Skechers ordered to pay $40 million by FTC over toning shoe claims
17/05/2012
The FTC has said in a statement that consumers who bought Shape-ups shoes will be eligible for refunds. It says Skechers made unfounded claims that Shape-ups would help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles.
“Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection. “The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.”
According to the FTC, Skechers also made unfair claims in advertising with regard to a clinic study it cited. Some advertisements referred to a study carried out by a chiropractor, , ht loss and tone muscles. The FTC alleges that Skechers made unsupported claims that Shape-ups would provide more weight loss, and more muscle toning and strengthening than regular fitness shoes.
Shape-ups ads with an endorsement from a California-based chiropractor Dr Steven Gautreau lacked independence, the FTC has decided, because Dr Gautreau had links to Skechers (he is married to a Skechers executive) and the company paid for the clinical study he carried out. It also disputed some of the study’s findings.
Skechers denies the allegations and believes its advertising was appropriate, but has decided to settle the claims “in order to avoid protracted legal proceedings”. Defending a series of legal actions in different parts of the US would have cost it much more money, the company said.
“While we vigorously deny the allegations made in these legal proceedings and looked forward to vindicating these claims in court, Skechers could not ignore the exorbitant cost and endless distraction of several years spent defending multiple lawsuits in multiple courts across the country,” said David Weinberg, the company’s chief financial officer. “This settlement will dispose once and for all of the regulatory and class action proceedings. While we believe we could have prevailed in each of these cases, to do so would have imposed an unreasonable burden on the company regardless of the outcome.”
Share this story:
