Adidas Indicted In Product-Liability Lawsuit over AdiPure Shoes

The product liability lawsuit asserts that customers were ill-informed and were not cautioned about the probable dangers of using the shoes. 

Adidas AG was litigated in a product liability lawsuit which claims that the sports company’s newly launched sneakers, which were aimed at stimulating barefoot running, did not deliver the fitness benefits which they promised.

A New Yorker, Joseph Rocco, sued one Adidas AG unit because he claimed that he was hoodwinked about the prospective fitness benefits of these shoes. The product liability lawsuit was filed on Friday in Brooklyn’s federal court. He said that the pair of joggers, valued at $90, did not decrease the risk of injury or increase training efficiency, both of which were among the benefits that were highlighted in the advertisements aggressively.

The US branch of Adidas AG, that is based in Germany, Adidas America Inc., that manufactures AdiPure shoes, was charged for misleading consumers and over promising the benefits.

According to Joseph, the shoes, on the contrary, augmented the threat of injury due to the decreased padding when compared with other conventional shoes. Further, he added, that he even suffered from compound fractures due to the badly-made shoes.

The product liability lawsuit asserts that customers were ill-informed and were not cautioned about the probable dangers of using the shoes. Rocco is seeking to act as a spokesperson for the group of customers who all fell prey to this faulty product and have bought the adiPure shoes ever since their release in August of 2011. The plaintiff wants Adidas AG to grant a reimbursement for the shoes along with statutory damages.

The sports clothing manufacturer did not express any official statement on the litigation.

The company launched these sneakers to take advantage of the mushrooming fitness trend of “running barefoot” which was inspired by “Born To Run”, the best-selling book.  This meant the production of shoes which had negligible padding and toes that had been articulated.

Even the American Podiatric Medical Association issued a warning and acknowledged that no conclusive evidence has been found by the organization pertaining to the short-term and long-term effects of barefoot running.

Dr. Howard Liebeskind, a sports podiatrist, said that the jury has not reached a consensus on minimalist shoes but he himself believes that consumers need to exercise some responsibility when it comes to deciding the shoes they wear.

Apparently, this is the first lawsuit filed against Adidas for advertising wrongly about AdiPure shoes.

Recently in March, even Vibram, the manufacturer of FiveFingers, which are barefoot-style jogging shoes, was indicted in a class action lawsuit. They were blamed for promoting the unverified fitness benefits of the shoes. However, unlike Adidas, the company did add a hangtag and brochure in the shoebox which were meant to warn consumers about the probability of a long transition to these kinds of shoes.

The case filed against Adidas in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is Rocco et al. v. Adidas America Inc., no. 12-3015.

If you feel that you or someone you love has been hurt by a defective product, contact the St. Louis product liability lawyers at Zevan and Davidson Law Firm today. Schedule a free consultation by calling (314) 588-7200.

photo credit: warrenski