, with no cash payment to the purported class members, but rather an agreement by Oakley to issue vouchers for the purchase of products at Oakley retail stores during a limited period of time. The aggregate retail value of the vouchers would depend on how many purported class members submit valid claims. The settlement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding also provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees and claim administration costs by the Oakley defendants. A motion seeking court approval of the foregoing settlement will be filed shortly.  Costs associated with this litigation incurred for the year ended December 31, 2007 were immaterial. Management believes, based in part on the advice from counsel, that no estimate of the range of possible losses, if any, can be made at this time.

The Company is a defendant in various other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. It is the opinion of the management of the Company that it has meritorious defenses against all such outstanding claims, which the Company will vigorously pursue, and that the outcome of such claims, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.