Moral Dilemma - Skechers Shape-Ups

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.

I think this whole suit is ridiculous! I do like my skechers ;-) However my butt has not gotten any firmer ;-)

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.

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

These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.

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?

I don't file claims for refunds on almost anything.. But then again, that's just how I am.

In this case especially, no.

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

These "toning" shoes have been known to cause tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains. One would be within their rights to want compensation.

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.