Revision Military: Foreign Textiles in Eyewear Sold as American-Sourced
In the Revision Military settlement, the protective-eyewear manufacturer agreed to pay $426,000 to resolve allegations that it sold eyewear falsely represented as wholly sourced in the United States. The components at issue were carrying pouches, cases and straps, the details a sourcing, operations or sales employee may recognize behind a finished product’s description.
The Justice Department announced the resolution on December 16, 2024. The government alleged that Revision knowingly sold systems that failed the domestic-textile requirement, violating the False Claims Act.
The Berry Amendment Reached the Pouch, Case and Strap
The Berry Amendment sourcing requirement in this case covered textile components in protective-eyewear systems bought through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Special Operational Equipment Tailored Logistics Support Program. The program required those textiles to come from the United States. The government identified non-domestic carrying pouches, cases or straps in certain systems sold from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020.
Revision’s principal place of business was in Vermont, and the company manufactured protective eyewear. But a manufacturer’s American address does not tell the buyer where the textiles in its products came from. A pouch has its own source, even when it accompanies an American manufacturer’s eyewear.
That distinction matters across defense-contract origin claims. Where the eyewear was assembled says nothing about where the pouch was sewn. In a separate complaint against Crane Company, the whistleblower alleged that a supplier labeled a component as Canadian-origin despite obtaining it in China.
We see an American-sourcing promise that reached further than the eyewear itself. The government was paying for systems whose textiles had to meet the domestic requirement.
The Military Purchases and the Employees Who Knew
According to the Justice Department, Revision acknowledged the impermissible sales and that employees overseeing product sourcing, operations or sales knew the components were noncompliant. That acknowledgment puts the people who knew the supply chain at the center of the account.
For an insider, the useful connection is between a component’s source and the particular system sold under that representation. A purchasing employee may know which supplier provided the case. An operations employee may know which eyewear orders included it. A sales employee may know how the system’s origin was described to the customer. We examine those accounts together because they connect what the business bought, what it delivered and what it said the government was getting.
What the Government Credited in the Settlement
The Justice Department said the settlement amount reflected Revision’s acceptance of responsibility, cooperation with the investigation and compliance measures implemented by its new owners after 2019. For an employee who worked through a change in ownership, the sourcing decisions before and after that change may be especially revealing. The Vermont U.S. Attorney’s Office handled the matter, with investigative support from the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
How to Prove Country of Origin?
For a textile-component claim, we connect the applicable sourcing requirement with the supplier and manufacturing information for the component, then with the system sold to the government. The relevant evidence of defense contractor fraud also includes what the seller represented and what people inside the business knew. Revision’s acknowledgment shows why sourcing, operations and sales knowledge can matter together.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. Your knowledge of the textile source or the customer’s sourcing requirement can be the starting point for that case.
You Know Where the Textile Came From
If you know that textiles in military gear came from a different source than the customer was told, speak with our whistleblower experts about the purchases behind it. We bring in defense contractor whistleblower lawyers who understand sourcing requirements and stay alongside you to build your strongest defense contractor whistleblower case.
