Vibram settlement is everything wrong with the American legal system

[surfsatwerk]

Isn't the lawsuit about the false/unsubstantiated claims, not the injuries themselves?

My understanding was people hurt themselves and decided to sue. From the article listed in the OP all it mentions is Vibram settled without admitting guilt.

 

[PenguinPower]

My understanding was people hurt themselves and decided to sue. From the article listed in the OP all it mentions is Vibram settled without admitting guilt.

The first sentence of the article listed in the OP:

Vibram USA, the company that makes FiveFingers running shoes, has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged the company made false and unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its glove-like footwear.

 

[Capt Caveman]

VFFs helped me to strengthen my toes, feet and ankles which improved my balance and the change in running form eliminated my achilles issues. Now, instead of running in shoes that provide stability or wearing orthotics, I can run in any neutral shoe but prefer lightweight minimal.

 

[Clinkster]

The first sentence of the article listed in the OP:

The third sentence of the article listed in the OP.

“Vibram expressly denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing alleged in the Actions, and neither admits nor concedes any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability,” read the court brief.

 

[surfsatwerk]

The first sentence of the article listed in the OP:

But what got them off their butt to sue in the first place? Lawyers probably told them they had no case for being stupid so they worked this angle.

 

[desura]

a manufacturer makes totally bogus claims, and it's the buyer's fault? getting fucked out of a moderate amount of money is not getting fucked?

you people are pathetic.

It isn't totally bogus at all.

More suspect are the various gimmicks from Nike. Remember those retarded Air Nikes with the big plastic air bubble that weighed a ton?

 

[desura]

Except that is an undisputed fact that if you use a hammer correctly, 100% of the time you will not be injured.

It is not an undisputed fact that if you run correctly in minimalist shoes that you will see health benefits (beyond those provided by running)/not incur injury as a result of the shoe.

You could also argue that "traditional" running shoes are negligent in not giving proper warning about shin splints or possibility of injury while running.

The sports shoe industry is largely pseudoscience.

 

[PenguinPower]

The third sentence of the article listed in the OP.

Um...ok. How does that change what I said? Are we just going to start posting random sentences from the article?

 

[PenguinPower]

You could also argue that "traditional" running shoes are negligent in not giving proper warning about shin splints or possibility of injury while running.

The sports shoe industry is largely pseudoscience.

You could, but that wasn't my point. Failure to give proper warning and making health claims not based in fact are not the same thing.

 

[waggy]

Not the same thing. You can't put a pair of minimalist shoes on and start running without any "breaking in" period to get used to them. These people got hurt by acting like morons.

but that's not what the suit is about. its about false advertisement. they claimed it was healthy when there is no proof it is.

so yeah my comparison to the hammer is right.

 

[surfsatwerk]

but that's not what the suit is about. its about false advertisement. they claimed it was healthy when there is no proof it is.

so yeah my comparison to the hammer is right.

But Vibram was not found guilty of false advertisement, they settled.

 

[waggy]

But Vibram was not found guilty of false advertisement, they settled.

yeah. and they weren't found not guilty. they settled.

they also agreed to stop claiming its healthy.

none of that changes any arguments.

 

[smackababy]

But Vibram was not found guilty of false advertisement, they settled.

You're right. There weren't found guilty, but the did agree to pay a lot of money and stop making those claims. If MJ settling out of court means he is a child molester, Vibram is also a child molester. Wait... that's how it works right?

 

[surfsatwerk]

yeah. and they weren't found not guilty. they settled.

they also agreed to stop claiming its healthy.

none of that changes any arguments.

I would say your argument is moot.

 

[destrekor]

a manufacturer makes totally bogus claims, and it's the buyer's fault? getting fucked out of a moderate amount of money is not getting fucked?

you people are pathetic.

Except... they didn't make illegal/bogus claims. So, what were you saying?

The third sentence of the article listed in the OP.

Precisely. They're settling to avoid drawing this out in court.

They'd probably win, with the right jury/judge. The evidence is out there to support their claims.

And yes, they do indeed provide enough recommendations to point out how to ease into it. The retards who do it wrong don't have the brain matter to understand.



For the record, I don't run in Vibrams. Hell, I've never even ran in any minimal shoe. I haven't wanted to "start over" - but I've been considering it for a long time.

When I'm barefoot anywhere, I already consciously (or unconsciously? not sure anymore) walk with forefoot strike, or at least midfoot.


http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/vibram-lawsuit-explained

Here's an excerpt about Reebok making claims.

In September 2011, the Federal Trade Commission ordered Reebok to pay $25 million in a settlement over their EasyTone and RunTone shoes. According to the FTC, Reebok “made unsupported claims in advertisements that walking in its EasyTone shoes and running in its RunTone running shoes strengthen and tone key leg and buttock muscles more than regular shoes.”

That one is just as sticky, imho.
I don't know the science behind those, and that's why it's also a tricky one. If they were as "imbalanced" as they claim, then absolutely, the science of that could help tone and strengthen certain muscles. They probably reached too far, as I doubt any form of gait will seriously impact your glutes, for example.

But Vibram's major claims have only been to strengthen lower leg and foot muscles (unspecific, iirc), and reduce injury potential based around that new development/strengthening. I don't have their exact wording and fineprint, and don't care to dig that up... but honestly, you have to look at some slightly shady science with improper test procedures to find anything to the contrary.

Be mindful, however, of this important bit: the science behind forefoot-strike gaits ARE understood and described accurately. The major qualifier is that that particular gait does have the proper biomechanics for running on soft or hard-packed natural surfaces. Cement/concrete and, to some extent, asphalt need not apply.

Asphalt-paved running surfaces do, at least, have SOME absorption capability, but for the most part, it's the second worst surface to run on; the worst surface to run on is standard cement/concrete.

Some studies try to compare forefoot-strike with barefoot or minimal shoes, with that of midfoot- and heel-strike in normal, high-padding and roll-controlling shoes, all on roadway/paved surfaces.

Now, you may argue that's how one should perform the study, but that's actually bad science considering it does not start with our natural adapted biomechanics, which, out of nature, assumes a surface with some shock absorption.
To not address that aspect when comparing two entirely different approaches to running, and worse, not correctly informing the public on HOW to correctly and *MOST SAFELY* utilize barefoot-style running concepts, is at best bad reporting/bad science; at worst, it is ill-intent.

This bad science and bad reporting should not leave Vibram with charges of bogus and illegal claims. They have done what any company trying to sell barefoot products should do: bring attention to the very facts that they have provided. That the public at large may not fully understand the intent, or chooses to approach barefoot running with more risk then they ought to (by running on cement, concrete, or asphalt), is not Vibram's fault whatsoever.

But due to the lack of scientific understanding, exceptionally devious and crafty law-degree holders, and a host of other factors, this situation dragged out for Vibram. They wanted it done with, I reckon.

 

[roguerower]

I've owned a pair of VFFs since Fall of 2008. I've used them for running, rowing, working out, hiking, trail running, skydiving, kayaking, etc. I've walked across razor sharp oyster beds with them without getting hurt. Hell, I even walked across the stage at college graduation in them. I love mine...all four pairs. The only time I ever hurt myself was when I did too much too quickly, something that was my own fault.

This is bullshit because of the aesthetics. Everyone recognizes them as "the toe shoes" and hates the way they look. Now, Vibrams may have fucked up, however many shoe companies have made claims without being able to substantially back them up. VFFs are a target because of the way they look.

I for one will not be asking for a penny back from Vibrams. In fact, I plan on getting another pair or two.

 

[MarkXIX]

VFFs helped me to strengthen my toes, feet and ankles which improved my balance and the change in running form eliminated my achilles issues. Now, instead of running in shoes that provide stability or wearing orthotics, I can run in any neutral shoe but prefer lightweight minimal.

I don't wear VFFs, but I have switched to minimalist shoes and have seen similar improvements to my foot strength, reduction in knee and lower back pain, etc., all from doing what Vibram suggested wearing their shoes would also do.

So, not sure how they "lied" outright. More likely a case of ill trained/prepared buyers being dumb.

 

[Bateluer]

They were making false claims, just like Sketchers Shape ups before them. They got what they deserved. Maybe now we'll see less of the cultish barefoot runners.

 

[MarkXIX]

They were making false claims, just like Sketchers Shape ups before them. They got what they deserved. Maybe now we'll see less of the cultish barefoot runners.

I think you'll find plenty of intelligent users of their product that can readily demonstrate that their claims were accurate when their product was properly used as intended.

Of course the fat ass IT guy isn't going to benefit from strapping on a pair and walking to the server room a few times a day.

Their literature was clear in my opinion, I could improve my foot strength if I used them as suggested. What's next, fat people can't get a six pack from doing situps on an exercise ball?

 

[Rakehellion]

I've owned a pair of VFFs since Fall of 2008. I've used them for running, rowing, working out, hiking, trail running, skydiving, kayaking, etc. I've walked across razor sharp oyster beds with them without getting hurt. Hell, I even walked across the stage at college graduation in them.

D:

 

[PenguinPower]

I think you'll find plenty of intelligent users of their product that can readily demonstrate that their claims were accurate when their product was properly used as intended.

Of course the fat ass IT guy isn't going to benefit from strapping on a pair and walking to the server room a few times a day.

Their literature was clear in my opinion, I could improve my foot strength if I used them as suggested. What's next, fat people can't get a six pack from doing situps on an exercise ball?

The problem is there is conflicting literature as to their effectiveness to perform as claimed - as well as some showing the opposite. There is also literature showing that FFS is not as effective as claimed and may cause increased injury. They chose the literature that supported them and ignored that that didn't...though to be fair, most pubmed searches into the research shows disputing literature to have been published in 2012 and later.

 

[DrPizza]

Stupid Vibram. They missed a clause: "by purchasing and wearing these shoes, you agree to settle any and all disputes with Vibram in binding arbitration."

 

[Rakehellion]

They made unsubstantiated medical claims and got busted for it. Sounds about right.

 

[Bateluer]

I think you'll find plenty of intelligent users of their product that can readily demonstrate that their claims were accurate when their product was properly used as intended.

There's a few, definitely. The ones that research, train, and eat properly. Who, incidentally, also perform well in a range of shoes. The average minimalist runner is an individual who read a few excerpts from the extremely biased and poorly researched book 'Born to Run'. And I say this as an avid ultrarunner.

 

[Jeff7]

Making false medical claims in advertisements is illegal in the US.

That's why the magnetic bracelets and placebo herbs usually include fine print in their ads that says there is no medical basis for their magic.

Selling radium water, laudanum or snake oil and claiming it will be curin' what ails ya is no longer allowed. Even on a monorail.

They needed to include more fine print and weasel words like "might" and "studies suggest..."

I love Crest's approach. Their mouthwash says:

Helps you get better dental check-ups*

That is the only asterisk anywhere on the package, front or back.

I think the asterisk is now just shorthand for "This statement is bullshit, but we put it here because it sounds good."

Or they're using the "we have a website" cop-out that some companies are adopting, where they'll list the Terms & Conditions there, and you "agree" to them if you do something like Liking the product on Facebook.

"Purchasing <company's> products automatically binds you to the Terms & Conditions, and indicates that you have agreed to forfeit your right to seek restitution for damages in a court of law. And we can do this because fuck you, our surprisingly loyal customer."