Vibram, 'Barefoot Running Shoe' Company, Settles Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit

Swire · May 15, 2014

True or False?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/10/_n_5302213.html

The lawsuit said the false claims are

(1) Strengthen muscles in the feet and lower legs
(2) Improve range of motion in the ankles, feet, and toes
(3) Stimulate neural function important to balance and agility
(4) Eliminate heel lift to align the spine and improve posture
(5) Allow the foot and body to move naturally

I think all 5 above are true for my own experience. Although I have had cut on my foot, stepped on a pothole then feel sorry for myself. Barefoot running (with or without vibram) did make my feet and legs stronger, I'm more aware when I run and able to flex my foot/toes freely.

I bought a pair after March 2009 and I'm not going to file a claim.

Barefoot TJ · May 17, 2014

Good question. Good thread.

(1) Strengthen muscles in the feet and lower legs -- Compare to "regular" running shoes, I would say TRUE.
(2) Improve range of motion in the ankles, feet, and toes -- Compare to "regular" running shoes, I would say TRUE.
(3) Stimulate neural function important to balance and agility -- Not sure on this one. I would tend to think the less layers between my skin and the ground would provide the most neural function.
(4) Eliminate heel lift to align the spine and improve posture -- Compare to "regular" running shoes, I would say TRUE.
(5) Allow the foot and body to move naturally -- I like that they said "more naturally" as opposed to "naturally" because anything between my foot and the ground is not natural. BUT, compare to "regular" running shoes, I would say TRUE.

So, why the lawsuit, right?

I mean, right now, on Nike's website, they claim:

Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit: ...move more freely-and run the way nature intended.

Nike Free 5.0: With an 8mm difference between heel and forefoot height, the Nike Free 5.0 offers the highest offset of Nike Free running shoes for greater cushioning with the foot-strengthening benefits of natural motion.

Now why is it that Nike can make these claims but Vibram can't? Anyone want to sue Nike over this?

Where is THEIR evidence? Why don't we see people suing Nike over their claims...which, in some case, are basically the same as Vibram's?!

Wouldn't that be something if the BRS brought a lawsuit against Nike? Oh, the newspapers...!

Sid · May 17, 2014

Barefoot TJ said:
Why don't we see people suing Nike over their claims...which, in some case, are basically the same as Vibram's?!

Wouldn't that be something if the BRS brought a lawsuit against Nike? Oh, the newspapers...!

Did the lawyers ever get back to you?

Barefoot TJ · May 17, 2014

Sid said:
Did the lawyers ever get back to you?

Ha!

Neil_D · May 18, 2014

As Einstein said " there are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity" and if the judge came out against those claims without any evidence to the contrary then he proves the point.
It would be interesting to see the transcripts to see how they could find against those points.
If you read the claims by shoe companies, vitamin companies or a whole range of complimentary medicine practitioners there is little to no evidence to the claims they make yet very few lawsuits.
I would suggest the claimant was being funded by powerful backers who thought they had something to lose.

Neil