Moral Dilemma - Skechers Shape-Ups

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.

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

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.

No. I would not file a claim for a refund.

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

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.

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?)

Personally I don't agree with these silly little lawsuits.

I bought some a couple years ago and the first few weeks my calf muscles where sore and when I did change back to regular shoes I was sore for a while on them. I do think they cause different muscles to be used bu...t did I notice any difference in my legs...No!

i own these shoes, too, and although i do not attribute my weight loss or toning to the shoes, i still like them and wear them. when i heard about the claim, i did get a bit excited at the thought of refund, however, since i still wear them, it seems wrong to me. just my opinion.

edited to add that i think the lawsuit is frivilous. along with the N*tella. if people make decions based solely on adversising, they deserve what they get. LOL

it's not like they forced you to wear them against your will, or even to purchase them. if there were no other options available, and they said you MUST buy these shoes (or this chocolate spread for breakfast) and assured you it was healthy or otherwise something it's not, that would be different.

I freely admit to buying a pair of them because I thought they were comfy -- I didn't believe for one minute that they would actually help "tone up" anything. If you actually believed that a pair of shoes would magically transform your legs and bottom, then I have a bridge you might wanna buy.

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!"

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.