Moral Dilemma - Skechers Shape-Ups

Options
Qatsi
Qatsi Posts: 2,191 Member
in Chit-Chat
According to an AP article yesterday, "Skechers USA Inc. will pay $40 million to settle charges by the Federal Trade Commission that the footwear company made unfounded claims that its Shape-ups shoes would help people lose weight and strengthen their butt, leg and stomach muscles." People who file a claim under the proposed settlement can receive refunds of up to $80.

Here's the dilemma:

On the one hand, I was influenced to buy a pair of Shape-Ups partly due to their advertising claims. On the other hand, I have actually lost a considerable amount of weight and developed muscle tone while wearing these shoes. On the THIRD hand, there's no way to know what role (if any) these particular shoes played in motivating me to walk more and get in shape. I HAVE found the shoes to be very comfortable for extended walking and would buy them again for that reason.

So - if YOU were in this situation (or if you ARE in this situation), do you file a claim for a refund?
«134

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,108 Member
    Options
    Absolutely not. Ethically, admit you weren't swayed by the advertising, and that you have enjoyed the shoe.

    From my past experience with class-action lawsuits - the ones who make all the money are the attorneys, and you may wait for years and only get $9. Plus you'll have to fill out a lot of (ongoing) paperwork.

    They are shoes you like. You wore them. Why try to fraudulently claim some possible money?
  • RipperSB
    RipperSB Posts: 315 Member
    Options
    If you SINCERELY believe that the shoes did help you "lose weight and strengthen their butt, leg and stomach muscles" then no, no claim. Just my opinion.
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't... this lawsuit is for those that believed that the shoes would magically make you look like Kim Kardashian or Brooke Burk without any other exercise or diet... Right up there with the people that believed a chocolate spread was nutritional and that the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.
  • ket_the_jet
    ket_the_jet Posts: 1,257 Member
    Options
    and that the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.
    How much do you learn about a coconut by eating a coconut-flavored jelly bean?
    -wtk
  • tquig
    tquig Posts: 176 Member
    Options
    the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.

    Oh, stop right there. They do contain berries and nothing you say will convince me otherwise!
  • Qatsi
    Qatsi Posts: 2,191 Member
    Options
    the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.

    Oh, stop right there. They do contain berries and nothing you say will convince me otherwise!

    But Apple Jacks are made from apples, right?
  • tquig
    tquig Posts: 176 Member
    Options
    the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.

    Oh, stop right there. They do contain berries and nothing you say will convince me otherwise!

    But Apple Jacks are made from apples, right?

    Hello...they have Apple right there in the name. The government wouldn't let them be called that if it wasn't true!! wow, some people are just clueless!




    :tongue:
  • runnercheryl
    runnercheryl Posts: 1,314 Member
    Options
    This is on a par with "I didn't realise McDonalds could be a contributing factor to weight gain".

    I don't understand entitlement/pass the blame/they made me do it culture.
  • sosapili
    sosapili Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    Loved your reply.. and soo true!

    People just don't understand.. .. you have to eat healthy and workout.. there’s no magic to it. It's science eat less than you consume.. :)
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    No. I would not file a claim for a refund.
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    Right up there with the people that believed a chocolate spread was nutritional
    Just don't say anything about my Nutella!
  • Qatsi
    Qatsi Posts: 2,191 Member
    Options
    FWIW - I'd already made up my mind not to file a claim before posting this topic. I was just curious how other people would respond in this situation.

    The reality is that I know I lost the weight due to my lifestyle changes, and would have done so regardless of whether I bought their shoes or some other brand.

    When I posed the question, I shouldn't have skewed it by saying I actually LIKED the shoes.

    Skechers was in the wrong by using misleading advertising claims to drive up sales of their shoes, hence the impetus behind the class action suit and the subsequent settlement. The settlement's going to get paid out, regardless. The question then becomes, should the settlement go to people who where convinced to buy the shoes based on the advertising, or should it go to people who were convinced to buy the shoes but didn't get the results promised by the advertising?
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    If you really consider it a 'moral dilemma', is the $80 really worth it?
  • jedibunny
    jedibunny Posts: 321
    Options
    I'm in the same boat. I bought the Tone-Ups boots over the winter and wore them every day. I bought them after seeing them on a shoe website while searching for winter boots and thought "huh, cool, a boot that shapes my butt. Maybe. But I mean, they're cute anyway. /sold." I felt a difference after the first month or so of constant day-wear - but whether that difference was due to my walking more, due to the design of the boots, due to my walking more because of the design of the boots, or just the fact that I had to walk is unclear. The lawsuit cites an independent study which claims to prove that the boots/shoes were no better than regular sneakers in helping to tone. The boots were comfy, so I walked in them... just as I might walk in other comfy non-"toning" shoes. I wasn't convinced 100% that they had any effect on my tone, but also wasn't convinced that they didn't, so after winter ended I then bought the Shape-Ups sneakers (since I liked the feel of the boots). The sneakers feel similar but different somehow in the arch, so I don't consider them quite as comfy - in fact, I can't wear them on long walks. I also quickly learned not to wear to the gym if I intend on using the treadmill. I can walk on them normally without a problem, but don't know that they're "working" the way they advertise. They're comfy for short jaunts, so I walk around the office in them.

    The lawsuit says that Skechers led consumers to believe the shoes worked differently than regular sneakers in toning butt/thigh/etc muscles - thus, manipulating people into buying. I'll admit it was a factor in my purchase and I'd say it's therefore a valid lawsuit. I might have spent the money on another cheaper non-special pair of shoes if I'd known they'd have an identical effect on my lovely butt.

    The point? I'm going for the refund and probably won't wear the sneakers much longer.

    Just my $0.02
  • Qatsi
    Qatsi Posts: 2,191 Member
    Options
    "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story." - Lionel Hutz
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,365 Member
    Options
    I bought 4 pairs of skechers last summer, hoping that they would help my legs tone up like the skechers salesperson ASSURED me they would, as they suopposedly did for her.

    2 pairs of Shapeups and 2 pairs of Toneups.

    I never believed I would turn into Kim Kardashian (ew) but I was led to believe that the "rocker" sole would aid in strengthening my leg muscles, and that is why I am going to claim my refund.
  • GasMasterFlash
    GasMasterFlash Posts: 2,206 Member
    Options
    80 bones? Hell yes.
  • carramel0705
    carramel0705 Posts: 250 Member
    Options
    the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.

    Oh, stop right there. They do contain berries and nothing you say will convince me otherwise!

    But Apple Jacks are made from apples, right?

    nope no apples but i did hear the were made with real "Jack" s ( Sparrow ... perhaps?)
  • breezymom81
    breezymom81 Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    the crunchberries in Cap'n Crunch actually contained berries.

    Oh, stop right there. They do contain berries and nothing you say will convince me otherwise!

    But Apple Jacks are made from apples, right?

    Yes and Fruit Loops count as a serving of fruit right- I mean Tucan Sam wouldn't lie to me would he :noway:
  • trishgrace
    trishgrace Posts: 285
    Options
    Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.

Categories