Adidas Sued over their adiPURE Trainer Toe-shoes

[Ahcuah]

I have a blog entry up about this lawsuit that was filed last Friday: http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/adidas-sued-over-their-toe-shoes/.

The complaint itself is a fairly decent source regarding the issue of people getting hurt using various minimalist shoes. Adidas' big problem here, from what I see, is that they didn't warn people the way Vibram and others do.

The blog entry contains a copy of the full complaint if you'd like to read it yourself.

 

[Bare Lee]

I have a blog entry up about this lawsuit that was filed last Friday: http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/adidas-sued-over-their-toe-shoes/.

The complaint itself is a fairly decent source regarding the issue of people getting hurt using various minimalist shoes. Adidas' big problem here, from what I see, is that they didn't warn people the way Vibram and others do.

The blog entry contains a copy of the full complaint if you'd like to read it yourself.

Nice post!
Still, seems more logical to sue shoe companies for not warning consumers that over-engineered shoes weaken the foot (à la 'this pill has side effects'), rather than for not warning consumers that their feet have been weakened and therefore they need to transition slowly to more minimalist shoes (kinda like 'consult a physician before taking this pill if you have a preexisting medical condition'). The former omission seems more egregious, and this way, even those who run barefoot barefoot could get in on the ensuing shoe-suing action.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Not all shoe companies are smart enough to hire someone to teach people how to transition safely.

 

[Lomad]

well played, Jason...Well played indeed.

 

[NickW]

Not all shoe companies are smart enough to hire someone to teach people how to transition safely.

Too bad one shoe company makes their shoes pretty snug in the midfoot region and just added an arch to their road version... Oh well, they have a pretty good teacher so I guess they got one thing right.
PS. I am just messing around Jason so please don't take me too seriously.

 

[Ahcuah]

Nice post!

Thanks. Actually, I thought it was weaker and quotier than my usual sterling prose.

But the "value-added" that I think I managed to provide was the actual complaint, so that folks could see it for themselves. (Then they can ignore my burbling . . .)

Still, seems more logical to sue shoe companies for not warning consumers that over-engineered shoes weaken the foot, rather than for not warning consumers that their feet have been weakened and therefore they need to transition slowly to more minimalist shoes.

So true. Of course, it'll never happen, because now shoes are considered the default. It would be a fun class-action lawsuit to watch though, wouldn't it?

 

[NickW]

Of course, it'll never happen, because now shoes are considered the default.

So sad that this is a true statement. What's even sadder is that countries that don't typically have shoes consider it a status symbol to have a pair of sneakers. They basically love shoes as if they are some great thing.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Too bad one shoe company makes their shoes pretty snug in the midfoot region and just added an arch to their road version... Oh well, they have a pretty good teacher so I guess they got one thing right.
PS. I am just messing around Jason so please don't take me too seriously.

The snug midfoot is what keeps the shoe anchored to the foot, which is critical when bombing down hills. Without it, the foot would slip around inside the shoe (like the original TP EVOs), which make them useless as trail shoes.

The beefed-up arch thing... I have no answer for that.

 

[NickW]

I know Jason, just had to give you a hard time. I'm a smarta** like that sometimes. I actually hate how snug they are in the midfoot because it's too snug for me and hurts my feet. I haven't tried the wide versions of the TG because I prefer to be bare on trails and I wasn't fond of the first TG's I had on the roads. I was really hoping they would make a wide version of the Bare Access though. Have yet to see that. Can you put in a good word for us widefooters? Seems NB is the only ones really making wide versions of minshoes, I mean other than the one version Merrell has.

 

[Last Place Jason]

The reason so few companies offer wide shoes (minimal or otherwise) is the size of the market. It's tiny. If a company makes a wide version, they have to sell a certain number to their retailers to make the run profitable. If too few retailers place orders, they cancel the line. New Balance is ahead in this game because they've always sold wide versions of all their shoes, so they have the retailer infrastructure. If another company wants to get in on that market, they have to convince their retailers there's a market, then the retailer has to sell enough to continue buying from the manufacturer.

I suspect the demand for wide shoes will continue to increase because we (barefooters) demand it, but it's not enough demand yet for companies to produce a lot of variety. You'll see companies doing what Merrell is doing- only producing a few models at a time. It's going to be a slow process.

 

[migangelo]

my feet are getting too wide for my TG's. i was in mexico saturday trying on many different huaraches. i couldn't get my feet in unless they were a few sizes too big. the man just laughed at me. next time i go i will have some custom made like these.

 

[migangelo]

ok, these.

 

[BarefootGburg]

I answered their beefed-up arch concept the other day. I just didn't buy them. And I really, really wanted to like them.

The snug midfoot is what keeps the shoe anchored to the foot, which is critical when bombing down hills. Without it, the foot would slip around inside the shoe (like the original TP EVOs), which make them useless as trail shoes.

The beefed-up arch thing... I have no answer for that.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

So true. Of course, it'll never happen, because now shoes are considered the default. It would be a fun class-action lawsuit to watch though, wouldn't it?

I sometimes think I should be the one to take the lead on this. As much as them boat anchors have screwed up my feet, I would have a damn good case!

 

[NickW]

I sometimes think I should be the one to take the lead on this. As much as them boat anchors have screwed up my feet, I would have a damn good case!

Assuming you could get a doc to say in court it was in fact shoes that did this to you...

 

[ElyDave]

The reason so few companies offer wide shoes (minimal or otherwise) is the size of the market. It's tiny. If a company makes a wide version, they have to sell a certain number to their retailers to make the run profitable. If too few retailers place orders, they cancel the line. New Balance is ahead in this game because they've always sold wide versions of all their shoes, so they have the retailer infrastructure. If another company wants to get in on that market, they have to convince their retailers there's a market, then the retailer has to sell enough to continue buying from the manufacturer.

I suspect the demand for wide shoes will continue to increase because we (barefooters) demand it, but it's not enough demand yet for companies to produce a lot of variety. You'll see companies doing what Merrell is doing- only producing a few models at a time. It's going to be a slow process.

Not in the UK they don't, nor does Merrell.

Altras run pretty wide, but not sure if they do multiple widths.

 

[NickW]

I understand your reasoning Jason, but it's this very reasoning that people use to cram their feet in ill fitting shoes in the first place. You the customer ask, does this come in a wide, clerk says no, you go ok, I guess it's not THAT tight, I really like the looks of them so I'll just get them I guess. Hopefully they'll stretch out some. I did this for years and years. I think the market would be bigger than they think, problem is, a lot of people just get to where they ASSUME there isn't a wide size so they don't even bother to ask anymore. I was guilty of this too. I got to where I thought a shoe had to be tight, almost painful. Now with the knowledge I have, I can't go back to that belief. If it hurts I'm not wearing it.

 

[Bare Lee]

I sometimes think I should be the one to take the lead on this. As much as them boat anchors have screwed up my feet, I would have a damn good case!

Thank would be great! I wish you all the best if you decide to take this up. Someone needs to do it, and the time is right.

 

[BarefootGburg]

One has to wonder (and if I were Adidas' attorney, I would research): do people get injured more frequently in AdiPURE toe shoes than they do in standard Adidas shoes?

I have a blog entry up about this lawsuit that was filed last Friday: http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/adidas-sued-over-their-toe-shoes/.

The complaint itself is a fairly decent source regarding the issue of people getting hurt using various minimalist shoes. Adidas' big problem here, from what I see, is that they didn't warn people the way Vibram and others do.

The blog entry contains a copy of the full complaint if you'd like to read it yourself.

 

[Last Place Jason]

I understand your reasoning Jason, but it's this very reasoning that people use to cram their feet in ill fitting shoes in the first place. You the customer ask, does this come in a wide, clerk says no, you go ok, I guess it's not THAT tight, I really like the looks of them so I'll just get them I guess. Hopefully they'll stretch out some. I did this for years and years. I think the market would be bigger than they think, problem is, a lot of people just get to where they ASSUME there isn't a wide size so they don't even bother to ask anymore. I was guilty of this too. I got to where I thought a shoe had to be tight, almost painful. Now with the knowledge I have, I can't go back to that belief. If it hurts I'm not wearing it.

It's not my reasoning, it's the way the industry works. I agree it's not a good system for meeting consumer demand, but most people don't understand why some shoes make it to market while others don't. It's sort of like the U.S. electoral college- we don't vote for the candidate, we vote for the people that vote for the candidate.

The solution- more people need to open shoe stores that cater to wide widths, then all the people with wide feet need to shop there. Manufacturers don't respond directly to consumer demand because consumers don't buy many shoes directly from them. Manufacturers respond to shoe buyer demand at the retail level.