COLUMBIA, S.C.—Visibly, a technology company that provides online vision tests, filed an appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court after a lower court upheld a South Carolina law banning online vision tests. The lawsuit, in which Visibly is represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), alleges that the ban is fueled not by any concerns for public health or safety, but instead by a desire to protect the profits of the lobbying group (the South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association) that pushed for it.

“South Carolina law treats lenses differently than anything else doctors might prescribe using telemedicine—including eye treatments like drops,” said IJ Attorney Joshua Windham. “Why is that? It’s not because lenses are somehow more dangerous, or because tools like Visibly are somehow unsafe. It’s because a special interest group hell-bent on destroying online competition got a law passed to protect its bottom line. That sort of naked economic protectionism has no place in South Carolina, and we look forward to explaining why on appeal.”

Visibly, the first FDA-cleared online vision test in the country, allows people who already have glasses or contacts to test their vision online. Visibly then sends the results to a licensed eye doctor, who can look at the results and determine whether—in their medical judgment—the person is still seeing well and it’s safe to renew their prescription. Visibly is not meant to replace a comprehensive eye health exam, but rather to empower doctors to renew otherwise-healthy patients’ lens prescriptions in between those exams.

Banning doctors from using Visibly to expand access to care is senseless. For one, South Carolina doctors are generally allowed to use online tools just like Visibly to prescribe treatment for patients remotely. An eye doctor, for example, is allowed to prescribe eye drops using telemedicine. But that same doctor can’t use Visibly to prescribe lenses. What’s more, South Carolina’s ban does nothing to promote in-person eye exams. Nothing in the law requires eye doctors to examine patients for any diseases or conditions before prescribing lenses. All it requires is that the information on which a prescription is based be collected by a human being rather than by an online tool like Visibly.

If that all sounds bizarre, it’s because South Carolina’s ban was not drafted in response to any real-world problem. Visibly operates in dozens of states (and was doing so in South Carolina before the ban), and all the evidence shows that Visibly is safely expanding access to vision care. The reason the law works the way it does is that a small group of optometrists carefully drafted the law to destroy Visibly’s business and shield themselves from online competition. As then-Gov. Nikki Haley explained in her veto message: “I am vetoing this bill because it uses health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry . . . putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation.” Unfortunately, Gov. Haley’s message went unheeded and the Legislature overrode her veto.

“South Carolina’s constitution says the government can’t shut down your business just because it likes your competitors more,” said IJ Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara. “Consumers and entrepreneurs, not the legislature, should be in charge of who wins and loses in the marketplace, and we look forward to vindicating that important principle in this case.”