Lawsuit filed against Skechers

Craig Payne · Jul 22, 2014

The troubles for Skechers are far from over. This is from their latest quarterly SEC filing:

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Our claims and advertising for our toning products including for our Shape-ups are subject to the requirements of, and routinely come under review by regulators including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), states’ Attorneys General and government and quasi-government regulators in foreign countries. We are currently responding to requests for information regarding our claims and advertising from regulatory and quasi-regulatory agencies in several countries and are fully cooperating with those requests. While we believe that our claims and advertising with respect to our core toning products are supported by scientific tests, expert opinions and other relevant data, and while we have been successful in defending our claims and advertising in several different countries, we have discontinued using certain test results and we periodically review and update our claims and advertising. The regulatory inquiries may conclude in a variety of outcomes, including the closing of the inquiry with no further regulatory action, settlement of any issues through changes in its claims and advertising, settlement of any issues through payment to the regulatory entity, or litigation.

As we disclosed in previous periodic SEC filings, the FTC and Attorneys General for 44 states and the District of Columbia (“SAGs”) had been reviewing the claims and advertising for Shape-ups and our other toning shoe products. We also disclosed that we had been named as a defendant in multiple consumer class actions challenging our claims and advertising for our toning shoe products, including Shape-ups. On May 16, 2012, we announced that we had settled all domestic legal proceedings relating to advertising claims made in connection with the marketing of our toning shoe products. Under the terms of the global settlement—without admitting any fault or liability, with no findings being made that our company had violated any law, and with no fines or penalties being imposed—we have made payments in the aggregate amount of $50 million to settle and finally resolve the domestic advertising class action lawsuits and related claims brought by the FTC and the SAGs. The FTC Stipulated Final Judgment was approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12, 2012. Consent judgments in the 45 SAG actions have been approved and entered by courts in those jurisdictions. On May 13, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals from that final approval order has expired.

On November 8, 2012, we were served with a Grand Jury Subpoena (“Subpoena”) for documents and information relating to our past advertising claims for our toning footwear, including Shape-ups and Resistance Runners. The Subpoena was issued by a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio. The Subpoena seeks documents and information related to outside studies conducted on our toning footwear. This Subpoena appears to grow out of the FTC’s inquiry into our claims and advertising for Shape-ups and our other toning shoe products, which we settled with the FTC, SAGs and consumer class as part of a global settlement, as set forth above. We are fully cooperating and are in the process of producing documents and other information requested in the Subpoena. The Assistant United States Attorney has informed us that neither our company nor our employees are targets at the present time. Although we do not believe this matter will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, it is too early to predict the timing and outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.
The toning footwear category, including our Shape-ups products, has also been the subject of some media attention arising from a number of consumer complaints and lawsuits alleging injury while wearing Shape-ups. We believe our products are safe and are defending ourselves from these media stories and injury lawsuits. It is too early to predict the outcome of any case or inquiry, whether there will be future personal injury cases filed, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses.

Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. — On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against our company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that our advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the “ Tomlinson action”). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. , CV 11-05042 JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed the remand pending completion of appellate review. On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case.

On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the “ Grabowski/Morga class actions”), and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson .

Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group—On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a lawsuit against our company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions (described above), and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright .

Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.—On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Québec, District of Montréal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the alternative, all residents of Québec) who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. Petitioner’s motion alleges that we have marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products’ ability to provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court’s authorization to institute a class action seeking damages (including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Petitioner’s motion was formally presented to the Court on June 29, 2012. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as well as the Niras and Dedato actions described below) through authorization by the Québec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Angell action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Angell action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement.

Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A, Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.—On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products’ ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same claims as in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear sold to residents of Canada. Skechers has not yet responded to the Amended Statement of Claim. The settlement in the Angell , Niras , and Dedato class actions (described above and below), if finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Davies/Smith . If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement.

George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.—On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products’ ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell action described above and the Dedato action described below) through authorization by the Québec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement will provide for the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the Niras action upon approval of the settlement by the Québec Superior Court. If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Niras action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Niras action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement.

Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.—On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its footwear products’ ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement of Claim. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions described above) through authorization by the Québec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement will provide for the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the Dedato action upon approval of the settlement by the Québec Superior Court. If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Dedato action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement.

Roneshia Sayles v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.—On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit against our company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC473067. The complaint involves a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid time for certain breaks and when retail employees’ bags are checked upon leaving the store at the ends of their shifts. The complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages; general and special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys’ fees and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation. In January 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action Claims (the “Settlement”). The Settlement still has to be approved by the Court. In the event that the Settlement is not approved by the Court, it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously.

Personal Injury Lawsuits Involving Shape-ups—As previously reported, on February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by our company, and that we failed to provide adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In total, we are named as a defendant in 760 currently pending cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) that assert further varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR, that currently encompasses 704 personal injury cases that were initiated as individual lawsuits in the MDL or in various federal courts and 22 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group are also named defendants in 51 pending personal injury actions filed in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles (“LASC”) that have been brought on behalf of 632 individual plaintiffs. Additionally, there currently are 5 personal injury actions pending in various state courts.
Since 2011, a total of 777 personal injury cases have been filed in or transferred to the MDL proceeding. Additionally, 414 unfiled claims have been submitted by plaintiff fact sheets for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding. The Company has resolved 335 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings, 51 that were filed as formal actions and 284 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also settled 93 claims in principle—16 filed cases and 77 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets—and anticipates that those settlements will finalized in the near term. Six cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 31 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned.
In the coordinated LASC proceedings, a total of 54 personal injury actions have been filed on behalf of 673 individual plaintiffs. Two actions, brought on behalf of a total of 4 plaintiffs, have been dismissed. Settlements with all 17 plaintiffs in another action have either been finalized or reached in principle, and Skechers anticipates that action will be dismissed in the near term. The claims of 20 additional plaintiffs have been dismissed in whole, and the claims of 16 persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers.

In other state courts, a total 16 personal injury actions have been filed that were not removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL or coordinated in the LASC proceedings. Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed, and Skechers has reached a settlement in principle in an eleventh matter that it anticipates will be dismissed in the near term.

The personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC proceedings are in many instances solicited and handled by the same plaintiff’s law firms. It is too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether there will be future personal injury cases filed, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses. Notwithstanding, we believe we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations and intend to defend each of these cases vigorously.

Gloria Basaraba v. Robert Greenberg, et al.—On July 15, 2013, plaintiff Gloria Basaraba moved to file under seal a shareholder derivative complaint against Skechers, nine individual members of its Board of Directors and a former employee in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV13-5061. The complaint included allegations of breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment based on the development of Skechers’ toning footwear products, advertising and marketing activities relating thereto, and subsequent litigation involving those issues. The complaint sought compensatory damages, a court order directing Skechers to reform and improve their corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. On August 26, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal and ordered that she file an operative complaint. On September 5, 2013, plaintiff filed the operative complaint against the same defendants, except for the former employee. The operative complaint seeks to recover under the same causes of action as in the prior complaint on the basis of many of the same allegations. On November 12, 2013 and November 15, 2013, the individual defendants and Skechers respectively moved to dismiss the complaint. Under the parties’ stipulated briefing schedule, the motion was originally set for hearing on April 21, 2014 and has been continued to June 30, 2014. Discovery has not yet commenced. While it is too early to predict the outcome of litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, Skechers believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.
In addition to the matters included in its reserve for loss contingencies, we occasionally become involved in litigation arising from the normal course of business, and we are unable to determine the extent of any liability that may arise from any such unanticipated future litigation. We have no reason to believe that there is a reasonable possibility or a probability that we may incur a material loss, or a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to any other such loss contingencies. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and assessments and decisions on defense and settlement can change significantly in a short period of time. Therefore, although we consider the likelihood of such an outcome to be remote with respect to those matters for which we have not reserved an amount for loss contingencies, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against our company in the same reporting period for amounts in excess of our expectations, our condensed consolidated financial statements of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Sep 23, 2014

Press Release:
Skechers Announces Preliminary Settlement of Toning Lawsuit

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. announced the preliminary court approval of the settlement of a pending shareholder lawsuit over alleged false advertising of its toning shoes. As part of the settlement, the plaintiff will request payment of up to $350,000 for attorney fees and expenses and plaintiff’s incentive award.

The case is Basaraba v. Greenberg, et al., Case No. CV-13-05061-PSG (SHx) (C.D. Cal.). The settlement is subject to final court approval.

According to Skechers 10K, the lawsuit was originally filed in July 2013 and includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment based on the development of the company’s toning footwear products, advertising and marketing activities relating thereto, and subsequent litigation involving those issues. The complaint sought compensatory damages, a court order directing the company to reform and improve their corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

The summary notice reads as follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA BASARABA, Derivatively on
Case No. 13-CV-05061-PSG (SHx)
Behalf of Nominal Defendant Skechers
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
U.S.A., INC.,
SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE
Plaintiff,
ACTION
v.
ROBERT GREENBERG, MICHAEL
GREENBERG, JEFFREY GREENBERG,
DAVID WEINBERG, RICHARD SISKIND,
Courtroom: 880
GEYER KOSINSKI, MORTON ERLICH,
Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
RICHARD A.RAPPAPORT, and THOMAS
WALSH,
Complaint Filed: September 5, 2013
Defendants,
Trial Date: N/A
-and-
Skechers U.S.A., INC.,
Nominal Defendant.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION

TO: ANY OWNER OF Skechers U.S.A., INC.’S (“Skechers”) COMMON STOCK

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, a hearing will be held on November 10, 2014, at 1:30p.m., before the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 880, Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012, for the purpose of determining whether the Proposed Settlement in the above captioned derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether a judgment dismissing the Derivative Action should be entered. Plaintiff is a Skechers shareholder who filed certain claims against the nine members of Skechers’ Board of Directors and a former Skechers employee on behalf and in the right of Skechers. In connection with the Settlement, Skechers has agreed to adopt certain corporate governance procedures, and Defendants are being released from liability to Skechers. While continuing to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, Individual Defendants have agreed to the Settlement to eliminate the expense, risks, and uncertain outcome of the litigation. As part of the Settlement, Plaintiff will request payment of up to $350,000 for Plaintiff’s Counsels’ fees and expenses and Plaintiff’s incentive award. Plaintiff’s requests are subject to the Court’s approval and will be paid by Defendants directly or through their insurer the amount approved by the Court.

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT OWNER OF Skechers COMMON STOCK YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE DERIVATIVE ACTION.

A more detailed form of notice describing the Settlement is available on the websites of Hynes Keller & Hernandez, LLC, www.hkh-lawfirm.com, and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, www.faruqilaw.com.

You can object to the Settlement if you dislike any part of it, or if you disagree with Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses or Plaintiff’s request for an incentive award. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must file with the Court and send to the parties’ counsel a signed letter or other written submission saying that you object to the Settlement in Basaraba v. Greenberg, et al., Case NO. CV-13-05061-PSG (SHx). Be sure to include: (i) your name, address, email address, and telephone number; (ii) how many Skechers shares you owned as of January 1, 2008, whether you still own those shares, and the initial purchase date of your shares; (iii) a detailed description of your specific objections to any matter before the Court, and all the grounds for your objections to the Settlement, including any documents you wish the Court to consider; and (iv) your most recent brokerage account statement evidencing current ownership of your Skechers shares and account statements evidencing continuing ownership from January 1, 2008, through the date of the Settlement Hearing. If you want to appear at the Settlement Hearing, you must also state your intention to appear and provide the names of all witnesses, if any, you wish to present at the hearing, along with a statement of the matters on which such witnesses will testify and a summary of their proposed testimony. The objection and any supporting papers must be filed with the Court, by hand, mail, or overnight delivery, and received by Plaintiff’s Counsel and Individual Defendants’ and Skechers’ Counsel, by hand, mail, overnight delivery, fax, or email, at the addresses provided below no later than October 27, 2014.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Oct 7, 2014

In South Korea, all the toning shoe manufacturers have been fined for the claims and its still not over:
YMCA considering lawsuit on Reebok's 'toning shoes'

"The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) previously issued correction orders and levied fines, but the FTC measure doesn't include compensation for consumers," said Sung Soo-hyun, an administrator at the Seoul YMCA, explaining why his organization is gathering consumer complaints to seek refunds from the shoe companies.
Click to expand...

The FTC issued correction orders and levied more than 1 billion won fines on nine shoe brands for exaggerated advertisement claims.

They are Reebok, Fitflop, New Balance, Skechers, Asics, Fila, Lecaf, Ellesse and Prospecs.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jan 29, 2015

They have agreed to settle the class action filed in Canada for $40 million:
APPROVAL NOTICE - Skechers Toning Shoes Settlement Program in Canada

Settlement website: http://www.skecherssettlement.ca/hc/en-ca

Kevin Kirby · Jan 29, 2015

I wonder if Skechers thinks their unusual advertising campaign for their toning shoes is worth it now?:butcher:

Craig Payne · Jan 29, 2015

Kevin Kirby said: ↑

I wonder if Skechers thinks their unusual advertising campaign for their toning shoes is worth it now?:butcher:
Click to expand...

I have just had some dialogue with the Skechers division that markets the shape-ups .... they coming baaaaaaaaaaaack!

Ninja11 · Jan 29, 2015

I cringe at a world where people disconnect their logical thinking brains, and think only with their @rs#s! When did we stop being accountable for our own actions, and have the right to blame everyone else for our own choices. People should learn to acknowledge advertising hype for such products for what it is.... propaganda! Start using your brains again folks and stop blaming everyone else for rolling you ankles.

efuller · Feb 1, 2015

Ninja11 said: ↑

I cringe at a world where people disconnect their logical thinking brains, and think only with their @rs#s! When did we stop being accountable for our own actions, and have the right to blame everyone else for our own choices. People should learn to acknowledge advertising hype for such products for what it is.... propaganda! Start using your brains again folks and stop blaming everyone else for rolling you ankles.
Click to expand...

Let's turn this around. Do think it is ok to make claims for a product that you are selling that have no basis in fact. Yes, people should be accountable for their actions.

From dictionary.com on definition of fraud

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage........

Examples from the web for fraud

Surely if he's marketing his rubbish with false claims of medical efficacy he's committing fraud.
Click to expand...

Eric

Kevin Kirby · Feb 1, 2015

Ninja11 said: ↑

I cringe at a world where people disconnect their logical thinking brains, and think only with their @rs#s! When did we stop being accountable for our own actions, and have the right to blame everyone else for our own choices. People should learn to acknowledge advertising hype for such products for what it is.... propaganda! Start using your brains again folks and stop blaming everyone else for rolling you ankles.
Click to expand...

I agree with Eric. Would you, Ninja11, feel the same way if your loved one, possibly your husband or daughter, died from taking a dietary supplement that was advertised as being totally safe or was advertised as being guaranteed to cause long life? Would you then be saying that your husband or daughter should have been accountable for their own actions and they have no right to blame anyone but themselves for taking this dietary supplement that was advertised as being safe and as promoting better health? Would you also be thinking that your husband or daughter should have used their brains and shouldn't blame the company making the dietary supplement just because they died from taking it? How is advertising fraud justified in any product that makes health claims?

Am interested in your reply, Ninja11.

Craig Payne · Feb 1, 2015

I think there is a difference between:
1. A product that makes health claims for their product that a relied upon by the consumer to make a decision (which is what the FTC $150mil settlement with Skechers and the Vibram class action was about); if health claims are made, there had better be evidence for those health claims

and

2. For eg, someone who trips over using a Skechers Shape-Up when it is obvious that the shoe is unstable (which is what a lot of the litigation against Skechers is being based on) - this is when the issue of 'personal responsibility' probably should come in .... ie sh*t happens

efuller · Feb 1, 2015

Craig Payne said: ↑

I think there is a difference between:
1. A product that makes health claims for their product that a relied upon by the consumer to make a decision (which is what the FTC $150mil settlement with Skechers and the Vibram class action was about); if health claims are made, there had better be evidence for those health claims

and

2. For eg, someone who trips over using a Skechers Shape-Up when it is obvious that the shoe is unstable (which is what a lot of the litigation against Skechers is being based on) - this is when the issue of 'personal responsibility' probably should come in .... ie sh*t happens
Click to expand...

Agreed. You buy an unstable shoe, you should expect instability. Then there is the issue of how the buyer finds out it is an unstable shoe...
Eric

Kevin Kirby · Feb 1, 2015

But are these "unstable shoes", such as Skechers sold, any more unstable than 4 inch stiletto-heeled shoes? Maybe all these shoes need prominent warning labels all over them such as we see here in the USA on our ladders and our cigarette packages? If these "unstable shoe labels" ever happen, it will occur first here in the USA...guaranteed!!

Ninja11 · Feb 1, 2015

efuller said: ↑

Agreed. You buy an unstable shoe, you should expect instability. Then there is the issue of how the buyer finds out it is an unstable shoe...
Eric
Click to expand...

Probably put more eloquently than what I wrote, but yes, this is what I meant.
My understanding is that we have governing consumer bodies, that are there to protect the general public from companies that advertise and make fraudulent claims about their products. This is different to purchasing an "unstable product" and being surprised that they roll their ankles in it. That said, I am still often surprised by patients in terms of not questioning how their shoes inpact them ie" I have sore balls of my feet."..."yes I wear high heels everyday to work". :wacko:
I believe in informed decision making.

NewsBot · Jun 3, 2015

It is still not over for them:

Press Release:
Federal Judge Hearing Skechers Lawsuits Has Denies The Shape-Ups Manufacturer’s Request For Injunction

Skechers Lawsuits Can Now Be Filed In State Courts On Behalf Of Men And Women Who Allege That They Suffered Fractured Ankles And Bones, Torn Tendons And Other Serious Injuries From Wearing The Toning Shoes.
Skechers-Lawsuit-Claim-Lawyer-AttorneyWright & Schulte LLC, who is representing hundreds of men and women across the country in Skechers lawsuits reports that U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell cleared the way for more than 800 plaintiffs to file their Skecher’s Shape-Up toning shoes lawsuits in state courts. Judge Russell denied Skecher’s request for an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from filing Skechers lawsuits in state courts until the federal litigation over the Shape-Ups toning shoes is resolved. Skechers contends in its court documents that stopping state court filings is necessary because the company has to litigate a large number of cases in both state and federal courts. Court documents also indicate that Skechers wanted to transfer some of the state court cases to the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, where multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been established for federally filed Skechers complaints. Judge Russell, who is supervising the MDL, said in his May 22 order that the plaintiffs agreed to wait to file their lawsuits while parties in the MDL attempted to work out a settlement agreement. Judge Russell said that since an agreement has not been reached nor is one imminent, the plaintiffs can file their new toning shoes claims in the state court of their choosing. (In Re: Skechers Toning Shoes Products Liability Litigation – MDL 2308)
“We agree with Judge Russell’s decision to deny Skechers’ request for an injunction,” said Richard Schulte LLC, founding partner of Wright & Schulte LLC, which is representing hundreds of plaintiffs in Skechers toning shoes complaints. “We have aggressively fought for our clients to be able to pursue their Skechers complaints in state courts. Now, because of Judge Russell’s decision, they can move forward with their complaints.”
Richard W. Schulte serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the federal Skechers litigation and is also representing plaintiffs in state court Shape-ups lawsuits. Wright & Schulte LLC continues to offer free Skechers case evaluations to anyone who believes they have suffered serious injuries, including ankle, hip and wrist fractures, tendon and ligament damage, as well as head and spinal cord injuries while wearing Skechers Shape-ups toning shoes.
Court records show that Judge Russell issued an order in March 2014 to stay all pending and future Skechers Shape-Ups lawsuits for seven months and tolled the statute of limitations over the cases during the period of the stay. According to court documents, when a settlement agreement had not been reached by October and Skechers rejected plaintiffs’ request to extend the tolling agreement, the plaintiffs began filing their lawsuits in state courts. In their response to Skechers’ injunction request, the plaintiffs said that Skechers could have avoided litigating in various states by extending the tolling agreement while it continued to work on settling the federal cases. (In Re: Skechers Toning Shoes Products Liability Litigation – MDL 2308)
Wright & Schulte LLC notes that the firm filed 420 Skechers Shape-Ups complaints earlier this year in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri. The complaints allege that Skechers defectively designed toning shoes caused injuries to the plaintiffs. In one case, a St. Louis, Missouri woman alleges that she suffered a fractured left elbow, a concussion and severe damage to her teeth after her Skechers Shape-ups toning shoes pronated inward and caused her to fall down. (Case No. 1522-CC00016, 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri) In another case, an Arkansas woman suffered damage to cartilage in her left knee after falling off the porch as a result of her Shape-ups toning shoes pronated inward. (Case No. 1522-CC00016, 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri)
Court documents indicate that the Skechers lawsuits in MDL 2308 in the Western Kentucky federal court allege that Skechers misrepresented the health benefits of its Shape-ups by promoting in its advertisements that the toning shoes helps wearers to lose weight, improve muscle tone, increase overall circulation. According to the Skechers claims, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in May 2012 that Skechers agreed to pay $40 million to settle charges that “the company deceived consumers by making unfounded claims” about the health benefits associated with its shoes. (In Re: Skechers Toning Shoes Products Liability Litigation – MDL 2308)
Click to expand...

Lawsuit filed against Skechers

Craig Payne Moderator

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Kevin Kirby MVP

Craig Payne Moderator

Ninja11 Active Member

efuller MVP

Kevin Kirby MVP

Craig Payne Moderator

efuller MVP

Kevin Kirby MVP

Ninja11 Active Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Kinesio Sports Tape Subject of Consumer Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

Another lawsuit for Vibram...

Top Ten Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2014

Vibram FiveFingers Settle Class Action Lawsuit

Podiatrist facing 9 malpractice lawsuits

Lawsuit?? Malpractice?

Reebok faces lawsuit over toning shoe from unsatisfied customer

Share This Page

Lawsuit filed against Skechers

Craig Payne Moderator

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Kevin Kirby MVP

Craig Payne Moderator

Ninja11 Active Member

efuller MVP

Kevin Kirby MVP

Craig Payne Moderator

efuller MVP

Kevin Kirby MVP

Ninja11 Active Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Kinesio Sports Tape Subject of Consumer Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

Another lawsuit for Vibram...

Top Ten Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2014

Vibram FiveFingers Settle Class Action Lawsuit

Podiatrist facing 9 malpractice lawsuits

Lawsuit?? Malpractice?

Reebok faces lawsuit over toning shoe from unsatisfied customer

Share This Page

Useful Searches