Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
6 min read
0 comments
With revenue of R$26,9 billion in 2024, the boom in opticians is driven by free eye exams that, in practice, constitute tied selling and mask serious diseases.
The exponential growth of the optical market in Brazil reveals an alarming paradox: while thousands of new stores are springing up on every corner, facilitating access to eyewear, an aggressive and often illegal business model is putting the visual health of millions of Brazilians at risk. optics boom, which achieved a turnover of BRL 26,9 billion in 2024, according to data from the Brazilian Optical Industry Association (Abióptica), is supported by a combination of factors such as ageing population and increase in visual problems linked to excessive screen useHowever, the central strategy for capturing clients exploits a serious flaw in the public health system.
The practice of offering “free eye exams” conditional on the purchase of glasses, a way of tied selling, prohibited by the Consumer Protection Code, has become the gateway to a market that profits from urgency and misinformation. Faced with long waiting lines at SUS, which can last months, It's from cost of private consultations, many consumers opt for the immediate solution offered by retailers. What seems like an advantage, however, is a trap that prevents the diagnosis of silent and devastating diseases, such as glaucoma and cataracts, turning convenience into a serious public health problem.
Why are opticians everywhere?
The numbers confirm the omnipresence: Brazil ended 2024 with more than 71 thousand points of sale , an 8% growth in just one year. This massive expansion reflects a growing and multifaceted demand. Analysis of the data, however, reveals an even more complex scenario. While Abióptica maps traditional optical retail, data from Sebrae, based on the National Registry of Economic Activities (CNAE), point to a universe of more than 193 thousand establishments who sell optical products, whether as a primary or secondary activity. This extreme fragmentation makes oversight difficult and opens the door to irregularities.
-
The new minimum wage of R$ 1.631 in 2026 promises real gains, but shows how far workers still are from the ideal value calculated by Dieese.
-
Paraná announces emergency construction of 320 houses in Rio Bonito do Iguaçu after tornado destroys 90% of the city.
-
Elon Musk fires 500 xAI employees and hands over command of artificial intelligence team to 20-year-old student after radical restructuring.
-
Experts say China exports unemployment by using dumping to protect local jobs, while Brazil maintains 53 anti-dumping measures in effect.
The driver behind this demand is a “perfect storm.” On the one hand, the ageing population increases the prevalence of conditions such as cataracts and presbyopia. On the other hand, excessive use of screens by young people and adults generates what experts call a “myopia epidemic,” creating an increasingly younger consumer base. Added to this is the cultural transformation of glasses into a fashion accessory, a strategy that encourages the purchase of multiple pairs and increases the average ticket price. This combination of medical need and consumer desire makes the market extremely resilient and profitable.
The “free exam” that can cost you dearly
The “free eye exam” strategy is the industry’s main conversion tool. Consumers are attracted by the promise of a free evaluation, but in practice, the prescription is often conditional upon purchasing the glasses at the same store. This practice is not only a tied selling, explicitly prohibited by Article 39 of the Consumer Protection Code, but also creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest: the salesperson's goal is to sell, while the healthcare professional's is to diagnose. When the two roles are intertwined, the accuracy of the diagnosis is compromised, potentially leading to the prescription of incorrect or unnecessary degrees.
This business model thrives by exploiting the vacuum left by the healthcare system. A citizen in need of a ophthalmologic consultation through the SUS, faces a wait that, in large centers like São Paulo, reaches 97 days, but which can easily exceed six months in other regions. In the private sector, a consultation can cost R$120 to more than R$800. For the low-income worker who depends on vision and cannot wait, optics offers an immediate and seemingly cost-free solution. The sector, therefore, profits directly from the State's inefficiency in guaranteeing access to visual health, normalizing an illegal practice that disguises itself as a social benefit.
The Legal Battle: Ophthalmologist vs. Optometrist
At the heart of this discussion is the dispute between two professions. Ophthalmologist is an doctor with at least nine years of training (undergraduate and residency), qualified to diagnose and treat all 3.892 eye diseases, perform surgeries and prescribe medications and glasses. optometrist is a higher education professional, graduated in Optometry, trained to perform refraction exams (measure the degree) and adapt contact lenses, and must refer any suspected disease to a doctor. He is not a doctor and therefore cannot diagnose pathologies.
The legal battle between the categories culminated in a landmark decision by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in ADPF 131In 2021, the Court ruled that restrictions imposed by decrees dating back to the 1930s do not apply to optometrists with higher education, allowing them to perform refractive exams. However, the decision did not resolve the central issue: the work of these professionals within commercial establishments. This perpetuates the conflict of interests and the war of narratives, with medical boards denouncing the illegal practice of medicine and optometry boards advocating for their role in primary eye care.
The Missed Diagnosis: What the Optical Test Doesn't See
The biggest danger of the “optics exam” model is the false sense of security that it provides. A refraction test focuses exclusively on determining the degree of myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism. It is not, and is not intended to be, a complete medical consultation. Essential procedures, such as measuring intraocular pressure (to detect glaucoma) and the fundus examination (to evaluate the retina and optic nerve) are ignored. Glaucoma, known as the “silent thief of vision,” has no initial symptoms. and, when visual loss is noticed, the damage is already irreversible.
The vulnerable patient, often with less purchasing power and less information, enters the store with blurry vision, takes a quick test, buys glasses, and believes the problem has been resolved. Meanwhile, the temporary improvement in vision can mask the progression of serious diseases. optics boom, by diverting millions of people from the path of complete medical diagnosis, may be inadvertently contributing to a future increase in preventable blindness rates in Brazil. The immediate profits of retail generate a social and public health cost of alarming proportions for the future.
The growth of the Brazilian optical market is an undeniable reality, but it relies on the weaknesses of healthcare access in the country. The convenience of "on-the-spot exams" fills a gap left by the government, but does so at the expense of the population's eye health. To align commercial success with social responsibility, a stricter monitoring of tied selling, consumer awareness campaigns, and regulations that separate health consultations from product sales. After all, eye health can't be treated as a mere shelf-stable item.
Have you ever come across a "free eye exam" offer? Do you believe the convenience outweighs the risk of not getting a complete medical diagnosis? Share your experience in the comments; we'd love to hear how consumers view this situation.
-
One person reacted to this.