Legal Dispute Between Industry Leader Starvision and Second-Largest Wink Company
Proxy Battle Intensifies Over Contact Lens Pickup Service
The legal dispute over the "contact lens visit reservation (pickup) service" is intensifying, taking on the appearance of a proxy battle between major law firms, as Starvision, which operates O-Lens, the country's leading contact lens franchise, and Wink Company, the industry's second-largest player, face off.
Proxy Battle Between Major Law Firms
The Korea Opticians Association is represented by the law firm Bae, Kim & Lee. Through Bae, Kim & Lee, the association has sent certified letters to opticians partnered with Wink, warning that the pickup service violates the Medical Technicians Act and threatening suspension of optician licenses. O-Lens, which is aligned with the association, has retained the law firm Shin & Kim and has filed multiple complaints against Wink and its partner opticians since 2022 for alleged violations of the Medical Technicians Act.
Wink is backed by the law firms Yulchon and Jium. Wink, which claims that its pickup service is legal because it does not constitute online sales, was previously represented in criminal complaints by Kim & Chang. However, Kim & Chang recently withdrew due to a conflict of interest: in January 2025, the UK-based private equity firm CVC Capital, a client of Kim & Chang, acquired 49% of Starvision, the operator of O-Lens, becoming its second-largest shareholder. Yulchon has now filled the vacancy left by Kim & Chang. In addition, Jium and Lee Junyeop, the representative attorney of Songheon, have also been retained and are defending Wink alongside Yulchon.
Does Wink's Service Violate the Medical Technicians Act?
Wink is a platform hosting more than 30 color lens brands. Customers select the desired lens products, quantities, and an offline optician through the Wink app, after which Wink sends the products to the selected partner optician to support the customer's purchase. Wink maintains that its pickup service is legal. The company argues that, as a platform, all purchases are completed at offline opticians, and thus it does not constitute online sales, which are prohibited under current law. A Wink representative stated, "Opticians, who have struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, are able to benefit from free publicity through the Wink platform and generate revenue through color lens sales."
In contrast, O-Lens argues that Wink's pickup service may violate the Medical Technicians Act. Article 12, Paragraph 5 of the Act stipulates that "glasses and contact lenses may not be sold via electronic commerce or telemarketing methods." Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the same Act further states, "It is prohibited to solicit or refer customers to specific optician businesses (opticians) for profit." The Korea Opticians Association also maintains that Wink's pickup service effectively constitutes online sales and is therefore illegal.
Key Issues: For-Profit Motive and Specificity
For a violation of Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Medical Technicians Act to be recognized, the act of solicitation or referral must be for "profit" and must target a "specific" optician business. In October 2022, the Supreme Court, in a case involving similar issues under the Medical Service Act and the Attorney-at-Law Act (2021Do10046), ruled that the "for-profit motive" under Article 27, Paragraph 3 of the Medical Service Act means "obtaining financial benefits in return for introducing, referring, or soliciting patients to specific medical institutions or practitioners."
Wink argues, "We only supply products to optician businesses and receive only the normal payment for goods from them. We do not receive any compensation for attracting customers, so there is no 'for-profit motive.'" Additionally, since customers can freely choose from hundreds of partner opticians through the Wink app, the company maintains that it cannot be seen as soliciting or referring customers to any "specific" optician business. In a June 1999 Supreme Court ruling on a similar issue under the Medical Service Act (99Do803), the court stated, "Article 25, Paragraph 3 of the Medical Service Act stipulates that 'no one may, for profit, introduce, refer, or otherwise solicit patients to medical institutions or practitioners, or instigate such acts.' In this context, 'introduction' means facilitating a relationship between a patient and a specific medical institution or practitioner so that a treatment contract is established."
Is O-Lens Trying to Check Wink's Rapid Growth?
Industry sources cite Wink's rapid growth as a reason for O-Lens pushing the company into litigation. In 2024, O-Lens recorded sales of approximately 150 billion won in domestic color lens sales, maintaining its position as the industry leader and dominant market player (with a 50% market share). By the same measure, Wink's 2024 sales reached 42 billion won, with a 14% market share. However, due to ongoing license suspension threats from the Opticians Association and repeated complaints from O-Lens, the number of Wink's partner opticians has dropped from around 1,500 to approximately 500 as of May. About 1,000 partner opticians have terminated their partnerships.
O-Lens had been operating a pickup service similar to Wink's but suddenly suspended it in April. Coincidentally, this was also when the association sent disciplinary notices to partner opticians. The Law Times requested a statement from Starvision for this article, but as of 6 p.m. on the 23rd, Starvision had not responded.
Hong Yoonji, Law Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
