The Virginian-Pilot
©
Mind if I ask a personal question? Do these shoes make my butt look hot?
Oh, that's right. You can't see me.
The reason I'm asking is because I splurged on a pair of EasyTone shoes by Reebok about six months ago. You know, the work-out shoes with "balance-ball technology" that are "proven to tone your hamstrings, calves and butt up to 28 percent more" giving you - or in this case, me - "better legs, a better butt with every step."
I've worn these shoes faithfully almost every day, even though it was a little like balancing on tennis balls in the beginning. I've even power-walked as many as 28 miles a week in them. Yet I look nothing like the athletic supermodels in the Reebok ads.
You've seen them. Those flat-bellied, spray-tan princesses in Daisy Dukes, flexing their glutes while they walk their dogs, vacuum the floor or dance around the copy machine at work. They're all tall, with flawless legs up to here.
And their derrieres? Positively perky.
Quick. Get me a lawyer. I want to sue.
No need. Look what just came in the mail: an invitation to join in a class-action lawsuit against the makers of EasyTones.
Seems that by simply signing up, shoe owners are practically guaranteed between $50 and $100 in damages - if the court approves the deal. Apparently, Reebok already has agreed to a huge settlement, although it denies any wrongdoing.
Color me stunned.
You mean these shoes don't really work? They contain no supernatural powers? They aren't rich in toniness? There's no science behind the balance-ball technology? I won't look like a supermodel? Even if I sleep in them?
I'm also stunned that these legal eagles know that someone in my household owns a pair of Reeboks. They either got their mitts on customer lists or they're sending them to every woman in America.
On the other hand, could 50 or even 100 bucks fully compensate me for the pain and suffering I've endured each morning as I twist around in front of a full-length mirror to gaze - with profound disappointment - upon my middle-aged behind?
Who am I kidding? I have no damages. No pain. No suffering. Just a well-worn pair of shoes.
I won't be joining my sisters in this legal action, despite the lure of easy cash. Unfortunately - for the attorneys involved, anyway - I just finished reading John Grisham's "The King of Torts."
That means I know what mass-tort lawyers do for a living and it's more distasteful than shoe companies that sell sex in a sneaker.
If you believe Grisham - and I do - the country is home to a handful of legal vultures, who zip around the world in their Gulfstreams and stash their cash offshore. They're on the prowl for profitable companies that have produced a faulty product or engaged in suspicious advertising.
Once they find a target, they troll for clients, sign up thousands of litigants, file class-action lawsuits and pray the company will spray them with money to make it all go away.
I don't know if that's what happened in this case. But the mailing is straight-up Grisham.
Look, when a drug company misleads customers, it can be deadly. When car manufacturers lie about safety, people die. When tobacco companies deliberately made cigarettes more addictive, the carnage was hideous. Lawsuits are the only way victims of unscrupulous companies can get justice.
But workout shoes that don't make you skinny just from walking in them? Really? Someone actually believed that?
I may not have a magnificent chassis, but I do have a bit of common sense. I knew all along that a pair of shoes wasn't going to change my life. Or my body.
Kerry Dougherty, (757) 446-2306, kerry.dougherty@cox.net, PilotOnline.com/dougherty
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Read about Mann vs Ford
When people have really been harmed by a company like seen in the lawsuit Mann vs Ford the settlement is next to nothing. The case was a huge eye opener on how little responsibility some major companies will take for their actions. I have always bought Lincolns and Volvos, but will never support Ford again.
How do you choose your shoes?
Kerry - Those EasyTones cost you more than other shoes and you said they weren't easy to walk in. I'll believe you when you say you didn't really think they'd turn you into a super model, but something led you to pay the extra bucks and work through the discomfort. Could it have been that the Reebok adds said they give wearers 28 percent more strength and tone in the buttock muscles and 11 percent more strength and tone in hamstring and calf muscles than regular walking shoes? Would you have bought them if the Reebok add had said they'd give you a droopy butt and flabby muscles? That's no more false than what Reebok really said, but it wouldn't sell shoes. Reebok's lie is what parted you from your money. That's fraud and it's illegal.
Chillia......
Although I'm not part of the cycling crowd I did live in Boulder Colorado back in the mid 70's when every one there was into Karma,Cycling and Beansprouts. They have a bike interstae highway in town that was, and is state of the art. I had a 10 speed and no car, was ins shape and skinny as a rail. Wore regular clothes; no worries. As far as cool looking we'll have to disagree; and on second thought I can see how those goofy drawers keep you from getting your sprocket caught in the chain.
Blackmail
Just another case of Lawyers blackmailing a company with threats of litigation and bad press in order to make millions and cost consumers more at the register as a result.
Who's to Blame for the Horror?
I'd just like to know who convinced these bicycle riders that wearing those black rubber underpants make them (in their minds) look cool and go faster.
Apparently you are not a
Apparently you are not a cyclist or you would know that those rubbery shorts are more about function than fashion. And for those of us that can get away with it, they do make us look cool.
Chillia...
Make sure you find an athlete - amateur or Olympian - and tell them their "rubbery shorts" are only a fashion statement. Be sure you can run really really fast first!
It’s been proven such clothing cuts down on wind resistance. On a human body you may think those outfits wouldn’t make much of a difference, but it only takes 1/1000 of a second to go from Silver to Gold.
False Advertisement
If you purchased a car with a radio and it didn't work, would you sue the company or accept it - assuming they weren't willing to fix it. When companies make claims about their products they are usually trying to beat the competition. If one company is selling thousands of products based on false pretenses they should be sued. Don't blame the end user, blame the supplier that is lying about their product. I think you may have taken the wrong side on this story.
What part of lying is ok
The lawsuit is because reebok lied to make money. Why does the rantin right seem to think that lying is an acceptable business practice. I am surpriused that kerry didnt find a way to include the republican mantra that about "killing jobs."
Not about Reebok Lying
The Lawsuit is NOT about Reebok making money it is about Lawyers making money by lying. Attorneys are a plague on this country. If the lawyers say that each customer can get $50 (conservatively) then if Reebok sold 100,000 pairs that is 5 million dollars paid out to customers. Working backwards a attorney usually gets at least 50% of the settlement so that would be 5 million for the Attorneys PLUS their costs and billable hours, maybe another million or two charged. So bottom line is Lawyers make 6-7 million for doing the paperwork, each person "harmed" gets $50, Reebok pays 11 Million and everyone that buys a Reebok in the future pays $5 more. NO CORPORATION HAS EVER PAID FOR A LAWSUIT OR FINE. It is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer.