Skechers Class Action Lawsuit

Skechers Lawsuit

An Ohio woman has filed a product liability lawsuit at a Kentucky district court against American shoemaker Skechers holding its Shape-Ups shoes responsible for her orbital fracture. The victim fell down while walking at a parking lot after the shoes she was wearing slipped forward, causing the injury that also poses her an increased risk of partial disability. According to the Skechers Shape-Ups shoes product liability lawsuit, the plaintiff bought the shoes following print and electronic ads by manufacturer claiming benefits, such as weight loss, posture improvement, and better knee and ankle toning up. However, the design defects in rocker bottom soles of these Shape-Ups shoes led to instability and altered gait mechanics putting users at the risk of injuries.



Skechers Shoes: Claims Vs Reality

California-based Skechers promotes its shoes sold under the brand name Shape-Ups and Tone-Ups as distinctly planned to help users get into shape without requiring them to join gyms. The manufacturer claims that its patented round sole design stimulates changes in walking styles that firm up leg muscles, reduce knees and ankle stress, get superior cardiovascular health, and ensure posture improvement. The company has been promoting its products with celebrity-driven advertisement blitz that includes names of Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian, Joe Montana, and Christina Aguilera.

However, the medical community is irked at the shoe benefit claims and has warned against the impending risk of foot or leg injury caused by Skechers Shape-Ups and Tone-Ups shoes. The complaint filed by the Ohio woman is just one of the many Skechers toning shoe products liability lawsuits filed against the trendy shoe brand claiming injuries caused by its defective products. The FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection has also taken cognizance of deceptive benefit claims about Skechers toning shoes following large number of serious hip and ankle injury complaints.

A study sponsored by the American Council on Exercise and carried on by scholars from Wisconsin University rejected benefits of these advertised shoes, saying there is no significant benefit, such as improved muscles or burning of calories that exercise can offer. The altered gait and foot destabilization rather leads to injuries.

The claimed advantages of Skechers Shape-Ups shoes are just “overhyped gimmick,” a recent USA Today report claims. According to it, wearing these shoes for long may result in Achilles tendons, strained hips, and foot injuries due to destabilized walking. These shoes can be more risky for people with balance or alignment problems.  

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Toyota Class Action Lawsuit Settlement 

Toyota Class Action Lawsuit SettlementAfter more than two years of hard work by attorneys , investigators , professional specialist and engineers working in conjunction with the law firm staff required to win in these major class action lawsuits filed against large corporations … Do I Have A Lawsuit can now announce that a settlement has been reached in the Toyota Class Action Lawsuit cases related to defective acceleration systems in their vehicles that were causing some models to accelerate unexpectedly.

The Toyota Class Action Lawsuit has been settled for over 1.2 billion dollars and is now possibly the largest lawsuit settlement amount in United States history for any type of litigation involving motor vehicle recalls or automobile defects.

While there had been reports of personal injury as a result of the defects the primary basis of the lawsuit was the fact that as a result of these defective acceleration systems , owners of Toyota vehicles were subject to a reduction in resale / ownership value of their vehicles as a result of the defect.

The settlement will bring to an end the hundreds of lawsuits filed by Toyota owners against the automobile manufacturer as a result of these defective systems.

Do I Have A Lawsuit readers , supporters and network attorneys should note that although this settlement has been proposed and will likely be signed off on. We must still await approval by U.S. District Judge James Selna and we expect that he will review the proposed class action lawsuit settlement on Friday.

Readers should also note that although all cases were consolidated in U.S. District Court in santa Ana, this settlement does not include cases where injury or death was a result of Toyota vehicles accelerating on their own. Those accident and personal injury lawsuit cases are scheduled to be heard during court trials starting in February 2013.

This settlement pertains to those of you who suffered economic loss as a result of vehicle devaluation only.

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Class Action Lawsuit Attorney

 

Hal Rosner was apoplectic.

The Scripps Ranch lawyer turned ever-darker shades of pink as he outlined what he called the U.S. Supreme Court’s war against consumers. He was brandishing a 28-inch, yellow automobile purchase contract and waving it like a pennant.

“It’s a basic, fundamental attack on the United States Constitution, and it’s why our Supreme Court should walk around with shame,” Rosner said. “Our Supreme Court violated the United States constitutional right to jury trial like a group of little whores.”

Rosner’s a trial lawyer, so it’s fair to chalk up some of his outrage down to the natural theatrics of his profession.

But he’s also got good reason to be mad. And so do consumers.

In a game-changing 2011 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to consumer advocates. In a 5-4 ruling, the court essentially said that not only is it OK for companies to put clauses in their contracts forcing customers to settle disputes in private arbitration, but they can also bar customers from bringing class action lawsuits against them or even arbitrating their disputes as a class.

The decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a class action lawsuit that originated in San Diego, involved customers who had been charged small amounts for phones advertised as “free,” overturned years of law developed in the California Legislature and upheld by its courts to protect consumers against a seemingly unstoppable trend.

For decades, businesses across the country have increasingly been writing their way out of the judicial system. By inserting “mandatory arbitration clauses” into their contracts, companies ranging from auto dealers to cell phone companies to health care providers have cut off their customers’ access to the courts, forcing them instead to settle disputes in private arbitration.

That has long concerned consumer advocates and even some industry insiders, who say arbitration is biased in favor of big business. But, for many observers, those worries are nothing compared with the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision.

“It’s earth-shattering. It takes away your right to hold companies accountable for transactions that we all engage in every day,” said Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in the Concepcion case before the Supreme Court. “We all assume that we have a right to hold a company accountable if they’re cheating us. We assume the consumer protection laws will apply. What’s frustrating is the average person doesn’t know that when they take out a contract … they’ve given away their rights.”

The Golden State for Consumer Protection

Historically, California hasn’t been a bad place to be a consumer.

The legislature in the Golden State has spent the last few decades trying to protect the little guys, and successive big court decisions have upheld consumer rights. Legal Leads

In the 1990s and early 2000s, as mandatory arbitration clauses became all the rage for corporations across the country, the California Legislature pounced, passing a slew of laws in 2002 aimed at protecting consumers from the ever-growing trend toward private justice. (Though one of the key laws has since been widely ignored by much of the arbitration industry).

The activism wasn’t limited to lawmakers. Several high-profile lawsuits concerning arbitration clauses found their way to the California Supreme Court. The granddaddy of these was a case called Discover Bank v. Superior Court, in 2005.

The California Supreme Court ruled in that case that companies couldn’t put blanket bans on class action lawsuits in their contracts. To do so was “unconscionable” in legalese. It wouldn’t fly.

Over the next few years, at least 13 other states ruled that blanket class action bans by companies were illegal, according to a research paper by Myriam Gilles of the Cardozo School of Law and Gary Friedman, a New York attorney.

Then, in 2011, California’s groundbreaking rules were put to the ultimate legal test.

The Concepcion case originated in 2006, when a San Diego couple, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, signed a deal offered by AT&T to receive a “free” phone if they signed a two-year cell phone contract. The couple was later charged $30.22 in sales tax for the phone, and they sued AT&T in a class action.

Discuss this article in the forums (0 replies).

Ask An Attorney

Do I Have A Lawsuit?
Name(*)

Please enter your name.

Email(*)

Please enter your email address

Phone(*)

Please enter your phone number

City(*)

Please enter your city.

State(*)

Select your state from the menu.

Zip Code(*)

Invalid Input

Have you already hired a lawyer(*)

Do you already have an attorney?

Briefly describe your complaint or legal questions.

Please briefly explain your complaint or legal question.


I understand that submission of contact and case information via this form does not establish nor constitute a contractual attorney-client relationship. An attorney will review this information and contact the submitter to establish a client-law firm relationship.