Moral Dilemma - Skechers Shape-Ups
Replies
-
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.
I ACTUALLY had to explain to my SIL that choco spread is NOT healthy. I nearly smacked my forehead when she said "but it has all those nuts!"
my kids are trying to convince me to buy that chocolate hazelnut spread, and I refuse. If it looks like chocolate, it ISN'T healthy. Of course, I DO have some chocolate silk jif hidden in the cabinet ( out of site, have one little cup every few months)....0 -
I think this whole suit is ridiculous! I do like my skechers ;-) However my butt has not gotten any firmer ;-)0
-
The issue is that legally the company cannot make a claim that it cannot prove. They have wronged their customers. Like others have said, it will be a long time before you see the refund, but I think you should apply for it. The fact of the matter is that while they created a good shoe for fitness, it could not deliver what it was promised to without your additional effort. It just amazes me that major companies still actually do this. These companies have legal departments and the marketing professionals that they hire should know the legal ramifications of making false claims. I'm a business student majoring in operations and HR, but I have had classes cover this particular legal issue extensively. So when it comes to these major brand label companies, I just don't understand how stuff like this still happens.
isn't that kind of the point of advertising? to expand on the truth? ok, this might be an outright lie that they will "tone" but i think it's ridiculous that there even needs to be legal defense teams in advertising. if sheep-ple weren't so ignorant and bought-into everything they heard or saw, none of this would be necessary. when i see a commercial that deodorant will keep me dry, and i go to the gym and sweat, i am not going to sue b/c it didn't keep me completely dry. most people don't use common sense. my aunt bought a device that she was supposed to wear under her chin to get rid of the fat under her chin. she wore it every night, and ate pizza and cookies all day. at the end of the month, shocker - it didn't work. i'm baffled by people's ignorance.0 -
The issue is that legally the company cannot make a claim that it cannot prove. They have wronged their customers. Like others have said, it will be a long time before you see the refund, but I think you should apply for it. The fact of the matter is that while they created a good shoe for fitness, it could not deliver what it was promised to without your additional effort. It just amazes me that major companies still actually do this. These companies have legal departments and the marketing professionals that they hire should know the legal ramifications of making false claims. I'm a business student majoring in operations and HR, but I have had classes cover this particular legal issue extensively. So when it comes to these major brand label companies, I just don't understand how stuff like this still happens.
isn't that kind of the point of advertising? to expand on the truth? ok, this might be an outright lie that they will "tone" but i think it's ridiculous that there even needs to be legal defense teams in advertising. if sheep-ple weren't so ignorant and bought-into everything they heard or saw, none of this would be necessary. when i see a commercial that deodorant will keep me dry, and i go to the gym and sweat, i am not going to sue b/c it didn't keep me completely dry. most people don't use common sense. my aunt bought a device that she was supposed to wear under her chin to get rid of the fat under her chin. she wore it every night, and ate pizza and cookies all day. at the end of the month, shocker - it didn't work. i'm baffled by people's ignorance.
The point of advertising isn't to expand on the truth. The point of advertising is to make you desire the product. The company has a responsibility to do that without lying to it's customers. If that law were not in place, then McDonald's could claim that cheeseburgers can cure cancer. The laws exist for a reason. This lawsuit wasn't brought about by an individual. Skechers is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission because what they did blatantly violates consumer laws. They did not say that their shoes offer great support while exercising. They said that wearing their shoes will help you lose weight and will tone your muscle. Admittedly, there is a very fine line between good advertising and false advertising, but the laws exist for a reason.0 -
I threw out my knee, and messed up my back wearing them - it took over a year before I could climb stairs without apprehension and/or pain . I am considering filing even though I wasn't able to wear them long enough to tone up anything! They were expensive, and it is well known now that they made people prone to injury. Even my doctor knew, when he found out I was wearing them he told me to stop because that was why my back and knees started bothering me.
Any settlement that I get won't even cover my purchase price, let alone my doctor bills, but hey, something is better than nothing! They may be fine for young, thin, athletic women, but if you are older, overweight and out of shape they can be an accident waiting to happen.0 -
These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.
And there are thousands of us who found them beneficial, so I'd say the shoes aren't inherently to blame - there are other factors. Normal shoes used to cause me intense pain - can I sue all the companies who made the other shoes I used to wear?
0 -
These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.
And there are thousands of us who found them beneficial, so I'd say the shoes aren't inherently to blame - there are other factors. Normal shoes used to cause me intense pain - can I sue all the companies who made the other shoes I used to wear?
but nobody is really suing them...this is all being done by the FTC, if you have a problem with it you should really take it up with them...0 -
I don't file claims for refunds on almost anything.. But then again, that's just how I am.
In this case especially, no.0 -
These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.
And there are thousands of us who found them beneficial, so I'd say the shoes aren't inherently to blame - there are other factors. Normal shoes used to cause me intense pain - can I sue all the companies who made the other shoes I used to wear?
but nobody is really suing them...this is all being done by the FTC, if you have a problem with it you should really take it up with them...
But people have to actually make the claim to get the money, and I simply think it's ridiculous that there are so many that will.
That's all. Just personal opinion. I'm just shocked that this kind of claim is allowed to happen, that it seems it's fairly unregulated and that there are genuinely people who believed they were going to see notable results from a shoe, beyond the very minor change in stance and the fact that they can psychologically encourage more walking.0 -
These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.
And there are thousands of us who found them beneficial, so I'd say the shoes aren't inherently to blame - there are other factors. Normal shoes used to cause me intense pain - can I sue all the companies who made the other shoes I used to wear?
but nobody is really suing them...this is all being done by the FTC, if you have a problem with it you should really take it up with them...
But people have to actually make the claim to get the money, and I simply think it's ridiculous that there are so many that will.
That's all. Just personal opinion. I'm just shocked that this kind of claim is allowed to happen, that it seems it's fairly unregulated and that there are genuinely people who believed they were going to see notable results from a shoe, beyond the very minor change in stance and the fact that they can psychologically encourage more walking.
Yes but if Skechers didn't think that sort of manipulation would sell shoes, they wouldn't have done it - right? They chose to advertise the shoes in that way (geared towards fad-dieters, people wanting a quick fix, etc.) to drive up sales. They are culpable regardless of societies naivete (ignorance) for that fact alone.
If a bakery starts mass producing a line of sugar-laden cakes, but they say "Oh don't worry about the sugar - these are MAGIC cakes and they will help raise insulin levels to normalize your blood sugar" only to find out that *shockingly enough* the bakery company majorly stretched the truth just to sell the cakes, would they be any less responsible because ignorant people bought them like crazy?
Yes I know it's a crappy (and potentially offensive) analogy, but it's 3am and its the first thing I could think of...substitute whatever example you'd like.0 -
Ugh. I hate lawsuits like these. Agree with everyone above who said they were silly. If you got benefits from the shoes, then great, they obviously DID work for you, whether it be shoe, or whether it be the shoe influenced you to exercise more. If they somehow hurt you...well, my high heels hurt my feet, should I sue Nine West? No, when they hurt my feet, I take them off! Pretty simple really.
Things like this make me question humanity.0 -
Yes but if Skechers didn't think that sort of manipulation would sell shoes, they wouldn't have done it - right? They chose to advertise the shoes in that way (geared towards fad-dieters, people wanting a quick fix, etc.) to drive up sales. They are culpable regardless of societies naivete (ignorance) for that fact alone.
If a bakery starts mass producing a line of sugar-laden cakes, but they say "Oh don't worry about the sugar - these are MAGIC cakes and they will help raise insulin levels to normalize your blood sugar" only to find out that *shockingly enough* the bakery company majorly stretched the truth just to sell the cakes, would they be any less responsible because ignorant people bought them like crazy?
Yes I know it's a crappy (and potentially offensive) analogy, but it's 3am and its the first thing I could think of...substitute whatever example you'd like.
Right, taking your cake example. You'd have to make it more equivalent. There would have to be a visual marker that would make it obvious to anyone who did a little bit of research/had common sense, showing that these cakes couldn't be magic. You know, on a par with 'this clearly isn't a state of the art exercise machine, it's a shoe with a slightly raised sole'. Even then, we're pushing it as these shoes didn't make people LESS toned.
These cakes would also have had to help towards obesity in some people (the same people who expected miracles), and have cured others from a different life-long debilitating illness (which wouldn't have been claimed originally in their marketing, but would have happened).
If you're going into fad diet territory, surely you could argue the same about ANY fad diet? And yet, they're allowed to exist, and businesses make millions from naivety every year. Weight Watchers sell sugary treats and sodium-laden ready meals in calorie-controlled portions, there are fad diets that make you cut down on nutrients your body needs, and yet all of these exist because there are people out there so desperate to take the easy route that they don't look into the effects.0 -
I doubt that the judge would have granted judgement against Reebok's toning shoes if they weren't the leading factor in the injuries.And there are thousands of us who found them beneficial, so I'd say the shoes aren't inherently to blame - there are other factors.0 -
The issue is that legally the company cannot make a claim that it cannot prove. They have wronged their customers. Like others have said, it will be a long time before you see the refund, but I think you should apply for it. The fact of the matter is that while they created a good shoe for fitness, it could not deliver what it was promised to without your additional effort. It just amazes me that major companies still actually do this. These companies have legal departments and the marketing professionals that they hire should know the legal ramifications of making false claims. I'm a business student majoring in operations and HR, but I have had classes cover this particular legal issue extensively. So when it comes to these major brand label companies, I just don't understand how stuff like this still happens.
Speaking as a former law student, this is dead on. OP and anyone who bought the shoes due to advertising (and face it, who doesn't buy products due to advertising?) are entitled to recompense based upon misleading claims. Basically, if you can't prove it, your ad can't say it.
I also have to say that whether or not anyone was "duped" is not really the issue - but this level of "duping" isn't quite the same as someone saying their cakes are magical (@ above poster).
No, I can't "reasonably" say that I believed putting these shoes on would magically tighten my butt. I CAN say that Skechers used wording that made it seem as though the shoes had capabilities that others didn't, and failed to prove their claim. End of legal battle. 0 -
I recently passed by a place that said "the best cannoli in the world" so I figured I'd get one. It was pretty good, but I've had better. Did I ask for my money back? No, because I still ate it and enjoyed it, but I didn't see any blue ribbons from the world wide cannoli tasting association so I didn't put much faith into it.
Bottom line, companies false advertise all the time, or at least mislead consumers in a certain way. It's your fault if you fall for it these days, there is plenty of ways to research things before you buy them. So basically if you bought these and really expected them to be some sort of miracle shoe you pretty much deserve to lose your money, and maybe get a kick in the *kitten*. And if you buy a pair of shoes and wear them for a few months and then decide you want your money back, then you are just cheap.0 -
Why on earth not? Skechers is a huge company and they can clearly afford it.
Also, you live in America so you are entitled to whatever you want from whoever has it now.
Besides, by NOT joining the lawsuit, you will be cheating some class-action lawyer somewhere his share of the loot, which will likely be about ten times yours.
On a more serious note: Class action suits like this make me sick. They should be illegal.0 -
Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.
This.
Personally, I loved the Shape-Ups until I started having horrific pain in my knees. Then I wore regular shoes for a couple of days and voila, all my knee pain disappeared.
I still wear Tone-up sandals religiously though. Those things were molded for my feet!! This lawsuit is not going to do anything but make me have to pay more for them. Screw that.0 -
I am kind of the same. I have decided not to file a claim. I knew that the claims were probably sensationalized as much as any/every other weightloss gimmick. I chose to fork out the cash, and I actually really love the shoes. They're so comfortable, even if I do look like I'm wearing "special" shoes. I don't care about what people think. :P
Personally, I think that frivolous lawsuits are ruining America... this one is almost as bad as the Nutella suit, IMO.0 -
I have worn the Reebok Runtones for a while now, and love them. I didn't lose weight or tone anything while wearing them, but they are super comfortable. I did put in a refund claim when the suit came out...and with any money I get, I'll buy a new pair! :laugh:0
-
Being the best cannoli in the world is subjective. Skecher's claims were not subjective. They made false health claims -- just like many shyster supplement manufacturers have.I recently passed by a place that said "the best cannoli in the world" so I figured I'd get one. It was pretty good, but I've had better. Did I ask for my money back? No, because I still ate it and enjoyed it, but I didn't see any blue ribbons from the world wide cannoli tasting association so I didn't put much faith into it.
Bottom line, companies false advertise all the time, or at least mislead consumers in a certain way. It's your fault if you fall for it these days, there is plenty of ways to research things before you buy them. So basically if you bought these and really expected them to be some sort of miracle shoe you pretty much deserve to lose your money, and maybe get a kick in the *kitten*. And if you buy a pair of shoes and wear them for a few months and then decide you want your money back, then you are just cheap.
The company claimed: “Four clinical studies in the U.S. and Japan show that Shape-ups increase muscle activity and energy consumption over standard fitness shoes!” Unfortunately, further investigation revealed that these studies were not peer reviewed and didn't display the rigorous science required to make health claims by the Federal Trade Commission.0 -
It wasn't a class action suit. This is a case of the FTC bringing the hammer down on a company making false health claims.On a more serious note: Class action suits like this make me sick. They should be illegal.0 -
I bought mine "hoping" it would do something but knowing that yeah, it was probably a sham. However I do love these shoes to death. They are possibly the most comfy pair I own. And I do think that maybe they helped with my ankle strength but again, who knows.
Will I go for the refund? Nah. LOL though it's tempting just so I can get another pair.
(Kidding, stop throwing stuff at me.) 0 -
Ive always been too scared to wear any of those shoes, because Im convinced in ten ears there is going to be some kind of class action suit from millions of women with messed up spine problems because of walking on an unnatural surface everywhere :frown:
I realise how crazy I sound0 -
It kind of sounds like you're in a no harm-no foul situation and if the decision of whether or not to send in your claim is a great dilemma, it's probably not worth it. Take it for what it is - shoe shape or advertising or whatever the issue may be - you were somehow motivated to work out, you did, and now you've seen a positive impact. That's worth at least the price you paid for the shoes, right? I've received paperwork for a few class action suits over the years, and while I may have qualified to file, if the situation didn't necessarily have some sort of harmful impact on my life, I let it go. Just be glad that you're on a healthy path now, whether Sketchers put you there or not.0
-
It wasn't a class action suit. This is a case of the FTC bringing the hammer down on a company making false health claims.On a more serious note: Class action suits like this make me sick. They should be illegal.
Did I jump to a conclusion? CRAP.
(They still make me sick...)
I will now go back and try to learn what I'm talking about.0 -
It wasn't a class action suit. This is a case of the FTC bringing the hammer down on a company making false health claims.On a more serious note: Class action suits like this make me sick. They should be illegal.
FALSE.
Quote: "Consumers who bought these "toning" shoes will be eligible for refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit, and can submit a claim here."
It is a suit - it just happens to be being filed by the FTC.
Which, I have to admit, does give it a fair bit of credibility.0 -
I love my Maryy Jane shape ups! I wear every day to work! Love love love :flowerforyou:0
-
I took a walking class to meet my physical ed requirement at my college. I bought a pair of Nikes and a pair of Shape Ups. I quickly learned that the Shape ups were FAR more comfortable.
And I did lose weight. Because I walked more and was more comfortable.
I actually wore those ones out, and now I own a pair of the less dramatic Shape Ups. I love them, too.0 -
*smh* Where is the common sense? The claim that the Sketchers shoes are going to tone your butt is a claim that is too good to be true... so why in the heck would anyone believe that? Personally, I feel as if it's rewarding the gullible.0
-
Not false. This was not a class action suit.
It wasn't a class action suit. This is a case of the FTC bringing the hammer down on a company making false health claims.On a more serious note: Class action suits like this make me sick. They should be illegal.
FALSE.
Quote: "Consumers who bought these "toning" shoes will be eligible for refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit, and can submit a claim here."
It is a suit - it just happens to be being filed by the FTC.
Which, I have to admit, does give it a fair bit of credibility.
The settlement came from an FTC investigation, which included multiple states' attorneys general. Consumers can join class action suits that will undoubtedly crop up as a result of this settlement with the FTC.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions