Reebok to pay $25 million over "toning" shoes

with this precedent set, sketchers better watch their back.

good god, can you imagine how vibram feels right now? hordes of runners hornswaggled by the barefoot craze, lawyering up and going after vibram because they've never achieved olympic gold wearing their mo key toe socks???

Sketchers were claiming about the same thing. Their adverts didn't state if you were sedentary and started or an experienced walker and gained this strength. I just laugh at the shoe industry...it's all marketing to get you to believe in the shoes and the next great thing.

Just read this on msnbc and came across this in their article, "Those who purchased Reebok EasyTone apparel are also eligible."

Huh? Did I miss something here? How is this possible? Did they say the clothing was going to tone you and up and help strengthen you up?

Marketing has made a lot of deceptive, slick, wickety wick people rich in their own worlds of operation, from the uesd car salesmen, to the politician. If you have no conscience, and have good lawyers to set your business up correctly to protect you, marketing is the way to make your money. To present it as an academic filed in a university is a travesty to other scholars.

Reebok will still come out ahead, even with the $25 mil penalty. And this wasn't a bunch of plaintiff's lawyers filing suit. It was the Federal Trade Commission acting under their regulatory authority. While the people on this message board know that the "toning" claim was bs, the average dodo who goes to Footlocker wouldn't. The law is clear that you cannot use deceptive advertising. Deceptive advertising is still deceptive if it fools stupid people. In fact, the vast majority of deceptive advertising is aimed at taking advantage of people with inferior knowledge about the claim made about the product.

Hey, I wear Sketchers Stepups and I now have an ass just like Brook Burke and run a 4:30 mile and I'm a dude.

I have been waiting for this day. I have seen so many people come into my store with foot problems because of these horrible shoes. Now I am waiting for this to happen with the five fingers.

A good example as to why we don't need the Federal Trade Commission. bunch of fat americans thinking they will get fit by wearing a certain type shoe.

One sh1tty example. Yeah, let's deregulate the entire consumer good market, too. It all worked out so well in financial services and the airline industry. Let's try it again.

so you think the airlines and the financial services are "unregulated"??? If so you're dopey. I don't know how to say it any nicer.

I think you mean that you think you heard someone say a zillion times on the news that the government deregulated the airlines or financial industry, therefore you believe it to be true. 'i mean how could they get away with such crap?' But Congress has done a wonderful job of selling us that lie. All the while there are 7 Million pages of regulations.

So let's get the federal government involved in more of our lives, that way we can be even more free! Yeah. I bet the FTC could force Nike, Asics, and the rest of them to make shoes that will make us all run faster.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Just read this on msnbc and came across this in their article, "Those who purchased Reebok EasyTone apparel are also eligible."

Huh? Did I miss something here? How is this possible? Did they say the clothing was going to tone you and up and help strengthen you up?

I read that with Stewie Griffin's sneering voice in my head.

Precious Roy wrote:

Reebok will still come out ahead, even with the $25 mil penalty. And this wasn't a bunch of plaintiff's lawyers filing suit. It was the Federal Trade Commission acting under their regulatory authority. While the people on this message board know that the "toning" claim was bs, the average dodo who goes to Footlocker wouldn't. The law is clear that you cannot use deceptive advertising. Deceptive advertising is still deceptive if it fools stupid people. In fact, the vast majority of deceptive advertising is aimed at taking advantage of people with inferior knowledge about the claim made about the product.

Roy, so how come no one is calling out Skechers for their Skecher Shape-Ups? Any scientific proof that they work?

Clell Adams wrote:

so you think the airlines and the financial services are "unregulated"??? If so you're dopey. I don't know how to say it any nicer.

I think you mean that you think you heard someone say a zillion times on the news that the government deregulated the airlines or financial industry, therefore you believe it to be true. 'i mean how could they get away with such crap?' But Congress has done a wonderful job of selling us that lie. All the while there are 7 Million pages of regulations.

So let's get the federal government involved in more of our lives, that way we can be even more free! Yeah. I bet the FTC could force Nike, Asics, and the rest of them to make shoes that will make us all run faster.

Besides, deregulation did work great for the airlines. Used to be only rich people could afford to fly.

Back on topic, toning is a myth anyway, so only idiots were buying these shoes. A fool and his (in this case, more likely her) money are soon parted.

The FTC is pursuing Skechers also. Reebok was just the first company to reach a settlement.

Hopkinton wrote:

The FTC is pursuing Skechers also. Reebok was just the first company to reach a settlement.

Thanks. Thought I had heard a radio news report on that.

I mean, can a walking shoe really firm up your buttocks?

Can a thickly padded shoe with "pronation control" really prevent injuries?!?!?! There is no scientific evidence that supports toning shoes, or the thickly padded shoes that are marketed to do practically the same thing.

Heard Keith Kelly's gone from Reebok...too bad.. a great salesman and person..wonder if it's related to the suit?