'Damaged' woman sues over flatfooted sneakersBy adamg - 3/22/12 - 7:59 amA Florida woman is suing Concord-based Vibram USA over its Vibram FiveFingers sneakers, claiming they not only fail to provide the health benefits the company claims, they can lead to injuries among people who fail to adjust their gait while using them.In her suit, filed yesterday in US District Court in Boston, Valerie Bezdek does not specify how she became "damaged" while using the sneakers, but says she never would have bought a pair if she'd known the truth. She's asking to be named lead plaintiff in a class-action suit that seeks millions of dollars in damages and lawyer's fees.
Since Reebok paid $25m in a suit for misleading consumers there is blood in the water for shoe claims. Note the Ab Lounge, Shake weight and Thigh Master are delivering on all their claims ;).
An aside: I was helping a friend babysit/host a party of 9 year old girls. They were all from very successful rich parents, dropped off in Aston Martins and Porsches. While they were at play one girl says when I'm older I'll work in a zoo, so I can play with animals all day. The other girl says when I'm older I'll be a lawyer so I can sue your zoo and then I can own it. Oh yeah well I'll sue you first for... blah blah, on and on. They knew the American dream at such a young age. Very 'inspiring', well very telling anyway. Meanwhile we make fun of the woman who sued McDonalds for making the coffee too hot. That case had some interesting facts people don't understand, like why was it 230degrees? Seriously weaponized. SHE didn't want money she wanted her 24" of third degree burn fixed, they offered $400 for her medical expenses. The rest spiraled out of control. But now McDs serves coffee 40 degrees cooler, no longer able to take skin off.
Sorry, that was serious digression... Point is, there is a woman who feels that she was misled by Vibram and their advertising. Her claim is that running incorrectly in these shoes can lead to injury.
“Indeed, running in FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot,” according to a copy of the suit, filed in US District Court in Boston.'Conventional' a word here which means overly supportive, something that encourages heel striking, and removes propriocetive cues needed in running injury free. We get the society we deserve, right? Some more details here.
What are your thoughts? Return an item you're not happy with or sue?